Talk:Astral projection/Archive 5

...astral projection is considered pseudoscience.
"...astral projection is considered pseudoscience" was added to the lead, but I have not seen that sources make this assertion. Listing astral projection in a book that happens to have pseudoscience in the title does not allow us to synthesize that "astral projection is considered pseudoscience", especially in Wikipedia's voice. Those wishing to keep this content need to provided evidence that this is a widespread view, in the form of at least a few science-based sources that unequivocally say so. - MrX 12:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not synthesis, it's common sense that if a book on pseudoscience devotes substantial coverage to some topic, then it's pseudoscience. Astral projection is obvious pseudoscience and the current sources (and many more besides) also support that. In general ledes should also mirror the body, so attacking a lede (alone) which does so is damaging. Suggest if still in doubt, raise a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. It would be like citing a book called Cooking with chicken that has a recipe with no chicken, but only tofu (mock chicken). We would not then be allowed to synthesize that tofu is a type of meat. Please cite specific passages in reliable sources that support a widespread view that astral projection is considered pseudoscience. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, and wish to force your POV into the lead, we can raise the issue at WP:ORN to get broader input. - MrX 14:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah but if an encyclopedia of pseudoscience has an entry on a topic, then it's in scope. Or just look at something like Shermer:
 * I'll ping WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ping WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of high quality academic WP:RS sources make this assertion (as now cited in the article). There is no question that this represents a mainstream, i.e. widespread view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious Pseudoscience, per Alex and Louie. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE.- MrX 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @LuckyLouie: You added Gardener which says "Anyone online can turn on [sic] a search engine to contact [sic] a thousand websites devoted to pseudoscience, the paranormal, and the occult. Yahoo! lists multiple sites on biorhythm, alchemy, ghosts, astral projection, crop circles, dowsing, spontaneous human combustion, the hollow earth...". Astral projection is in the realm of the occult and the paranormal, but I'm not seeing evidence in this source that the author is claiming that it's "considered pseudoscience". Gardener is a writer for the Skeptical Inquirer, not an academic.


 * You added Grim who is an academic, but his offhanded comment about fraud doesn't pass muster as a widespread academic view on the subject of astral projection. Part of the problem with this article is that it vastly overlaps, and should probably be merged with, Out-of-body experience. Then there should be sections for the scientific studies, religious beliefs, and pseudoscience claims, and a lead that states that their are different cultural and scientific points of view on the subject. This reminds me of the attempts to shoehorn faith healing in the category of pseudoscience. - MrX 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the references are unequivocally explicit when read in context by any reasonable person. If you believe that the sentence "astral projection is considered pseudoscience" must appear in each reference in order to "pass muster", I feel you are quite mistaken. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I believe I am a reasonable person. I'm not saying that we need a literal statement. I'm saying we need words from the sources that are equivalent in meaning to claims that we write in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:WikiVoice. Clearly, there are folks who promote astral projection as if it had a basis in science. There are also people who simply believe that it's real because of their own experiences, or their religious beliefs, or a combination of the two. It is false to assert that ""astral projection is considered pseudoscience" when some consider it pseudoscience, some consider it paranormal, and some consider it to be based on faith. This is why we require attribution, or strong evidence that something is a widely-held belief. The second paragraph of the lead is not a reasonable summary of the article, which covers various cultural belief systems. We refer to things like perpetual motion machines and homeopathy as pseudoscience, because they're based on scientific claims. We don't label concepts like God, spirit and afterlife as pseudoscience because the knowledge of those subjects are not based on scientific claims. - MrX 17:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a wording issue. I offered an alternative that may or may not get around it. jps (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your wording sounds OK to me, but the Cosmo piece doesn't strike me as a reliable source. It addresses astral projection via a mention that it appeared on the syllabus of a class the author once took on the subject of pseudoscience.  If that's needed, there's all kinds of online material from the prof. --Amble (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead an remove it if you want. My feeling is that we were getting pretty caught up in the absurdity of the sourcing when what we're talking about here is hardly an academic matter. People who argue that they can achieve astral projection rarely do so in the context of academic discourse. Cosmo is closer to the typical venue. jps (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the cosmo source and the second instance of one that was repeated. --Amble (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Sources say its pseudoscience, and it is pseudoscience. The ArbCom probably even said that. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it is blatant pseudoscience. The same sort of thing is happening at Akashic records. Various believers want to remove pseudoscience from the lead. JuliaHunter (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To say it is pseudoscience implies it is treated as a science by its practitioners. The idea that you can accurately create remote vision or travel to other planets might be untrue or unscientific, but that does not mean astral projection is primarily presenting itself as a science. Attempts to prove the experiences are real is the pseudoscience. The activity itself is just a phenomenon that people do experience (whatever its reality may be). This is like saying meditation is a pseudoscience. It's like saying using hallucinogens is a pseudoscience. Astral projection is an experiential phenomenon. It is only specific applications and studies of it that we could call pseudoscience. But as an aside: yes you absolutely need to use sources that have a quote expressing "astral projection is a pseudoscience". Otherwise a book on pseudoscience could just as easily end its entry by concluding it is genuine (not to say it would). Or the source might just say studies of it are pseudoscientific. Its inclusion in a book on the subject does not mean we can define it as such when it may just be a related theme. That's why we have a synthesis policy. Astral projection can be used in pseudoscience without being definable as a pseudoscience. I feel like some editors are over-eager to put disparaging labels in places they don't quite fit. Just because it isn't a 'rational' worldview, doesn't make it a pseudoscience.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And to those rationalists eager to put a large phenomenon under a narrow label, I offer a quote from a great scientist: “The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can anyone conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear, we would probably be left completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.”

