Talk:Parapsychology

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Archive 4 March 05, 2007

Archive 5 March 24, 2007

Archive 6 May 26, 2007

Archive 7 June 29, 2007

Archive 8 July 03, 2007

Archive 9 July 17, 2007

Archive 10 August 6, 2007

Archive 11 October 28, 2007

Archive 12 Dec 06, 2007

parapsy assoc views

Martinphi you have falsely claimed consensus. The fact that Paste reverted to my version gives you the lie. Please don't make false claims. Pls check what consensus means. Compromise is not the issue. You may want to read Getting to Yes on this issue. The issue is using verifiable and reliable sources. Nonetheless, for the moment I am happy to leave the page at YOUR version while we discuss. I have put a POV tag on it in the meantime. Naturally I need not warn you to leave it in place until this is sorted. Please now give me your reasons for deleting the reference. Mccready (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This page has the established consensus of many editors who worked almost two years to bring it to Featured Article status, and the GA review and FA review process. The neutrality of the article was painstakenly achieved (see archives for extensive discussions) and isn't dependent upon an edit war du jour. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Mccready's suggestions for improving the lead. Does anyone else? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically: 1) We all agreed a long time ago that quotes were a bad way to go in this article because it leads to point, counter-point style. 2) The addition is redundant. This is already covered by the last paragraph of the intro.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I really like the sentence Mccready included to the effect that this subject is dismissed as pseudoscience by science educators. This is a very real and very true point (I know from firsthand experience). At many universities, this is the only exposure parapsychology gets in classroom settings. This is at least one place where it gets its notability. Can we include this? I'm also interested in the fact that the main club for promoting this subject admits that most scientists treat it as pseudoscience. This goes beyond the careful phrasing and I think we should consider strengthening the point that parapsychology is generally thought of as pseudoscientific. We don't need to give a quote to point this out, but simply pointing it out is a good idea, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

These are all points already covered by the article. The last paragraph of the intro summarizes this and the criticism section expounds on it in greater detail. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not adequately. The lead is supposed to give the reader the most important information. What I am saying is that it doesn't do justice to the fact that most mainstream discussions of this topic lump it (rightly or wrongly) with pseudoscience. The summary in the last paragraph is inadequate. I'd offer my own version, but if you would write for the enemy, I'd love to see what you could come up with that better explains the outright rejection and marginalization of this subject in the academy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This too has been discussed at length. Where you say "outright rejection", I point to the sources that show that a few universities in the US still have parapsychology programs, several in the UK, and more scattered abroad. Then you say, but it's severly marginalized. Then I point to the "Parapsychology Today" section that says exactly that. I'd write for the enemy except that I don't have an enemy here. I just know that all of this has already been covered. It was over the course of almost two years. Basically, "outright rejection" is supported by some sources, sure, but refuted by the demonstration that there is still parapsychology programs with academic ties, in other words it's not outright rejection because of a marginalized acceptance. The level of degree to which it had been "rejected" was discussed at length and this is what came of that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A few universities in the US offer degrees in creation science too. Yes, you can always find "odd men out". That's not the issue. We all agree that parapsychology is a marginalized field, but the way the current article lead presents this marginalization doesn't do justice to how dramatic it is. I'll write an alternative way of putting it if you like. Note that LaraLove is telling us to come to a new consensus. I know you don't like to do this, but it's got to happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied to LaraLove below. Duck test: Please list the universities that offer creation science programs that involve actual laboratory experiments. Up until Feb. 2007 parapsychology lab experiments were still being conducted Princeton. That lab closed of it's own accord and wasn't "run out". You still have lab experiments at the University of Edinburgh and all the other places listed in Parapsychology#Organizations and publications. If creation science has something similar, I'll concede the point. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, a list of such colleges and universities was just recently offered [1]. There are definitely more colleges and universities offering creation science courses in the US than there are offering parapsychology courses. This probably has to do with religion's historic association with education. The PEAR lab was something of an anomaly in itself. It was essentially a private lab that was on Princeton's campus because the emeritus prof. involved paid his own way with the help of a rich benefactor. Princeton made money off the lab and that's why they let him set-up shop. Besides, appeal to authority is not what we're after here. You and I both know that parapsychology is not considered a legitimate academic subject at the vast majority of institutions of higher education. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, most of those are Bible Colleges(<-red link that deserves an article) and they offer courses on the topic, not laboratory research programs. This isn't an appeal to authority. It's directly related to your assertion that there is an outright rejection in academic circles of parapsychology. It's not an appeal to authority to list off university associations; associations with universities refutes the claim that it is outright rejected. I completely agree that it's marginalized, and so does this article as written. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Most, not all. Most of the colleges that offer courses in parapsychology are associated with New Age beliefs (Naropa University anyone?) Again, you're missing the point, the fact is that this subject is not taken seriously. Mccready's quote from the Parapsychological Association even admits to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The new version should be discussed with those currently editing the article and a new consensus reached. Lara❤Love 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, sure, but there's nearly two years of archived discussions, mediations, and even an arbitration surrounding this particular topic. Previous consensus should have weight in light of that, and editors wishing to make substantial changes should familiarize themselves with that material. Otherwise, what was the point of two years worth of discussions? It's not like parapsychology has made radical changes. They're just as stagnant as before. So what kind of change would require a "new consensus"? Just different editors. If new editors familiarized themselves with past discussions, that would save them a lot of rehashing of old discussions. IMHO. Also, this "new consensus" is supposed to be over Mccready's addition, which is problematic not for neutrality reasons, but for style reasons. How much of consensus against poorly written material does there have to be? It 1) uses quotes unnecessarily and is 2) redundant considering the last paragraph. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus can help, but when certain editors were not involved in creating that consensus, you cannot claim that the issues have been completely addressed. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We are never finished writing articles, even when they are featured. Notice how a featured article is described at the top. While I brought Big Bang to featured status, it now looks very different from what it looked like when it first arrived because new people had new ideas and decided to take the article in a new direction. No one owns articles at Wikipedia and we have to come to terms that articles may undergo dramatic shifts as new editors come in and old editors leave or move on to other projects. Consensus does not mean that we stay glued to one version (otherwise, we wouldn't have the encyclopedia based on wiki technology). I know, Neal, that this is one of your major frustrations with Wikipedia. Don't take it personally. I think you did a fine job with this article. There are just some things I think need to be changed with the lead. Don't take it so personally. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't take it personally, but let's talk about the actual additions. Mccready's was problematic for several reasons. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so interested in Mccready's "actual" addition. The point is that he had some good ideas for how to improve the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At least you're making suggestions before adding them, so that's fair. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Workshopping the lead

