Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 8

JSPR vs. JSE
I think it is important that we point out in the article that JSPR is not a scientific journal (it is a journal for psychic studies) while JSE is at least nominally scientific. That means that the scientific evaluation of the subject has been univerally negative or absent. --216.125.49.252 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The JSP is a journal for scientific exploration of psychic phenomena. Davkal 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you User:216.125.49.252 cared to look at MacRae's article you will see that Macrae didn't shield the room. The room itself is a shielded room that exists, for anyone who cares to check, at the institute of Noetic sciences. If you want to paraphrase and describe an article it is normally best to read it first.Davkal 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JSPR is not a scientific journal. It is a pseudoscientific journal dedicated to paranormal research. --71.57.90.96 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * MacRae is not a reliable source and therefore his word and publication in a pseudoscience journal should not be taken at face-value. --71.57.90.96 15:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae's experiment
While extraordinary claims might require extraordinary evidence; faraday cages and sound-proof rooms are well known and accepted as existing by mainstream science. Given that the institute of noetic sciences exists and has such a room (many sources can be found for this if you require), and given that the reported experiment was published in a peer-review journal we have no reason not to take this mundane part of the claim at face value. If you have any sources suggesting the IONS does not have such a room, or that the room is faulty then please cite them. The burden of proof for this mundane claim has been met (peer-review source), if you wish to dispute it the burden of proof now falls on you to provide some kind of evidence.Davkal 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the logic above. Why must the efficacy of the sheilded room and the legitimacy of MacRae's experiments) be taken at face value by Wikipedia? It is one thing to have the article quote that "MacRae said he did X in his paper". It is another for the Wikipedia article to advocate "MacRae did X". --- LuckyLouie 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said MacRae's experimant should be taken at face value in total and presented as fact, but certain aspects of it can be. For example, while EVP may not exist, rooms certainly do (even Carroll doesn't dispute this). Some rooms are shielded from EM radiation, some are soundproof, and some are both. None of this is controversial in the slightest. The IONS has such a room - that is not controversial and can be checked by anyone with a mind to (I have). So none of this is contentious in any way. Therefore: when we have a peer-review source saying an experiment took place inside a EM screened soundproof room, and we know the location of the room, and we know that such a room actually does exist at that location, it is up to those who dispute this to come up with some reason for doubt.Davkal 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the soundproofing issue. From Wiki: "Both types of chamber (sound and RF) are normally constructed, not only with echo suppression features, but also with effective isolation from the acoustic or RF noise present in the external environment." Given these normal circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to say "anechoic chamber (soundproof room)" when you are looking for an anechoic chamber (soundproof room), as MacRae originally was.Davkal 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the screened room prevented nothing in the way of human contamination. According to MacRae's paper, there was a person inside the screened room at all times during the recordings who was connected to MacRae's "Alpha Unit", ostensibly used as a "medium" in an attempt to capture spirit communications. --- LuckyLouie 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae is not a reliable source
I believe that the MacRae study needs to be thrown out as it is not a reliable source. MacRae did all the work himself and did not allow any independent verification of his work at any stage of the game. Then he published his work in an unreliable journal. I will therefore remove MacRae from this article. --71.57.90.96 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your beliefs have no relevance. Where are your sources that Macrae's research is faulty, or didn't take place, or that the JSPR is not reputable. This is your positive claim - the burden of proof is now is on you and, to be be frank, your belief that it is so simply does not cut it.