― Werner Heisenberg Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. I was hoping we might have some quantum quackery dredging up the quotes of Heisenberg or Bohr or Einstein. jps (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is condescension passing for debate now?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you try to bring up a "critique" of a "rational worldview" if you can't take the criticism of your argument as being quantum flapdoodle? jps (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the part that claimed that scientific understanding of the mechanism is a pseudoscience to just the topic is pseudoscience to fit what the experts and sources really say. Saying it is the mechanism presupposes it is really real, which Wikipedia shouldn't pick a pro-fringe side for. See WP:FRINGE. We can't talk weasel words around it. It's pseudoscience, period. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to any of the points we've brought up. You are editing without even attempting to make a consensus. Wikipedia doesn't pick sides, fringe or other. It lists all sides that meet notability standards. The idea that all of astral projection "just is pseudoscience" has yet to be backed up with a quote from these citations. And good sources should be written specifically on AP, not on pseudoscience. The fact that it has a pseudoscientific subcommunity (fringe to the larger movement) does not mean the rest of it pretends to be scientific. Nor do I believe your sources say so. To be a pseudoscience it has to present itself as science. It preadates scientific method and the majority of its existence was and still is completely outside of the scientific milieu. Its presentation as a pseudoscience is the wholly etic fringe opinion here. There is nothing cited to suggest the larger community of practitioners embrace it as scientific. No one is saying its claims are real (or that it is an encyclopedia's job to make conclusions), it just means it doesn't masquerade as a science. When it does, then it's pseudoscience. The remaining majority of the time it does not. It doesn't use or misuse any scientific methods as a collective whole. Only fringe elements within it do. Your describing the whole with a description that only fits a segment of the modern movement. That segment must be described relative to your claim because it is blatantly wrong to say the entire movement is pseudoscience. It certainly would have to explicitly say so in your yet-to-be-quoted sources. It's like saying all religion is pseudoscience because dianetics is a pseudoscience. Dianetics claims as a whole to be scientific so it as a whole can be deemed a pseudoscience. Does any practice that presupposes a soul or subtle body qualify by your standards as pseudoscience? Meditation, prayer, yoga, t'ai chi? Only a discipline that claimed to study the soul through a scientific methodology could be pseudoscience. You may as well say dreaming is pseudoscience. Do you not see the faulty logic behind your biased verbiage? Could you try debating the issue enough to appear to be reading the talk page. That's why we have talk pages. This kind of blind bias is what makes me ashamed of self-styled rationalists. Have you ever studied how to write anthropologically? You don't assume a critical tone. The article should not take a view for or against AP. Find me an encyclopedia (not of pseudosciences, but a real generic encyclopedia) that makes this claim.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:FRINGE yet? It answers your many questions and proves you wrong. I don't care if *you* think I didn't answer you, because your not talking Wikipedia policy. Your just telling us what *you* think. We don't care. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And putting a welcome to wiki WP:OR template on my talk page is just weird. If you think I've made an OR claim, point it out here please. Right now the accusation from multiple editors is that your edit is synthesis or OR. You need to give us a quote that says explicitly 'astral projection as a whole is a pseudoscience'. The fact that it is relevant to the topic of pseudoscience is not the same as saying it is pseudoscience. I would aruge your own citations agree more with me pending a conclusive quote. Because the common definition via google is "pseu·do·sci·ence /ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/, noun, 1. a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method". So are you claiming the entire movement is regarded as based on scientific method? Because that isn't suggested by any source I've found or can find on JSTOR, google scholar or elsewhere. You honestly can't believe the broader prescientific practice claims to be based on the scientific method. That doesn't make sense. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you even read anything you don't type here? The reasons for labeling your edits as COI are in the edit comments and here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the believers in astral projection tolerate if not outright promote the claim that there is scientific evidence for astral projection. That's pseudoscience right there. jps (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Being science minded and all, I'm sure you will point to the data detailing the sample population of believers, the selection criteria, the methodology, and the actual numbers (>50%) of those believers determined to "tolerate if not outright promote" a scientific basis for their beliefs. Take a moment to think about it before answering.- MrX 12:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or anyone here thinks. It matters what the reliable sources say. To claim otherwise is WP:OR.DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be even more blunt then: anyone who says that there is scientific evidence for astral projection is full of shit. jps (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are sources to support the assertion "Most of the believers in astral projection tolerate if not outright promote the claim that there is scientific evidence for astral projection". Otherwise it doesn't belong in this discussion. Let's stay focused on sources (all of them) and try to keep personal views to ourselves.- MrX 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no precedence for forbidding statements in discussion on the basis of sourcing. I didn't argue that we should say in article space that most of the believers in astral projection tolerate if not outright promote claims of scientific evidence for their belief. Nonetheless, this is true about believers in this most ludicrous of ideas. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The new wording, "to the extent that believers say there is scientific evidence for such", is also weasel words and OR. If you don't come up with something more fitting to Wikipedia I will remove it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That's the definition of pseudoscience. It's certainly not original research to point it out. If someone says that, "astral projection is a flavor of ice cream" they aren't practicing pseudoscience. We're just letting the reader know what pseudoscience is. All the sources we have do that in the broader sense. jps (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "claims about astral projection are non-scientific rather than pseudoscientific". I said it's only pseudoscientific when it is claimed as science. That's the absolute definition of pseudoscience. When a kundalini teacher makes you hyperventilate and have a vasovagal response and tells you you're astral projecting, it's a completely different flavor of BS. But not pseudoscience until he says "we can measure the soul leaving the body by weighing you during the practice". Once scientific standards are applied to something non-scientific it becomes pseudoscientific. Until that point it is just not science of the real or fake variety. Pointing out the dictionary definition of the word is hardly OR.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the skeptics phrase it the same way we did . They say there isn't evidence it exists as an objective phenomenon and that pseudoscientific claims to that affect are not accepted as science. Not that it is pseudoscience, only that when people claim it is real to material science are those claims pseudoscientific. This is what all the sources you're hiding behind say. That's why you can't pull a quote. To practice it as a skeptic, which is possible, is not to practice pseudosciene. To claim it as objectively real is pseudoscience. That context needs to be expressed.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all mental gymnastics. If you accept that when the yogi says that they can measure the soul leaving the body (which they do) then they are promoting pseudoscience then we are in agreement. If you think there are skeptics who practice astral projection, I encourage you to point us to who these skeptics are. jps (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I accept that when he says he can measure the soul leaving the body it is pseudoscience. That's my whole point. No source claims that is a universal characteristic of AP. If you accept that when said yogi makes no claims within the realm of science he is not practicing pseudoscience, then we agree. Otherwise he is merely practicing an occult belief and presenting it as such. It would seem to be a common sense distinction. It's only the context that makes it pseudoscience. This is a simple association fallacy. Your characterizing a phenomenon by a selection bias of some groups who practice it. Just because there is pseudoscience within AP does not mean AP is entirely with pseudoscience. I've yet to find the author who claims it is.
 * When someone says they talk to angels, they are hardly masquerading as scientists. Nor would a faith healer claim to be a scientist. They might be con-artists and they might be delusional, but neither of those are pseudosciences. If a priest does an excorcism: not pseudoscience. When an auditor uses an e-meter to do the same thing and puts the word science in their name: pseudoscience.
 * To practice AP or lucid dreaming or OBE does not even require the belief in an actual subtle body or an astral plane. By the same token, a mystic who practices hypnotism is not a pseudoscientist, but you could argue that a psychiatrist who uses hypnotism is a pseudoscientist. That's why none of these authors say directly that it is a pseudoscience. It is just a subject within pseudoscience. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs. The tolerance for the pseudoscientific claims associated with astral projection is such that the sources we have clearly indicate that (1) there is no explicit disavowal of that sort of argumentation by astral projection believers and (2) such argumentation is made frequently when it comes to this subject. Ergo, it is not unreasonable to identify the arguments that say, "astral projection is scientifically verifiable" as pseudoscientific arguments. It is further not unfair to associate such arguments with the general belief in astral projection because there is no explicit disavowal of this kind of approach to the subject seen in the literature. Even if not everyone takes that tack, the fact that this kind of pseudoscience is accepted generally is only to say that believers report, when asked, that they think it is fair and relevant to identify the claims that astral projection can be measured, quantified, observed, or phenomenologically deduced. Inasmuch as there is an "association" it is an association with people who say they believe in astral projection with others who say they believe in astral projection which is as good as we can do in writing this tertiary source (it is not our job to decide whether each and every person believes precisely the same thing -- we merely go by what the sources identify as the common or expounded-upon beliefs). To be clear, it is not necessary to "play scientist" to promote pseudoscience. A topic does not get shielded from the "pseudoscience critique" just because the people making the argument are not doing so in a laboratory or in an academic department devoted to scientific investigation, for example. The sources we have in the article are pretty clear in any case; the arguments that attempt to explain astral projection are something other than a hallucination or a delusion are all pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not splitting hairs to say there is a difference between a belief and a pseudoscience. The fact that there is no explicit disavowel is meaningless. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. "the sources we have clearly indicate that (1) there is no explicit disavowal of that sort of argumentation by astral projection believers". Where do they say there is no explicit disavowel? What is the quote? That's all you have to do to win this argument is give a quote. As it stands your claim exceeds your sources' claims. Besides: proving a negative is a flimsy premise that these authors (unlike you) don't waste their time with. Those sources that don't practice it with a scientific belief don't talk about it in a scientific voice. Especially as an historical practice which existed outside of the scientific milieu. It's just another name for the definitive shamanic practice of entering the dream/spirit/astral world/plane/reality. As an ancient taosist/egyptian/Hindu practice it is not a pseudoscience. It is a prescientific belief. That's a huge distinction. These sources don't explicitly say it isn't scientific because they don't address anything scientifically. "(2) such argumentation is made frequently when it comes to this subject." Made frequently is not the same saying they characterize the entire movement. This is a fallacy of interpolation. The burden of proof is on you to show that these authors say it is a pseudoscience and not just related to pseudoscience in certain modern contexts. A seemingly simple task no one has managed to do. "it is not our job to decide whether each and every person believes precisely the same thing" yes it is not our job, and yet it is what you are doing by misrepresenting your sources. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that belief in astral projection is "pre-scientific" is not backed up in any source I've seen. Perhaps you'd like to point to one. In the meantime, astral projection is fairly firmly established as a pseudoscientific claim in many venues. Trying to identify when "astral projection" is occurring or some other idea is perhaps an interesting game to play. Shamanism tends to use terms other than "astral" to describe their interaction with the spirit world, for example. jps (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: This subject can't be reduced down in that manner, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics one tries to employ. It gives undue weight to more current, Western new age view points and completely ignores multiple cultural beliefs which are substantially relevant to an article in a global encyclopedia. If you tried to do this with an article like afterlife you would get exactly no where. If you tried to do this with resurrection of Jesus you would likely end up topic banned for aggressively pushing a POV. All of these articles have one major thing in common: the belief that consciousness exists independent of a physical body. You also seem to conflating hallucination with perception. We don't refer to dreams, memories, or intuition as hallucinations for good reason. - MrX 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone be topic banned for pointing out that people don't physically rise from the dead and neither did Jesus. This is covered rather plainly in the extensive historicity sections of the page to which you link. Likewise, to claim that consciousness is independent of the brain is pretty much always a pseudoscientific claim. Conversely, here is a belief that has not been argued over in great detail. The metaphorical interpretation of astral projection is not sourced here. Please let me know when you find a source that does so. jps (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That has nothing at all to do with my previous comment. We are still talking about hard score skepticism and attempts to brand multiple subjects as pseudoscience. cf. faith healing. I also never mentioned metaphors, so I decline to produce sources for that particular tangent.- MrX 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You read WP:FRINGE yet? Seems like it would answer all of your questions. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of surprised this debate is still going on. There are 8 citations to high quality reliable sources. I seriously doubt all these authors somehow erroneously listed astral projection as an example of pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First: I like the current edit, the point is to not restore the old one that says it is a pseudoscience. It currently says "Claims of scientific evidence of astral projection are pseudoscientific" which is a close variation on the wording I used before. But this is the point. These sources list it as an example of where you can see pseudoscience. None of them call it "a pseudoscience". I feel you're all missing this simple distinction. There is nothing about this that you could call mental gymnastics (even if it's over some of your heads). So please quote any of your 8 citations calling it a pseudoscience. If you can't show a quote then your sources aren't worth much in this debate. You are coming to a stronger conclusion than the citations do. When Valmiki wrote about AP in Vasiṣṭha's Yoga in the eighth century, it was simply a spiritual practice. Same for the taoists. The theosophists just put a western name on an old practice and made up some Blavatskian mumbo jumbo to go with it. No source claims they invented it. But they did make the first pseudoscientific claims about it. The undeniable pseudoscientific use of it in the modern era is not the same thing as saying it is a pseudoscience. Belief in a soul isn't pseudoscience. It's religion or spirituality. Trying to measure the soul or prove it exists with empiricism is pseudoscience. Does anyone disagree with that? Really the only point that matters is that the quoted sources do not say "it is a pseudoscience". That is an extrapolation of the opinion of the authors. Mentioning its association with pseudoscience is a necessity. Calling it a pseudoscience is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation of sources. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is splitting hairs, but from an extremely pedantic point of view, to identify a subject as a "pseudoscience", it has to be something like phrenology. On the other hand, the term isn't rigorously defined academically, so, until I can get an academic position in agnotology, I think we're stuck with the sourcing. Anyway, if you're happy with the current wording in the lede, so am I. jps (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read carefully: my only point is that it needs to be worded this way. It defines the context in which it is pseudoscientific as all the sources do (except the cosmo source which actually makes no description of it, just uses the name in passing). As far as it agrees with the sources and does not call it a pseudoscience I approve of the lead. I was objecting to the stronger wording editors were adding earlier. The debate outlasted the bad edits for way too long. It's hardly pedantic to insist on honest representation of sources. Like you, I just try to keep wiki balanced. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Astral projection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122172510/http://www.astral-projections.com:80/members/cd/astral-projections-com-guide.pdf to http://www.astral-projections.com/members/cd/astral-projections-com-guide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"pseudoscientific"
"Claims of scientific evidence of astral projection are pseudoscientific.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]"