A few notes:

• Words to avoid says "say no to the word phenomenon". We're going to have to eliminate this word.
• The phrase: "a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences" is an obvious POV. We can just let it be known that these things are called "psi" and leave it at that.
• The phrase: "a number of universities" connotes that there are a lot of universities which fund study of parapsychology. This is plainly not true. I rewrote it to indicate this, but the wording may need tweaking. I think you'll be good at this, Neal.
• I'm not convinced that listing the titles of the Journals is really all that good for a lead. I offered an alternative wording. Please consider.
• Meta-analysis is probably not important to the lead. Is there any argument why it is listed?
• We don't need to say that Hyman is a psychologist.
• I tried to incorporate the two points missing from the lead that frame parapsychology as marginalized.
• I moved the fringe science designation to the first paragraph. I think it provides better framing there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon?

I'll come back later and have a look at the other suggestions (I'm busy today), but I was surprised by the WP:WTA appeal since it was you who added it [2]. That's a WP:PSTS argument in spirit if not letter. You should be up front about that if you're serious about removing the word, because I disagree with what you said over there about "As such, a phenomenon would be something unequivocally held by scientific consensus to be real". That phrasing makes WP:WTA incompatible with WP:NAME, which calls for topics to use their common name, supported by sources. Paranormal phenomena is unequivocally held by scientific consensus to be not be real, but that's its common name. Further, except in the cases of hoaxes, no one disputes that "there was an observed event" (phenomenon), mainstream scientists just write it off as mundane phenomena misinterpreted as being unexplained by science (paranormal), or a subjective delusion occuring in the observer's mind. In other words, the definition of "phenomena" as an objectively observable event that has a scientific explanation is a bit overboard, especially in a list of words to avoid. Take the example of electronic voice phenomenon (it's common name). WTA now says that we're supposed to call it something other than it's common name. What's more is that (again separating the hoaxes), no one disputes that it's a subjective event (a piece of the recording that often sounds like a voice, subjectively) interpreted by some listeners as voices (paradolia). As such it is a phenomenon (neutral term describing the event) that is paradolia (scientific explanation) or spirits (paranormal explanation). It's only when you get to the explanations of the phenomena that it becomes controversial, because the paradolia explanation for the phenomena is entirely scientific. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's words to "avoid", not words to "completely excise". The point is that the word "phenomenon" is equivocal. You know it's equivocal, I know it's equivocal, we all know it's equivocal. If it weren't equivocal, we would use it. Since it is, just look for a synonym that isn't equivocal. Of course we aren't going to change the EVP article. WP:NAME trumps WP:WTA because Wikipedia reports what is commonly used. Creation science isn't science, but we don't rename it because that's its common name. The rest of your argument is silly. Calling ESP a "phenomenon" is highly POV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not point of view because the qualifiers in the current article is "ostensibly paranormal psychological phenomena". Translated, that means "maybe paranormal, but definitely psychological observed events". There is a quantifiable psychological event going on when someone says they observed ESP, even if it's just wishful thinking that it's paranormal. The quantifiable psychological event is they interpreted, or connected, two isolated phenomena to be related to each other. I dreamed of a plane crash months before it happened is connecting the phenomenon of the plane crash to the phenomenon of the dream, through a third psychological phenomenon, intepretation. That's a maybe paranormal, but definitely psychological. I don't have any glaring problems with the intro you suggested below, so let's get some feedback from other editors. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah. The adverb "ostensibly" must either modify the adjective "paranormal" or "psychological". So that doesn't cut it. There is not a quantifiable "psychological event" when someone claims they observed ESP any more than there is a quantifiable "psychological event" when someone claims to observe anything. The idea that parapsychology is interested in the perception of a claim of observation is silly. It's not. It's interested in claims that are paranormal. Such events cannot be called "phenomena" because the definition of "phenomenon" in science is unequivocally related to uncontroversial observations. Granted, there are other definitions of the word "phenomenon" which may apply in these instances, but since relying on an alternate definition is confusing and equivocal, it's best to simply use a synonym that doesn't have these problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't care what the article says as long as it's neutral and stays a Featured Article. That means I don't like edit wars and I don't like scare templates. That's all I'm really concerned with. With or without "phenomenon" it's all the same to me as long as it continues to meet FA requirements. I do completely disagree, though, that "phenomenon" needs to be avoided and I disagree with your analysis of how the term is used. "Ostensibly" modifies "paranormal" in the way that I described above. Psychological events are frequently referred to as phenomena, even when it's not related to the paranormal. It's just an observed phenomena and that includes delusional observations. Sources directly related to parapsychology, on both sides, frequently use the term so that's a good test of whether it's neutral. Whenever I want to get an outside opinion of neutrality concerning paranormal subjects, I look across the aisle to what skeptics have to say. As you can see, skeptics use it all the time. There are eight instances of the word in the Skeptic's Dictionary article on parapsychology. It's neutral and frequently used. But as long as the article stays FA, I don't really care if it's used here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal, you need to lighten up. There are plenty of other words available that don't have the issues that "phenomenon" does. Just use one of them. This avoids the issue entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

