Talk:CICAP

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italian article is better[edit]

As one would expect since this is an Italian organization, the article over on the Italian version of Wikipedia (CICAP) is much longer and appears to contain more details. It would be great if someone who speaks both Italian and English could merge the information, pulling the best of both. Note the footnotes are better in this article, the Italian version only has 4 notes, 3 of which are on CICAP's own website. --Krelnik (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Krelnik (talk), I am delighted that you take interest into an Italian organization... but I personally wouldn't pay too much attention to the article translation. Hopefully I am not getting into wp:or but please consider that this organization blatantly excludes dream analysis. If you think about it noone can objectively prove that "dreams really exist". The fact that "subjects vividly recal dreams mostly when awaken during REM sleep" doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that "dreams exist". So what are dreams? Paranormal stuff? Huh? I used the term "reasonable doubt" on purpose because they act as they are a Court instead of applying demarcation criterions. I hope this helps. M aurice Carbonaro 11:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I read you correctly, you are saying: nobody has conclusively proved that dreams exist, ergo they must be some sort of paranormal phenomenon. (And implying that CICAP is not doing their job well because they reject dream analysis as valid science). Your argument contains a number of logical fallacies and is in fact original research - unless you can come up with some reliable sources that say this. --Krelnik (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there Krelnik (talk), thanks for taking time in reading and answering to my comment. Actually I didn't use the word "phenomenon" which is antithetic to "noumenon" and I guess that the "World of Dreams" belongs to the latter. But no problem... encountering paradoxes (faith/offense dicotomies) was seemed as a way to deepen knowledge for philosophers in general. So I shouldn't be offended if you "didn't read me correctly" but flattered that you found worthful engaging in commenting the CICAP article. Okay then let's stick to the "phenomenon" area then. What about the Chelyabinsk meteor phenomenon that took place on the 15th February 2013 then? Wasn't that very VERY paranormal? and with para- I would like to underline the greek etimology of the word: [ "para-" (beyond) "-normal" (normality) ] i.e. "beyond normality". So I will rephrase my comment: How come that they didn't consider at all speculating on that phenomenon then? Wasn't worthed trying to set a demarcation line on what is EXACTLY the target of their research? I hope I didn't fall down in wp:or again. Actually this seems to be an wp:Original Question which is not mentioned (yet) in wp:Wikipedia policies. Cheers. M aurice Carbonaro 07:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]