(You see Milo, someone is now trying to pretend that no reasearch exists, and I told you we would go down that route again shortly.)Davkal 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Davkal, it is unbecoming of you to claim a consensus version when the page is under dispute. MacRae is unreliable according to WP:RS. Read it and weep. --71.57.90.96 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have it read it and Macrae's article passes it far better than many of the (pseudo)sceptical websites you cite. Davkal 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that the mainstream view is that the skeptical websites and sources I cite are far more reliable than the SPR's idiocy. In the balance of this situation, it is the pseudoscience advocates such as yourself which lose because the skeptical is more reliable, more ensconced in positions of power, and able to marginalize your perspective. Marginalize this perspective we will per WP:NPOV and the other pseudoscience policies and guidelines that keep Wikipedia a mainstream source rather than a place for promoting pseudoscience. --71.57.90.96 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, EVP counts as parapsychology. As Parapsychology is a science, we can tackle this using the mainstream of Parapsychology as our base rather than the mainstream of the rest of the world.


 * Besides, weight for WP:RS is based on their credibility and notability etc, not perspective. For example, my uncle X believes in bigfoot and my aunt Y doesn't, but he's an advertising exec and she's head of primatology at Chicago zoo, so she's more WP:RS than he is, even though she follows a fringe belief.


 * In short, being a believe or a skeptic doesn't make you more or less reliable.


 * perfectblue 13:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a skeptic makes you more reliable than those people who are promoting pseudoscience which has been documented to be notoriously unreliable. --71.57.90.96 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There IS NO CONSENSUS VERSION
Read consensus. We don't have a consensus version of this page. The page is disputed Stop claiming consensus where none exists. --71.57.90.96 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus, for certain parts of the page.Davkal 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No there isn't. Read consensus and then quote me chapter and verse where you have any evidence for consensus existing on the text you reverted. --71.57.90.96 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no interest in reading you chapter and verse of anything. Many passages have been agreed and you keep changing them. You are lso now on 3RR re this page - please stop inserting your POV.Davkal 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So the answer is you have no evidence and are just making it up as you go along. You are the one pushing your POV. The explanations for the textual changes are included here but you have not been able to respond to them. --71.57.90.96 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one bit of research exists
MacRae's nonsense and pseudoscientific contributions do not count as research, even if they were reviewed by his fellow pseudoscience afficionados at SPR. The only bit of research that comes close to the standards of actual reliablity is that of Baruss. --71.57.90.96 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How surprising that the JSE (which tallies with your view) should now be considered reputable when it is even more fringe than the JSPR. Macrae's research exists, and as the only pice of peer-reviewed literature we can definitiely find on the subject has to be included. Davkal 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JSE is not reputable, but it is more reputable than the pseudoscience rag JSPR. MacRae's research is not reliable. Its existence is inconsequential. --71.57.90.96 16:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Much is made of JSPR's claim of peer review. However, it is not peer-reviewed by mainstream experts but only by unreliable pseudoscience proponents of the paranormal. Therefore, its peer-review standards should not be confused with the normal standards of scientific journals or even the standards of JSE. --71.57.90.96 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for this.Davkal 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan and get back to me. --71.57.90.96 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is your evidence for this.Davkal 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is my evidence for the existence of Carl Sagan and his book about pseudoscientific thinking? Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. --71.57.90.96 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the JSPR peer-review process is deficient in the manner you suggest.Davkal 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Demon Haunted World. A book by Carl Sagan. Check it out. --71.57.90.96 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant sections here.Davkal 17:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will as soon as you cite the relevant sections which illustrate that you have a consensus version of this page. --71.57.90.96 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't really have any evidence do you.Davkal 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I have evidence, but you perhaps are frustrated because you don't like reading books. At least I had the decency to read the talkpage. Hmm.... --71.57.90.96 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of us frustrated by not living in the US, and thus not being able to access US public libraries.


 * perfectblue 08:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the evidence here if you have it.Davkal 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll consider citing it as soon as I see your evidence. I don't feel any obligation to you as your retisence on this talkpage has clearly been demonstrated by your inability or unwillingness to provide even a simple bit of evidence showing that a consensus version of this page exists. I suppose you could go to a library and look in the index of Sagan's book and read what he has to say about SPR, but that would be a stretch for you. In any case, this is not the article, so requests for citation are done as a courtesy not as a right. You cannot put a tag next to a point on a talkpage. I have been more than forthcoming with the rationale for dismissing MacRae's nonsense as unreliable. You have yet to provide independent verification of MacRae's research being reliable. Therefore I have no qualms about ignoring your pleas for a citation to Sagan's book. --71.57.90.96 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I give you a mailing address, can you purchase a copy and mail it out to those of us who don't live in the US. At you're expense of course. Alternatively, just quote.