What sources are proposed to cite parapsychology as pseudoscience? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Read and see. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, I have no doubt that some science educators label parapsychology as a pseudoscience, but can you find better sources? Biology Cabinet doesn't "look" very reliable, and the David F. Austin source is self-published. Even a source to an educator's skeptical society would suffice for this statement. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty pleased with these sources. Perhaps you would like to ask at WP:RSN to see what they think. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything good about them relative to how they are being used at least. Could you tell us more about why you think they are OK for this article? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we skip all of that and swap two flimsy sources for one really good one? Studies in Science Education by the University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education.[3] I'd rather see that used because it's academic and actually about science education. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I switched in the book reference in place of biology cabinet. However, I kept the course reference because I think it is valuable to have: it shows how it is treated in a college classroom setting. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly are we sourcing with this source? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not support the claim. The Austin source supports the opposite point of view (that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience) inasmuch as it supports anything at all. That is, it is a rejection of various reasons for thinking parapsychology is a pseudoscience. And the Layton source appears to cite an article form "Collins" in 1982 (probably Harry Collins) which lists parapsychology, amongst other things, in a discussion of para-science, fringe-science and pseudoscience. But which one is parapsychology: fringe, para or pseudo? So there is one source saying the exact opposite of what you want and another which probably doesn't support your view very strongly, if at all. But to then go further and use this falsely attributed view as the standardly held view of science educators as a whole is far far worse. It's hard to explain just how wrong that is! TheLaPesca (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources do support the claim. In fact you have completely mischaracterized both of the sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Psi?

The previous version said that "psi is a neutral term" and then cited this claim to the Parapsychology association. That doesn't bode well. Let's try to get an actual definition for psi that doesn't spoonfeed the reader a line about "neutrality", okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "neutral term" part isn't about Wikipedia's NPOV policy or how Wikipedia uses the term "neutral". In other words, it's not spoon-feeding. It's part of the definition. It means that the term "psi" is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", and it is neutral in that way, and that's part of the definition. Psi means X (non-descriptive anomaly). It was coined as a replacement for terms like extra-sensory, psychokinesis, and so on, all of which imply some sort of mechanism or locus of the experience. Extra-sensory implies some sort of sense undiscovered, psychokinesis implies some relation to the mind, and so on. When parapsychologists realized that they aren't sure that it involved undiscovered senses, or couldn't pin down a relation to the mind, they looked for another term that is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced, and introduced psi as a replacement for all the loaded terms they were previously using. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of a definition cannot be that the word is a "neutral term". That simply doesn't work. A definition has the form of A is a B that C where A is the thing being defined, B is the relevant category and C is the distinguishing characteristics. The relevant category for psi is not "neutral terms". Please try to offer an adequate definition. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition: Psi = "Anomalous processes"

The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer, processes such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms [Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin', 115, 4-18.]