No they're not, you morons; claims of scientific evidence are claims of scientific evidence. Perhaps the *practices* carried out by *most* (or all) of the specific people who research astral projection are pseudoscientific, in that they don't follow scientific protocols, but making idiotic blanket statements like this is antithetical to scientific skepticism. 2607:FEA8:875F:F44E:5CA9:D745:A392:BB9E (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What you write sounds like several blanket statements to me. Could you tone down on the moronic and make a suggestion for improvement instead? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL WP:NPA Edaham (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To be psuedoscience, there has to be a claim that it is scientific. It can't be fake science if it is not presented as science. Otherwise its called METAPHYSICS, not pseudoscience. Metaphysics does not require the scientific method so people using astral projection spiritually are not pseudoscientific. Otherwise you could call all religion pseudoscience which is incorrect, regardless of what you believe. No scientific claims = not pseudoscience. Unscientific things presented as scientific = pseudoscience. E.G. trepanning, phrenology, humorism and depending on how it is presented flat earth theory. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the OP again. it says - "Claims of scientific evidence of astral projection are pseudoscientific..." So we have no dispute here. That is exactly what you are saying. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP has a point. It's a poorly-written sentence that makes us sound amateurish. Someone probably thought they would fix-a-POV by sloppily injecting the word "pseudoscientific". Someone should review what the sources actually wrote, check that they are reliable, and make sure that other reliable source don't contradict it. Then we can paraphrase the sentence accordingly. - MrX 🖋 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This should go somewhere
And the entire entry should be edited accordingly. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf There's also this: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000300390001-2 I'm new to wikipedia so i don't know how to insert these links and reference them accordingly, and add them as a source. (so can someone do this for me?) I mean, these are from the CIA. Are we going to say CIA is involved with pseudoscience? A few things i would like to point out/say here. Acedemical skepticism involves the capability of being skeptical of everything. Even science has to come to a point where it must make assumptions based on faith (on rationale and logic) Science cannot prove other people have consciousness. This is a hard problem of science. To claim that study of consciousness is pseudoscience is probably the most damaging concept towards consciousness. Subjects such as reincarnation, well, the subject of reincarnation specifically is ULTIMATELY scientific. As it provides the exact answer to the model we live in, which is Reality (and science pertains to the study of reality and the workings of it) I can prove through logic alone that reincarnation = only possible outcome after death. Hard, scientific based fact. I wish not to digress, the point here i am saying and why i am saying it here, is because i see a lot of WP FRINGE claims here. How is reincarnation fringe, if it fits our model PRECISELY? Life is a collective, regeneratable phenomenon. In the field of science, we do not call two drops of water, different names, neither do we treat 2 different drops of water, different than our collective understanding of water. We do not call drop 1, michael, and drop 2, peter. We treat water as water, therefore we must treat life as life, according to the scientific method that we've been using for, perhaps longer than the last century collectively. How does reincarnation relate to astral projection? Well, if we establish that reincarnation is not fringe, and provide (i can provide this) factual evidence towards reincarnation Then we have established that there is a transmigratory or replicable consciousness. It opens the door to astral projection. Also, you should read through the project gateway document i've linked above. It actually contains a lot of, arguably meta, scientific understanding of our universe. At the very least, it provides an alternative (yet functional) model compatible to our current. The guy (i can look him up and provide sources here too) who was i think head scientist for project gateway, has a number of 'lectures' on the subject of for example: holographic universe theory. The science behind kundalini in the document i've linked above is also displayed as a very tangible and reputable and replicable (under scientific conditions i.e iirc, 47mhz frequency) Yes, these are topics i'm talking about