Talk:Daryl Bem

Describing James Alcock
An IP wishes to describe Alcock as an "anti-parapsychology activist", but no source was given for this change. Further, it doesn't appear to be a neutral labeling, seemingly intended to generate prejudice in the mind of the reader. Manul ~ talk 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess time has washed over that. It can be archived. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

White flag
I've tried my best to keep this article unbiased. I don't think that the article is fair with Bem and his ideas, specially because I've cited a lot of mainstream peer reviewed papers. I'm not referencing parapsychology journals, but people are still deleting everything I post. It's nonsense to delete peer-reviewed papers published on Psychological Bulletim, Frontiers, f1000 and keep articles by CSICOP.

However, I understand that the topic is highly controversial and it's not widely accepted, but at least the Daryl Bem and other 'parapsychologists' are playing by the rules: they are publishing in rigorous peer-review journals. So, I'm proposing something: at least keep the references. There is nothing wrong with them. We can discuss a better way to word the text, but please don't simply delete everything I write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massless theory (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bem was admittedly p-hacking, a method with which one can "prove" whatever one wants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversions
Re ganzfeld "still being debated", as I mentioned in my edit comment in February, this fails WP:PSCI because it presents a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the mainstream and fringe view. The sources for the 2015 paper are inadequate: one is a primary source, one is a blog, and the last is an (apparent) book in which the paper is briefly mentioned but not discussed in any detail. Coverage by independent sources is needed here. Manul ~ talk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel the future controversy
I understood from Dutch Skepter magazine that Bem's methodology was as good or as bad as was common in social science in 2011. I think this should be mentioned. I also understood that his article was one of the triggers of the replication crisis. Andries (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC) See also https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html

(Personally I find it disappointing that scientists only seem to care deeply about methodology when the results do not fit into their worldview). Andries (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If we have sources saying so, why not?
 * Maybe scientists' worldviews are so often right that bad methodology is the main reason for results not fitting into them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see negative selective citing from the slate article. Andries (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)