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, it is not a neologism as you said below. A neologism is a recently created term that hasn't caught on and doesn't have widespread use. "Psi" was coined in 1942 and is used by all parapsychologists. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's used by all parapsychologists is not the issue. In fact, this makes it jargon. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's jargon, but not a neologism. The place for parapsychology jargon is here in this article, and the two sentences (this one and the one before) explains it's use, per the guidelines. (WP:JARGON just links to Wikipedia's glossary of terms, so I don't know why you included that) Sorry, wrong link. Apparently WP:JARGON is different from WP:Jargon. Someone should fix that.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. The term Psi was perhaps introduced as neutral term (much like UFO) but it has now become synonymous with things like ESP. That is, it makes sense to say you don't believe in Psi or UFOs, and that would make no sense if the term was really neutral. That being said, the article could easily use the word and explain this point - I can't be the first person to have noticed it.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ESP implies an undiscovered sense. Psi implies nothing like that, so it's not synonymous. There's a distinct difference. Psi doesn't even make a claim that can be considered non-neutral. It's just a label. It doesn't even claim that there is an anomaly to talk about because it is only used after such a claim has been already been made. The full sentence was that "psi is neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", and that sentence is entirely correct. You have to remember, parapsychology has been criticized for decades by mainstream science. They take that criticism and adapt. Whereas extrasensory perception was a non-neutral label that received criticism, psi is a refinement based on that criticism.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the part I agree with. In one sense of the term you are absolutely right. But, Psi is now also used in popular culture in a way that is synonymous with ESP. Two examples, the Hawkwind song "Psi-Power" and the computer game "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". I could find many others but the last line of the Wiki article on Psi makes it clear. Something probably needs to be said about this.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Psi has other uses, and the Psi article has links to all of these. This is just about how psi is used in parapsychology, which isn't popular culture. The parapsychology article doesn't need to explain all the other uses because they're unrelated to the topic. The article on Genes doesn't have to explain that "Gene" is also a person's name. That's what disambiguation pages are for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if we include a definition of psi in the lead, but the one offered before was terrible. Let's try to do better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of "Psi" that means ESP type powers, which is probably the most common and well-known meaning of the term, and derives its use directly from the parapsychological use with which it overlaps. It is therefore quite unlike Gene and gene in this respect. It may be that the article can be clear enough the "psi" is here being used in the technical sense as defined to not warrant further clarification, but not because of any of the "reasons" suggested above. TheLaPesca (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't overlap. If popular culture borrows terms from parapsychology to give their comic books extra "umpf", that doesn't mean that they overlap, that means one misappropriated the other. That's science-fiction, not science. Parapsychology's use is a specific use outlined in the article, regardless of X-Men's use. This is an article about parapsychology, not comics. Wikipedia provides interlinking. If the popular culture use warrants an article, then that's a Psi (popular culture), not Psi (parapsychology), but popular culture isn't parapsychology. A science-related article doesn't have to cover science-fiction. Also, these issues are best left to the Psi (parapsychology) article rather than here. The term here links there. Further (I just checked), that article already says "In popular culture, 'psi phenomena' have become synonymous with psychic and 'psionic' phenomena," so there's no need to confuse readers here listing off all the extra uses. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was an article about popular culture. The point is that the uses clearly overlap. One refers to, amongst other things, ESP and so does the other. That they do so in subtly different ways is a cause of possible confusion that can easily be avoided.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One use is popular culture. The other use is parapsychology. This is an article about parapsychology. It's not about popular culture. What's your suggestion on how it "can easily be avoided"? Mine is put popular culture in popular culture and put parapsychology in parapsychology. That seems easy enough. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well mine would be to add something like "..although in common usage the term [psi] does now imply a paranormal quality" or such like.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an incomplete sentence in a parapsychology article because it implies a "common usage" among parapsychologists themselves. The complete sentence would say where the common usage occurs. The complete version would read "Although in popular culture the common usage of the term "psi" does now imply a paranormal quality" and then it becomes apparent why it doesn't belong here, because again, this article is not about popular culture. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not incomplete because the "although" implies a contrast between the technical sense and the common usage. Please note that common usage does not equal popular culture (that was just a few examples given above from popular culture and not the be all and end all of the argument), common usage means everyday language. So I'm not just saying that in the film and entertainment industries psi means ESP, I am saying that in common parlance that's what the word now means. And given that readers of wiki use common parlance it would be better to get this point out in the open rather than pretend it doesn't exist.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You should also probably note that in the psi article [4] the parapsychological association seems to be using psi as meaning paranormal as well. So it seems that in both common parlance and in parapsychology the term has lost much of neutrality and has now become enmeshed with paranormality. We should probably say, then, that "the word was originally intended to be a neutral term but has now become associated with the paranormal" etc.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Paranormal" itself (means "not explained by science") is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", so I don't know what the problem is. Extrasensory (implies extra senses) and psychokinesis (implies a connection to the mind) is suggestive, "psi" and even "paranormal" makes no such implications.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I can't make heads or tails out of this discussion? Can someone please offer a definition so we can comment on it? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but the discussion above is rather straightforward. Psi was originally coined as a neutral term for a certain variety of alleged paranormal phenomena (ESP, PK etc.). Neutral, that is, with respect to whether what was going on was in any way paranormal and neutral with respect to any presumptions about the underlying causes. On this point I believe Nealparr and I agree. Over the years though, "psi" has become associated with those alleged phenomena to the extent that in common parlance (I think we both agree here too) and when used by some parapsychologists (Nealparr may well disagree here), the term now implies a degree of parnormality. The point we are debating is whether something needs to be said about this point in the article. I think it does, but Nealparr doesn't. See, simple.TheLaPesca (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not true, it's neutral on "what's involved", the same as paranormal is, which is what the line said. Where ESP and PK imply by their wordage that extra senses and the mind are involved, psi and paranormal do not imply anything in particular is involved. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. However, I don't know how to translate this discussion into a single sentence for the lead. Do you think that this is possible? Advisable? Have a suggestion? Anything less than a paragraph illumination of the iterations would be useful at this point. I honestly don't have an idea of whether or how a sentence about psi belongs in the lead. See WP:LEAD for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think a sentence about psi definitely belongs in the lead because it's the name of the thing(s) parapsychologists study. What's in there at the moment is OK but, I think, it only tells half the story. And while this is not catastrophic or anything like it, I think it would be better to say "originally coined as a neutral term... ...although it does now tend have paranormal connotations".TheLaPesca (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now it says:

Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences.

Change it to:

Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What a difference a "they feel" makes. Thanks Neal. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to prolong this unnecessarily, but it's clear from the psi article that some parapsychologists (the ones at the parapsychological association) do not "feel" that the term is a neutral one and non-suggestive of a paranormal dimension. The point is that the term was originally used in a very specific way, but that no longer holds true for its use in common parlance or, it seems, its use in parapsychology.TheLaPesca (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Can you give us an alternative wording? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, originally coined as a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences, but which now tends to have paranormal connotations." And you can source this to the parapsychological association quote in the psi article.TheLaPesca (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is very unwieldy and has additional concerns as outlined by the two users below. You're going to have to do a little better than this or I'm not sure we can accommodate your concerns. Note that this is a sentence for the lead -- not for the body of the article where we can do more careful descriptions. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above: "Paranormal" itself (means "not explained by science") is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences". Extrasensory (implies extra senses) and psychokinesis (implies causation by the the mind) are suggestive of a cause, "psi" and "paranormal" make no claim to a cause.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Psi, as far as I have understood, is neutral on regard to the "origin" or the "means" of the phenomenon or experience. The term Psi implies "paranormal" by definition, since it has been first coined, correct?