that pertain to astral projection but my point is, we can get rid of the label of pseudoscience for a number of these subjects that are considered fringe by the apparent mainstream (or the loudest voices however you see it) So apart from further digression i shall say that in above linked document (project gateway) there is also a few chapters or paragraphs on: Out of body experience, Out of body movement, and remote viewing. I suggest reading through the entire document, as at the very least, a credible scientific hypothesis is given for the mind- hologram-matrix. If you read through the document, it's apparent that it's not exactly fringe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4DlLQuiwg <- very condensed version of the holographic universe (i don't know what to call it). If you follow principles (laws, even) of science, it becomes clear that illusion of seperation = true. Allow me to bore you with some further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=subjective+idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism <- my favourite. There's also academic skepticism, which i implore anyone to read who views science as an authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_skepticism My point here, is that there is HARD LOGIC towards subjects such as reincarnation. Not 'philosophy'. Actual, tangible, hard logic. Absolute truths. >Before i was alive, i was not alive. >I have learned that someday in the future i will die >Science says anything that can happen can happen again >If i die, i will have already have lived. According to scientific principle of replicability, i should be able to live again. >According to science, sex created my existence. >sex happens all the time >lives are happening all the time >life is an objective phenomenon >objectivity requires all participants of said objectivity to be validated, to be real >my thoughts cannot be less real than your thoughts >the only way thoughts are validated are through experience >if my thoughts are real and your thoughts are real, then they must be validated by the same entity or system. >Ergo, reincarnation is real. Unless objectivity = false. >if objectivity is false then there is only subjectivity. If there is only subjectivity then monism = true. This also leads to reincarnation upon death. >all roads lead to reincarnation. I will probably attempt to clean up some of the misconceptions back over at the reincarnation article at some point. I didn't mean to make this a rant, i just hoped to provide actual tangible logic here to our universal model of reality. I know it isn't precisely coherent, but sometimes i forget exactly how to word it. Follow the laws of science and think of what must happen after death and reincarnation IS the conclusion. Eternal cessation is pretty much impossible according to science. Stuff like astral projection, it's been experienced by many people. It's just difficult to prove a subjective phenomenon in an objective environment. It won't let me post to many line breaks? Sigh. Sorry, i completely screwed up on the layout for this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * tldr. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links are relevant. The first is someone talking about Hemi-Sync and its potential for creating altered states of consciousness and out-of-body experiences. The fact that both of the latter exist isn't disputed. The second is a study allegedly demonstrating paranormal abilities unrelated to AP. It looks like it was part of the Stargate Project; our article on that speaks for itself. And no, the study of consciousness isn't itself pseudoscientific; it sure does attract cranks though! Lenina Libera (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to Stargate Project. I am aware these documents aren't entirely relative to AP. I added these to raise the point of Yes there IS scientific evidence of (breaking of spatial barriers). One could suggest that the body itself is a spatial barrier. This is a bit out of the box thinking but hey, just looking at the actual AP article all i am seeing is sheer denial of the possibility of scientific credibility towards the subject and that i think is an error. I've experienced my own such phenomenon which seemed to transcend physical boundaries. And by seem, i mean i could illuminate darkness with the light from such an astral body overlaid on waking day body. I have no explanation of this phenomenon other than astral body. Yet reading this, it seems heavily biased towards the notion astral projection is not real or tangible. My argument would be AP is very much tangible, but our knowledge (scientific) is LACKING. We do not know collectively YET how this phenomenon works. I quoted Karl Jaspers and i can quote him again. There are certain areas where science cannot be applied. You must have faith to know that other consciousni exist for example.