 * perfectblue 08:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Macrae's evidence is published in a peer-review journal - that's all we need in order to discuss it in the article (with or without mentioning it's peer-review status). It is also a journal that CSI(COP) fellows publish research in and describe that research as "published in a peer-review" journal. Some of them aren't even dead yet.Davkal 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether SPR is peer-reviewed or not is hardly the issue because when the "peers" that review work are untrained buffoons like they are at SPR, there is no reason to take the publication seriously. Anybody can get nonsense published in the SPR's journal because their editorial board loves to publish work that backs up their belief in the paranormal. This has been shown time-and-again with this work where the papers they publish have been discredited and discounted throughout the years its been in existence from its first reports of ESP to its lack of critical review for MacRae's nonsense. What we need to discuss it in the article is some indication that JSPR is reliable enough to use as a source. As yet, you have provided no independent evaluation of JSPR as a reliable source. Therefore, we are right to exclude it. --71.57.90.96 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided evidence the SPR says its journal is peer reviewed, and evidence that CSI(COP) fellows refer to the journal as peer-reviewed. What type of extra evidence would you like now? And where is your evidence to the contrary - just throwing in words like buffoons and nonsense does not make your case here, it merely shows your dislike for the SPR. And that is not what is at issue here.Davkal 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who cares what SPR says it is? Anybody can "say" they are anything. That doesn't make that a reliable evaluation, it only makes it clear what they say they are. Who cares whether a CSICOP fellow refers to the journal as peer-reviewed? If the peers that review the journal are unworthy to provide cogent anaylsis on subjects related to critical evaluation, the peer-review itself is meaningless. My dislike for the SPR is as immaterial as your boot-licking approval of it: what is important is that JSPR is not a reliable source. --71.57.90.96 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, your point is: it doesn't matter how many sources we find saying the journal is peer-reviewed, or what those sources are; the journal is still not peer reviewed. Is that right?Davkal 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The peer-reviewed status of JSPR is meaningless because the "peers" who do the reviewing are not reliable. The journal is only peer-reviewed in the sense that members of SPR review the submissions. That is far different from peer-review at reputable journals. --71.57.90.96 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?Davkal 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the evidence is on the SPR's homepage where they explain the goals of the society are to promote the pseudoscience of parapsychology. --71.57.90.96 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not evidence about the peer-review process? It is also an obviously circular argument. Davkal 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is evidence about the peer-review process because the aim of the society and the journal influence the process. The argument is nowhere near circular, it's actually quite logical. If your goal is to promote parapsychology then you will favorably review articles which align with that goal. --71.57.90.96 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but paraspychology is merely the study of certain potentially paranormal phenomena. (And a number of major world universities now have parapsychology departments.) It is no more illegitimate than to have a society for promotes physics, or physiology. It also says nothing whatsoever about the peer-review process.Davkal 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever the masked man is who said "MacRae did all the work himself and did not allow any independent verification of his work at any stage of the game. Then he published his work in an unreliable journal." You are making statements that are probably not knowable in the public media. In fact, MacRae works with a team of people in Scotland and used people around the world for the actual analysis of the material. He uses a doctorate in South Africa as a judge for the experiment.


 * This last flurry of comments from you are unsupported, libelous and verge on disrupting Wikipedia. It is way beyond yours or my capability to say whether or not Carroll or I have a better reputation. I have a substantial presence in my field, but I can see no way of measuring my reputation against other researchers, especially in other fields. You have no way either, so your comment is baseless. It is even more baseless when you discredit yourself by using terms like "untrained buffoons."