--Achillu (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's part of Bem and Honorton's definition (cited by Nealparr above), "The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms". Now, you see the bolded section, the section where it says "psi" doesn't imply paranormal. Well, that means that Bem and Honorton don't think the word implies paranormal, and given that both Nealparr and Achillu feel that "psi" always did imply paranormal, it is clear that there is an ambiguity about this term. This is exactly what I have been saying. You can now either choose to say something about this ambiguity, or you can choose to ignore it. I would prefer to say something as per my suggestion above (which I don't feel is unwieldy). You may all decide that no such clarification is needed, or not needed in the lead, or you may even decide (it would not surprise me) that "neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal" actually means that it does indeed imply paranormal. The half ping-pong ball, as they say, is in your court.TheLaPesca (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hold up, you're missing what I'm saying. The line you have a problem with is this: "Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences." You keep saying that because some sources say psi is paranormal and some say psi isn't then there's somehow something wrong with this sentence, but you're either not reading my replies or missing what I'm saying. Paranormal does not suggest a cause. Paranormal simply means "not explained by science". That's all. Whether psi is paranormal or not paranormal, no cause or mechanism is suggested either way, thus there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this line. No parapsychologist suggests that psi implies a mechanism, even when they say it may be paranormal (a term itself non-suggestive of a mechanism). ESP and psychokinesis do suggest a cause ("extra senses" the former and "from the mind" the latter), both imply a mechanism in their wording. You want something put in saying it's usage means it's paranormal, but such a statement is not needed. The sentence before already says "ostensibly paranormal" so that's covered, and psi is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences", so that's covered. The clarification you think it needs is already covered. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How about

Parapsychologists call these things psi, an ambiguous term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The term itself is not ambiguous. It means anomalous processes. The whole whether or not it is paranormal does not make it ambiguous because that's not part of the definition, and the previous sentence already covers that these things are "ostensibly paranormal". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, if you look at the "Psi" article, and look at where the two definitions are from firstly Bem and Honerton and then from the parapsychological association, you will see that they are separated by the word "similarly" when this should actually say "differently", because the two definitions are different. Different with respect to whether "psi" implies paranormal - the PA says it does and Bem and Honorton say it doesn't. (The PA says "psi" is "used either as a noun or adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation", while Bem and Honorton say that the word does not imply "that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal"). This has nothing to do with whether the things called "psi" are in fact paranormal, it has to do with the definition of a word. And those definitions are different. I think we should say something about this.TheLaPesca (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First, this isn't an article about psi, it's an article about parapsychology. It's not supposed to go into all the history of psi, who thinks it means what, and so on. Next, it's already covered. I ask you to read the intro of this article which fully defines "psi". It says: "...ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences." Here "psi" is defined as "ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death that are non-suggestive of what causes the experiences". It summarizes both definitions (paranormal and not paranormal) in one, through "ostensibly". The only thing that really needs to be changed is "events" to "processes". You keep saying "we should say something about this", but it already does. If you want to list off every parapsychologist's feelings about "psi" and what they feel it does and does not suggest, the PA lists 300 of these parapsychologists. The official stance on "what parapsychologists feel" is that it's "non-suggestive of causation". That's in both definitions, and is even sourced to a secondary source, Psychological Bulletin. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the two definitions I'm talking about aren't "paranormal and non-paranormal" as you suggest. Once you understand that point you might understand the rest of what I'm saying. Secondly, it's strange that your favored introduction should cover both the "paranormal and non-paranormal" definitions when a few minutes ago you claimed that paranormal was not part of the definition at all!. Write what you like.TheLaPesca (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I favor the FA version, not a new version that radically changes the article to include excessive definition of a single term. Paranormal is not a part of the definition given in the Psychological Bulletin which is the secondary source I'm quoting (see what I wrote, not what you think I wrote). I'm responding to your claim that the article needs to be adapted because the PA says something almost the same with a small difference -- "paranormal causation". If you read what I wrote, the addition of paranormal causation does not necessitate a change in our wording because "paranormal causation" does not actually imply a concrete causation (mechanism) and it's already covered by the preceeding sentence. But, no, it's not a part of the definition provided by the Psychological Bulletin, which is what I quoted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the FA version is problematic because it doesn't include "they feel" and includes the problematic word "phenomena". Can we at least change it to:

Parapsychologists call these things psi, an ambiguous term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences.

--ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it says "some feel", as long as it's not excessive defining. And I would drop the "ambigous" part because it is defined as "anomalous processes". I would say:

Parapsychologists call these processes psi, a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism for the phenomena.

That's sourced to [Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin', 115, 4-18.]

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a quote and it's not what the source actually says. The source actually says, "[Psi] neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms." What you have provided here is your take on that source which, unsurprisingly, omits the very part of the definition (the part in bold) that changes from one definition to another - the very part of the definition that half of the above discussion is about.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggested wording is not supposed to be a quote, we've been avoiding those. It is what the source actually says. The source says "The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms". My paraphrased summary of that says: "a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism for the phenomena." The preceeding sentence already establishes that it is ostensibly paranormal, which covers the part you're focusing on. My suggested wording summarizes the part that hasn't already been covered. That's what I'm saying about excessive. There's no reason to repeat the first part when it's already covered. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article currently suggests any differences across definitions of "psi". The "ostensibly" in the first sentence doesn't/can't do it because it's about three sentences too early to relate to or modify the definition of a term that is introduced, and defined, much later. The "ostensibly" is also there to do a completely different job, it is there solely to mitigate the idea that ESP etc. definitely exist. And even if it was intended to clarify the definition it would be an inappropriate word to clarify the differences in those definitions I am talking about. Anyway, none of this matters because it is clear that you are not willing to tolerate any changes to your article. As I said earlier, write what you like. TheLaPesca (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised version

Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychologists call these things psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences. Parapsychology is a fringe science because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science.

Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies, including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world, though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research has been published in specialized parapsychological publications, though a smaller number of articles on parapsychological research have also appeared in more mainstream journals. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing.

Scientists such as Ray Hyman and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained by parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. Critics have also argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena. Active parapsychologists have themselves admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research while science educators label the subject a pseudoscience.