Thanks for replying Libera and Roxy

Some recommended reading from the CIA
Some pertaining to out of body experiences: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000240008-7.pdf i'm not familiar with the material, point being: if the CIA says these are recommended reading then i'd argue these sources hold some weight. On a different note, i've added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kundalini (talk page) a request to add Itzhak Bentov as a source on kundalini. (Because it is alleged his research on kundalini is scientifically reputable). Sorry if i'm using too many line breaks. I'm new to this. I know it's no excuse, but i'm trying to learn the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What i have done and why
I do not want to waste my time (hours of my day) going back and forth across the talk and article page to contemplate this. Here is what i am changing and why. "Other than anecdotal eyewitness accounts, there is no known evidence of the ability to astral project, the existence of other planes, or of the Akashic Record."ok Claims of scientific evidence of astral projection are pseudoscientific.'''don't know about this exactly. This seems kind of biased. It could be possible to apply the scientific method of inquiry on phenomenon such as astral projection''' There is no scientific evidence that there is a consciousness or soul which is separate from normal neural activity or that one can consciously leave the body and make observations.ok hold up Ok, these are almost contradictory to one another. To say there is no KNOWN evidence is sortof an accurate statement. Then we get there IS NO scientific evidence. I am going to change this statement to include falsifiability/according to falsifiability principle. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability To save myself some time, i shall simply add known to this sentence too. there is no KNOWN scientific evidence seems more apt/accurate. (There is no commonly/widespread evidence of such and such would be a more accurate sentence but w/e) Also we should define scientific evidence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Empirical evidence relates to the senses. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence One could argue that Astral Projection is a sensory experience. Ultimately empirical in nature. We also have the scientific method which gets rather ambigious, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence Concept of scientific proof ''While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".[14][15] Albert Einstein said: The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16] '' So, is it accurate to say there is NO scientific evidence of astral projection? I would beg to differ. ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Tough. Learn to sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is evidence of neurological electrochemical processes and structures and evidence that much if not all experience derives from it. There indeed is no evidence that the brain would only be an antenna connected to a soul or evidence supporting quantum mysticism (although humans naturally tend to insert the supernatural in every gap of knowledge to explain experiences and justify beliefs, etc).  Relevant would be WP:ABIAS and WP:YESPOV (we can state as fact what is the common modern understanding and the encyclopedia relies on what academics write about it).  Holographic universe, quantum mysticism, are all interesting, but we cannot describe them as if they were supported by scientific evidence when they are not...  In terms of science, they are indeed WP:FRINGE ideas.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Related: .Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  – 17:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument seems to boil down to “there is no way to be sure about anything and every definition is open to interpretation, so why can’t we give some credibility to astral projection”. That may work for discussions on Internet forums but on Wikipedia we go by mainstream scientific opinion published in reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, my argument is not that there IS known scientific evidence of AP I am saying the statement there is no scientific evidence appears to hold a bias! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view It is as though the editor who wrote there is NO scientific evidence of AP is literally leaving NO ROOM for the possibility of scientific evidence existing outside his frame of reference! It pertains to falsifiability and is a very simple edit to correct into a neutral and unbiased statement. I am not giving astral projection any weight or bias. I am looking at the article objectively. If i read there is no scientific evidence of astral projection This is a blanket statement which will automatically lead me to beleive that A) There has and never has there ever been ANY scientific evidence EVER on astral projection B) There likely never will or can be scientific evidence for astral projection and C) That we have the knowledge to make such statements, that we have collectively analyzed ALL claims of scientific evidence of astral projection. (this is simply untrue, we simply do not have the data to make such BROAD and BLANKETING statements.

And yes, i do agree that WP:ABIAS are relevant, this is also why i am reverting the edit to make a more objectively valid point of view. There's no bias to this. I have no affinity with astral projection other than a few anecdotal experiences. I am merely looking at claims that are PRESENTED AS UNFALSIFIABLE. I am editing this back to ''there is no known scientific evidence of astral projection. If this edit doesn't stick then you might as well change the other sentence to disclude the word known too...... (There is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists.) <- Scientific reception ( There is no scientific evidence that there is a consciousness or soul which is separate from normal neural activity or that one can consciously leave the body and make observations.) (First paragraph) So why can we get it right somewhere halfway through the article, yet you insist on reverting this change from an accurate statement into bias? To say there is no known evidence of such and such is completely accurate and objective and a neutral point of view. It's not even redundant. It seems the only reason to assert that there is definitely and absolutely no evidence (despite not having the data available to make such a claim with any definite accuracy), is due to bias. If you decide to revert this edit again due to your own personal bias then i implore you also to change the part in scientific reception to: There is no scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists) (instead of, there is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists). Seems like bias is playing a huge part here, but it's not from my part. I'm just trying to prevent wikipedia from spreading literal misinformation. (as the claim there is no scientific evidence could literally be false independant of the claim there is no such evidence.) 159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Also, i would like to add that the claim there is no scientific evidence of astral projection etc falls under the realm of assumptions and not of objective factual. Why would we keep it this way? What are we to do in 10 years time when there could/might very well be scientific evidence of astral projection. We simply do not have all the scientific data. The statement there is no such evidence could be a lie. Why risk having a lie on wikipedia when a simple added word prevents actual and possible incorrectness? (i'll tell you why, i think it's because people are biased against this article and are therefore defending such a bias) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Being peer-reviewed and published is part of what turns research into scientific evidence. So "known" is redundant. Lenina Libera (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Still seems like a bias issue to me. I even quoted from the wikipedia entry for scientific evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence Also seems like circular reasoning with heavy notes of bias when contrasted with Scientific claims of evidence of astral projection are psuedoscience''. That's a catch 22. A contradiction.(Because we have set up a model in which no scientific evidence can ever be claimed, ergo, even mentioning scientifical evidence of astral projection is redundant. Should i remove the entire sentence and sources? I would have thought putting known as a minor edit would have sufficed. :/ 159.100.84.247 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Still seems like a bias issue to me. I even quoted from the wikipedia entry for scientific evidence."

It is not bias. Neutral point of view says nothing about saying that there is no scientific evidence for astral projection, and the quote you gave does not prove your point. Sure, all of our theories could be disproven tomorrow. How does this imply that we should give credit to all theories? It doesn't.

"Also seems like circular reasoning with heavy notes of bias when contrasted with Scientific claims of evidence of astral projection are psuedoscience''."

Circular reasoning is a type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

How is calling unscientific claims of scientific accuracy pseudoscience circular reasoning?