 * Carl Sagan was an astronomer. How is it that you think he was qualified to address things electronic or psi research? This is the same argument you are now using about the peer review process of the SPR. In fact, you are clearly not capable of participating in an informed consensus on this page and I must ask you to stop disrupting this discussion.


 * And by the way, "more ensconced in positions of power, and able to marginalizes your perspective" is a clear threat to bully your way to victory. Wikipedia is not based on majority rule, but on real citations. As it stands now. The Skeptdic citation is a pretty sad source.  Tom Butler 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be useful info to have about MacRae. Is it published somewhere?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Moses brought it down from Mt. Sinai Milo so we probably won't be able to use it.Davkal

Re the JSPR, here is what is said about the SPR on the University of Edinburgh Website: the SPR publishes "scholarly reports of a high standard, including the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research." It is also worth noting that amongst all the organisations involved with paranormal research listed on the Edinburgh University webiste (including the SSE which publishes the JSE) the (J)SPR is the only one that is praised in this way ("scholarly reports of a high standard"). But why should we believe one of the oldest and most respected academic institutions in the world when we can get the full story from User:71.57.90.96. Davkal 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Macrae is not such a good self-publicist. See the Appendix by Charl Vorster http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/aa.htm Vorster is his man in Africa.  Tom Butler 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the consensus issue: Milo said, "Nobody is pretending that research doesn't exist.". What this means is that nobody is disputing the fact the MacRae's research should be in the article - that was what was being referred to. And if nobody is disputing it, it's a consensus. Now let us hear from Sagan.Davkal 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What it means is what it says - I'd appreciate if you didn't "interpret" my words for me. That said, I think it's fine to include some mention of MacRae in the article, I just think it needs to be presented in the context of what it actually is.  One study published in a specialist publication, written by a guy with unproven credentials, and not replicated by others.  It's of historical interest, but it's certianly doesn't prove much of anything on its own.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your point agrees entirely with my interretation - that Macrae has a place in the article. That's all I'm saying here. And given that you think this, where are your comments to 71.57.90.96 about removing Macrae entirely.Davkal 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Milo, you said, "One study published in a specialist publication, written by a guy with unproven credentials, and not replicated by others." I know you mean not replicated by a doctor of physics from Stanford, but the simple fact is that MacRae does good science, he has a strong background in science and his experiment has been replicated by others, albeit in different way and not published in psi or physical science journals. The technology is simple and the techniques required to assure no stray RF, sound or imagined voices are easily replicated.


 * What is at issue here is how you all are going to express the concept of EVP without saying more than you know. Since all of the evidence can only be allowed as "some guy" "unreliable" alleged" and such, while the skeptical view is stated as if by accepted authority, we are not going to arrive at agreement for this article in the foreseeable future. To begin with, I resent the notion that the opinion of someone like Carroll is regarded higher than the reported research. If I resent it, you can expect others to as well. Meanwhile, the rules of Wikipedia encourages rabid skepticism, and any hint that EVP might be demonstrable will cause attacks.


 * Actually, "consensus" is probably a misnomer here. We represent only those who are addressing the subject today. As that mystery person illustrates, and the recent round of rapid fire editing by passing editors who do frequent the page make so painfully clear, a consensus is a practical impossibility. Any we think we have had has been short lived. One only lasted a few hours.