Anaylsis of the lead

Fine by me on the whole. Though I don't like the ref to mainstream scientific community. Scientifc communiy is fine without qualification, a few outliers notwithstanding. Mccready (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. So changed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. We're still left with the revert, which I'll refrain from re-inserting yet:

The Parapsychological Association says "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience." Science educators say it is a pseudoscience. [5][6]

I'm not convinced by arguments that this should have been deleted. Over to the community to discuss. Mccready (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your change is superceded by SA's change as he incorporated the same idea in a summary style. In other words, if one is implemented then the other is obsolete. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's sit on this for a bit longer and allow Neal to give his input. I think that, ideally, we can just replace the old lead with the new lead and everyone will be happy. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can understand Neal's point for not wanting quotes in the lead. I'm not a fan of the appeal to direct attribution myself. Please see User:ScienceApologist#Description for more on this. Quotes, in general, should not be used as a way to get around plain summary statements. It's tempting to do this because no one can argue with a quote, but it's really poor form for a tertiary source to simply rely on quotations.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's about as good as they come when

The Parapsychological Association recognizes that "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience." Science educators say it is a pseudoscience. [7][8]

Include it. -- Fyslee / talk 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include it later in the article, certainly. I don't know about the lead. We use it as a source for a summary statement in the lead, but I'd rather summarize there. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "science educators" statement is better sourced with the references I listed above. I think that Biology Cabinet might not be the best source (they think that global warming is pseudoscience, for example), but certainly the philosophy class is a good exemplar of how parapsychology is taught in college courses. What do you think of the proposed lead with the option of including the quote in the body of the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The BIOCAB source is pretty hopeless - they not only think Global Warming is Pseudoscience, they also think naturism is as well???? They also include a section on how to get rid of a swallow infestation [9]. The other source does seem excellent though. Unfortunately it is arguing that parapsychology IS NOT pseudoscience. See, for example, the full page cited (especially the conclusion, "So despite its relative conceptual disarray, the doubts of some about the possibility of paranormal phenomena, and the statistical mistakes of some of its investigators, parapsychology seems especially difficult to rule out, on principled grounds, as pseudoscience"). It seems some here have been misled by the rhetorical devices where parapsychology is stated to be pseudoscience because of X, Y and Z, but which are followed swiftly by total rejections of X, Y and Z. For a nice summary of this, see the matrix attached to the source which lists the claims about parapsychology that are discussed on the cited page and which are clearly identified as a) unfair, and b) not generalising appropriately. [10] As noted, an excellent source but quite at odds with what it was intended to be the source for. Perhaps the source still should be used though to support the contention that science educators do not regard parapsychology as a pseudoscience.213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the quotation, but the last sentence "Science educators say it is a pseudoscience." has to go. One of its sources is lousy, and the other one needs to be properly represented, not cherry-picked per above post. Also, we need to accurately represent the sources avaliable. In that case, a sentence saying something like "Most critical reviewers say parapsychology is not a pseudoscience," can be extremely well sourced. We aren't here to cherry pick the sources, which is what people are trying to do. Randi, Hyman, Wiseman, Alcock and others, for example Beyerstein above, are all on record here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources clearly say it is pseudoscience. This is important because it is how it is presented in science classes. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. The source also says global warming is pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. That source isn't being used. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the revised lead

Here's the problems I see with this draft:

1. The language "the study of ostensibly paranormal influences in psychology" is unwieldy and certainly not an improvement over what is there now. 'On human behavior' might be a good substitute for 'in psychology', but the current version really does a fine job of framing the subject.
2. Saying that "parapsychologists call these subjects psi" is simplistic, then using the reference from the current lead is a misattribution. Psi is not esp, psychokinesis, and etc. It is a neutral term that neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms.
3. Since the lead is supposed to outline the structure of the article, criticisms of parapsychology should really be in the last paragraph of the lead. Therefore, the last sentence of the first paragraph should return to where it was in the original.
4. In the second paragraph 'to a lesser extent' needs to be removed or sourced.
5. In the next sentence, 'isolated' articles needs to be removed or sourced. Let's not forget that research on paranormal belief, and research disproving paranormal influences on human behavior is still parapsychological research.
6. I think it is important to reference the major publications in the field as well as the mainstream publications that routinely publish parapsychological research.
7. Removing all discussion of meta-analysis weakens the lead because there is much discussion of meta-analysis in the body of the article.
8. The last sentence of this revised lead is redundant. Two sentences before, it already says that critics regard it as pseudoscience.

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses

I have it on good authority that this particular user is being paid to advocate here like this. As such, her contributions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, here are some responses to her attempts to scuttle the revision:

1. The current lead is unwieldy and uses equivocal language. Parapsychology does more than analyze "human behavior" as well.
2. We can excise the "psi" bit completely if that pleases you. Frankly, we are supposed to avoid neologisms anyway.
3. Since parapsychology is, in point of fact, generally dismissed by the communities it is trying to embrace, it is important to be up front about this and frame it.
4. We need to appropriately frame how marginalized parapsychology is. I tried to address the concerns about the balance between the two ideas. The point is that there is less research at universities than elsewhere.
5. Ibid. Also, many people who study paranormal belief do not consider themselves "parapsychologists" in the proper sense. Just because the parapsychological associations wants to include them doesn't mean that we need to be their mouthpiece for this POV.
6. "Major publications" is only in the opinion of the parapsychological association. We are not its mouthpiece.
7. Meta-analysis is not relevant to parapsychology itself and doesn't frame the subject.
8. The last sentence is important because it illustrates that science educators think the subject is bunk.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You already raised that objection at COI/N and nothing came of it because it was ultimately meritless. As you recall, I pointed out that Annalisa being awarded grants for research is not the same as being paid to market (advocate). As for all the other points and counter-points, I give up : ) It's the same conversations over and over and the only way for me to truly end the redundancy on my end is to unwatchlist the thing, which is what I'm going to do now. You guys can work it out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it, but basically Annalisa does get paid to monitor the internet on parapsychology. Notice that she swooped in yesterday after being gone for months. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Annalisa doesn't have any COI problems. Certainly less than one would have if one were, say, paid to work in mainstream science. It is anyway irrelevant even if she does, as her editing is NPOV, and WP does not proscribe COI editing if NPOV.