"A contradiction.(Because we have set up a model in which no scientific evidence can ever be claimed, ergo, even mentioning scientifical evidence of astral projection is redundant."

Scientific evidence is real. It is evidence from the scientific method. Again, our theories could be wrong. But how does that now imply that something not having scientific evidence is a contradiction?

"Should i remove the entire sentence and sources?"

There's no reason to.

"I would have thought putting known as a minor edit would have sufficed."

It's the same thing except it gives the appearance of more credibility to astral projection. No scientific evidence means that no one has used the scientific method to show that astral projection is true. Wyrm127 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While I get what she is trying to say in terms of "no scientific evidence" vs "no known scientific evidence", I don't think it's necessary to make that change here. If, in the future, someone ever does develop scientific evidence supporting astral projection or any related traits, we can easily update this article at that point with any relevant reliable sources that cover that experiment. Until then, there's no real reason to hedge the phrasing of this article because of something that might happen in the future. Alicb (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Picture for Egyptian section
Hi guys, here's a (the?) picture of the Egyptian Ka... Presumably it's in the public domain seeing as it's thousands of years old. Can someone lovely paste it in for me? Cheers. 88.111.138.227 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC) A picture would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astral Leap (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Bias ?
"There is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists." This sentence is non-factual and the whole section thereafter points towards skeptic bias. The WikiPedia article dedicated to Out-of-body experiences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience clearly states that the term "Out-of-body experience" was created by researchers as an alternative term for the belief-centric "astral projection". The phenomenon is thus observable and under scientific study by multiple research groups. It's also a pretty common phenomenon, with one in ten persons having experienced an OBE at least once. Given the extensive scientific work mentioned in the "Out-of-body experience" article, I think that this section needs to be rewritten as a summary of that article and pointing to it.--Nikosgpet (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

“We know how many possibilities there are for dimensions and we know what the dimensions do." is a ridiculous statement as it can have no basis in science, and a citation to a newspaper article doesn't hold much water. With no counter, or indication that it is opinion not fact, it is misleading and should have no place in a balanced article.31.53.198.23 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you should read up on what CERN has been doing. I don't mean just browse a few of their webpages, i'm talking about looking about what they've actually published from interviews and the like. Because science. (praise our lord and saviour science) (have you prayed to science today?)

Seems like a bit of a doctrine really. This science. I used to be a very scientifical man, until i learned what an abomination science had become. Brain in jar theory. Have fun proving yourself out of it. Sorry if i'm totally doing the markup wrong for replying to people here....
 * that might or might not be true, but it is a quote from a published source. There is a challenge to be made here though, which is that of whether or not a spokesperson from the Queensland skeptics society is wp:rs when it comes to quoting in an encyclopedia article in a section titled "scientific response". To place a quote under such a heading he would have to have some relevant position in the field he is talking about. I will have a look at the source and invite other editors to do the same. If the conclusion is that he is not wp:rs the the quote may need to be removed or the section title changed to be inclusive of skeptical responses from outside scientific fields. I agree that there's an issue.140.207.8.242 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * a cursory glance at available material reveals 'Bob Bruce is a retired industrial engineer who has worked widely in government and private enterprise. He currently works as an IT Orange Card with Education Qld. He holds a double major in Psychology. He has been President of the Queensland Skeptics Association Inc since the turn of the century.' http://www.asc.asn.au/blog/2016/02/05/asc2016-bob-bruce/Edaham (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems Bruce is talking about very basic mathematics, the type engineers know inside out. That means he is amply qualified to say it. "Dimension" is one of those words scientists and their ilk are well-acquainted with, but which sound high-level to laymen. Thus, they are used by crackpots to impress those laymen. "Energy" and "field" are other such words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it that that is your suggestion to leave the paragraph alone. Thanks for your response. For my part, I'd prefer that section to be populated with information taken from scientific journals containing commentary from actual scientists. I don't have an issue with what Bruce said. A source is a source. I have issue with him being quoted in a section which deals with scientific consensus, because he isn't a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Scientific journals do not mention such bollocks as astral projection. Skeptics are as scientific as it is going to get. Robert Todd Carroll and James Randi, who are quoted in the same section, aren't scientists either but what they and Bruce say is pretty what a scientist would say - indeed, Rawcliffe and Wiggins do say the same thing. Maybe we should change the heading? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Skeptics are as scientific as it is going to get
 * Actually skeptics are the first to dismiss science to begin with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_skepticism (It's LITERALLY on the wiki, how is this flying over everyones' heads?)
 * Skepticism means you accept that there is NO certainty. There's no way to verify if science is true. It could all be some hallucination produced by your mind, or the mind of God. Try proving me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk • contribs) 2018 (UTC)
 * I have new knowledge for you: Words can have more than one meaning!
 * Skeptic is one of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)