Psi is not a neologism.

People like Randi are not included in the Parapsychological Association, but by definition, if they study the paranormal, they are parapsychologists. Just as one is an astronomer if one studies the stars, whether or not one likes to be called that.

As to number 6, you'd have to source that.

Number 7: Half of modern parapsychology is based on meta-analysis.

I think the current lead is rather well phrased, and makes quite clear that parapsychology is not mainstream, and that it studies the paranormal, which is by definition not accepted by mainstream science. As a general comment, it is a shame that those who ostensibly think that experts should be given preference do not live up to their word. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all bogus. Psi is a neologism by any normal definition. People who study paranormal belief include the amazing Randi: is he a parapsychologist? And there is no cite to a neutral source that states that half of parapsychology is based on meta-analysis. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A neologism is a recently created term that hasn't caught on and doesn't have widespread use. "Psi" was coined in 1942 and is used by all parapsychologists. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What do parapsychologists mean when they say "psi"? The wording that was presented before didn't help. Can you reword it for us? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, as you know, there has already been a discussion into whether Annalisa has any conflict of interest, and it was rejected. Just because the discussion did not end up in your favor does not mean that you can ignore it and continue to claim that an editor has a conflict of interest. Please retract that statement in your responses. GlassCobra 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't rejected: it was discussed and people with certain *ahem* biases went out of their way to claim that she didn't have a conflict of interest when in fact she does. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of having a bias. This issue has been brought up to the community and been rejected; unless you want to be blocked for personal attacks, please retract that statement in your responses. GlassCobra 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Glass, I don't accuse everyone who disagrees with me of having a bias. I'm accusing Annalisa of having a personal bias and a charge with keeping parapsychology presented a particular way at this encyclopedia. She is clearly listed on the PA pages. Mischaracterizing my posts as you are doing is inappropriate and rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the only person mischaracterizing anything here. You say you don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of having a bias, yet you contradict yourself above by stating that "people with certain biases" prevented you from exposing Annalisa's supposed COI. I will ask you again to strike your statements about her. GlassCobra 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You just implied that I'm accusing everyone who disagrees with me of having a bias. That's a mischaracterization. Do you deny you said it? Yes, people with certain biases did prevent me from exposing Analisa's COI. That doesn't mean that everyone who opposes me has a bias. I'll ask you to strike-through your comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not deny that I said it, because it absolutely does seem to be an overwhelming pattern with you. I do not believe I've seen anyone disagree with you without you accusing them of having a bias. And before I strike anything, I'm still waiting for you to strike your unfounded accusations about Annalisa. GlassCobra 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have decided to pick a vendetta with me. You aren't a parent and you have not monitored all my contributions. I can point to a lot of editors who have had disagreements with me who do not have a bias. User:Art Carlson comes to mind. So, I'd appreciate if you stop with the WP:KETTLE. My accusations are founded. People may disagree that they represent a legitimate COI concern, but it is a fact that she is associated with PA and was paid to promote parapsychology on the internet. I will not back down from my opinion just because you don't like it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still relying on the same sources for the "pseudoscience" claim. The BIOCAB source is hopeless and the academic source supports the contrary point that parapsychology IS NOT a pseudoscience.213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is using BIOCAB anymore. Did you read the version that is up? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But the other source, Austin, is arguing that various reasons for thinking parapsychology is pseudoscience are bunk. He treats each reason in turn, by saying, for example, "parapsychology is pseudoscience because X", and then REJECTS "X". It's what his article is about. His conclusion is that "parapsychology seems especially difficult to rule out, on principled grounds, as pseudoscience".213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Principled grounds" is the key. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing our discussion from yesterday:

1. "the study of ostensibly paranormal influences in psychology" reads like 'the study of....in the field of psychology'. There are better ways to phrase this so that it doesn't sound like researchers should be taking their magnetometers to psychology buildings around the world.
2. Psi is 60 year old term that is central to subject of this article. And even if it did please me excise the statement, I wouldn't ask you to remove a sourced statement from an FA on a whim.
3. The marginal status of parapsychology is already well framed in the lead. The only difference between your version and the current version is that in the current version, each paragraph actually has a topic with supporting sentences.
4. If you really think that there is less parapsychological research coming from universities than private laboratories, then you need to support that claim with a reference. Otherwise, what you are saying is original research.
5. Ibid. And if you browse the CV's of PA members, you will find the variety of approaches that I described above.
6. What? Parapsychology is an area of specialization in psychology, there are publications that are central to that sub-field. They are discussed in the lead, as they are in the rest of the article, and that's the way it should stay.
7. Whether or not you believe meta-analysis is relevant here, the bulk of this article discusses meta-analytic studies in parapsychology and the criticism section has a good bit to say about it as well. Thus it needs to be introduced in the lead.
8. The last sentence is too specific for the lead. If you want to discuss what science educators have to say about parapsychology, put it in the criticism section. They same goes for any other sub-population that you might care to discuss.

Finally, I am not impressed with your attempt to subvert my argument by attacking me personally and spreading lies about me on this talk page. I am not a paid to advocate here. We have already discussed this. You failed to prove your point then, and that's not going to change now. If you continue to attempt to assassinate my character here with lies and personal attacks, I will take the appropriate action. You have been warned. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Annalisa, you are in the employ of PA and are known for monitoring pages on parapsychology. All you have to do is simply ask them to remove you from their website and this allegation will go away. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, it almost seems as if you are purposefully baiting Annalisa at this point, and I will warn you yet again that this is not acceptable. It has already been proven that Annalisa has no COI in this matter; please stop your insinuations and personal attacks. GlassCobra 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, glass, but there has been no "proof" offered. You're simply wrong on this one. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden of "proof" would be on you to prove that she has any sort of conflict here; so far all we have is your unfounded accusations. I'm still waiting for you to remove your attacks. GlassCobra 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusations are founded and well-presented. This is not a courtroom and I am under no obligation to offer proof before a judge/jury. I am simply pointing out that Annalisa has a problematic on-line history and her contributions need to be weighed accordingly. We can read them and accept them with their appropriate grain of salt. You, on the other hand, have pointed to no policy infractions other than vaguely claiming that pointing out someone's COI when others disagree it is a COI is somehow a personal attack. Except there is nothing on that page that even looks remotely like what is going on here. What I am offering is not an attack: it is pointing out that Annalisa is not necessarily neutral and has a potential conflict of interest as she is in the employ of PA. That is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not employed by the PA, nor am I employed by any organization in the field of parapsychology. I have already made my point at the conflict of interested board in November. You are making accusations without proof. Since you continue to insist on making false statements about me, I have no choice but to act. Game on. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that gaming is not allowed. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I have in mind. Your personal attacks will be reported. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing our discussion from yesterday:

1. I have rephrased it. Did you read the rephrasing?
2. Psi is 60 year old term that is central to subject of this article. Psi is a neologism. It may be worthy of including in our article, but in the lead? I don't thinks so.
3. The marginal status of parapsychology is already well framed in the lead. No it isn't. The lead needs to give us the marginalized status up front since that is one of the main features of this discipline.
4. And if you browse the CV's of PA members, you will find the variety of approaches that I described above. Doesn't matter since there are some X who are not Y we cannot say all Y are X.
5. Parapsychology is an area of specialization in psychology, there are publications that are central to that sub-field. No, it is a bunch of rank amateurs trying to study the paranormal. That's what it is. That's the end of it.
6. the bulk of this article discusses meta-analytic studies in parapsychology and the criticism section has a good bit to say about it as well. Thus it needs to be introduced in the lead. No it doesn't. The article uses meta-analyses because that's what the sources are. However, parapsychology itself has nothing to do with meta-analysis.
7. The last sentence is too specific for the lead. Nonsense. Science educators' opinions are a notable group commenting on how absolutely bone-headed most parapsychology proponents are. We should include them in the lead.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence may be too specific or not specific enough or whatever. As things stand though it is unsourced. The science educators cited (Austin and Layton, see above) do not even make the claim in their articles that parapsychology is pseudoscience, and therefore cannot possibly support, or be used as sources for, the contention that this is the view of science educators as a whole.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. These two sources do indicate that this subject is generally labeled pseudoscience by science educators. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is very unclear how they manage to "indicate" any such thing. Let us focus on the Austin source. This article is very clear. It sets out three possible reasons for thinking parapsychology is a pseudoscience and then rejects them one by one. At no stage does it suggest any other grounds for so labeling the "field of study" - the rejected reasons are the only three reasons examined. And while there may be other reasons and there may be others who put them forward and others still who claim science educators view parapsychology as a pseudoscience; Austin, in this article, does not give any such reasons and does not make any such suggestion.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The new lead does not have consensus. I am unconvinced that there is anything wrong with the present lead. In addition, cherry picking sources to push a particular POV- for instance using a source which argues that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience to selectively source the statement that it is called pseudoscience by some- isn't kosher. In generaly it is not called pseudoscience. It is already well framed, and this is a featured article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More stonewalling. Wonderful. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To Martinphi - If what was being done was using Austin to show that "some think parapsychology is pseudoscience", then that would probably be OK. I mean, Austin himself probably didn't just dream up the reasons he goes on to reject or the view itself - somebody probably said these things at some point and holds this view. But one cannot just assume that Austin's rhetorical interlocutors are science educators. That is, the article already says that "some critics have argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience" so it may well be those critics Austin has in mind. So Austin is the "science educator" here, and he says "no". Yes?

To ScienceApologist - Come now, you're the one claiming that a source says something that it clearly doesn't. See the response just above to Martinphi and let us try to get to the bottom of this. Are you claiming that Austin is a science educator who thinks parapsychology is pseudoscience, or are you claiming that Austin is saying that other science educators hold this view? [User:TheLaPesca|TheLaPesca]] (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply think that the new lead is POV. It has a huge focus on pseudoscience, etc. etc. The current lead is a consensus lead in a featured article, and I see only one author wishing to change it wholesale- and another suggesting a change which was partly OK by me. On the whole, perhaps we should ask for mediation if necessary, and come out with a neutral sounding lead. But as I said before, I think that the current lead is a sound compromise. Parapsychology is not pseudoscience, and the main commentators thereon, and its main critics, say so. So if we're going to change the current lead, I think we need to make clear that while parapsychology has been criticized as pseudoscience and is sometimes dismissed by science educators, its main critics and commentators such as James Randi say that it cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience on methodological grounds, whatever one may think of its results. This -however phrased- is the statement and general tone justified by the sources. A derogatory tone and the cherry picking of the content of sources to form that tone is not justified. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's perfectly reasonable point - sorry if I didn't make that clear. But we don't even need to go down that road until we have a source saying otherwise which, at this stage, we don't appear to have.TheLaPesca (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. It does seem to be true that as with most claims of consensus and generality, it is very difficult to source. I don't think there is a good source for "science educators," -and wouldn't one need a source merely to designate such a non-standard grouping?- nor is there any source that the scientific community in general says parapsychology is pseudoscience- quite the reverse. There are other problems as well of course. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)