 * As some have suggested, the best we can hope to do is write an article that is as simple and to the point as possible, so as to leave little room for quibbling. EVP is define as:=== EVP, a very short history leaving showing only Jürgenson and Raudive, the two who are credited with bring EVP to the public, the theories and the media. I would personally leave out the theories and media because they are in flux.  Tom Butler 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the rules of Wikipedia support Carroll, or skeptical opinions over peer-review. Carroll's is a personal website by a single author promoting his own book.  His must be regarded as only one opinion, heavily biased, and not peer-reviewed.  We can take a strong stand on this.  The peer-reviewed sources are the ones we must follow, and skepdic.com can be brought in tangentially for a single skeptic's opinion.
 * Skeptic's dictionary isn't over peer reviewed sources. We have a couple peer reviewed sources that editors have concerns about, and we have a bunch of other sources.  Many of the sources have the same issues you bring up with SD, which is why they are mainly citing statements about what various people have said.  There simply aren't many top-notch sources, being a fringe topic, so we write the artice with what is available.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Carroll is to "sceptic" what pseudoscience is to science. That is, his status as a sceptic is disputed and many call him a pseudosceptic. A word like "alleged" must preceed "sceptic" anytime Carrols's views are cited for exactly the same reason you won't allow the use of the word "scientific" before the JSPR. Also, in this case, the discrepancy is far stronger and more easily demonstrable. For example, Carroll has no scientific training whatsoever and yet aligns himslef with something called "scientific scepticism" when the very definition of pseudoscinece is non-science/scientists pretending it is/they are science/scientists. I can think of no more glaring example of pseudoscience than Carroll's website which, if it is to be believed, would suggest he has a PhD in every scientific discipline known to man, where in fact he has none.Davkal 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Philosopher Robert Todd Carroll says..." and quote. How about presenting it that way?  As long as it's not undue weight (tough to assess with fringe-ish topics, and I don't mean "fringe" as a pejorative, but just referring to stuff that doesn't have lots of ATT-ish, secondary sources).  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we scrap Carrol all together and simply cite his sources directly. They are likely more notable and WP:RS than he is?


 * perfectblue 09:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, if true re his sources. Jim Butler(talk) 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Carroll's sources! Those I can't wait to see.Davkal 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Carroll is plainly more reliable than any of the EVP-researchers who are all underqualified and untrained by the academy to do the work they purport to be able to do. Those who dispute this can read the qualifications for reliable sources. Carroll's critique of EVP-charlatans will feature prominently in this article, like it or not. --71.57.90.96 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Carroll has a PhD in philosophy. There is no scientific training involved in getting such a degree. Carroll's website promotes whatever Carroll feels like saying and has no checks or balances whatsoever. Any comments by Carroll, then, should be attributed to Carroll. And since Carroll's status as a scientific sceptic has been questioned, we shouldn't automatically assume that he is one and describe him as such without qualification.Davkal 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there is no science in EVP, the level of training Carroll has in scientific matters is irrelevant. We can attribute to Carroll his comments, with that I have no problem. If Carroll's status as a skeptic has been questioned by other skeptics, then that would be something, but if his status is questioned by the charlatans who he is pointing out are charlatans, then that would just further his reliabiliy in the matter. --71.57.90.96 15:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

His status is questioned by many noted academics (some even have actual scientific credentials). And, given that Carroll sets himself up as, amongst other things, an arbitrer of good and bad (no) science it seems he should have some formal training in the matter.15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, "but if his status is questioned by the charlatans who he is pointing out are charlatans, then that would just further his reliabiliy in the matter". Now you're just opening your mouth and letting any old thing come out (much like Carroll).Davkal 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first point is just plain false. No "noted academic" has directly criticized Carroll over his evaluation of EVP. Carroll sets himself up as an arbitrator of good and bad methodology which is a philosophical point; one he is totally qualified to judge. --71.57.90.96 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your second point is silly. When people who are criticized try to discredit the person criticizing them, it only makes the person criticizing them more reliable and notable in that criticism. Discrediting a source is properly done by neutral third parties. --71.57.90.96 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say a noted academic had criticised Carroll over his speculations on EVP. I said they had criticised Carroll for his pseudosceptical take on things. Also, he sets hinslef up as a judge of good and bad science and has no formal training to do any such thing.

Third party sources have criticised Carroll.

Your second point is surely a joke. It is normal practice for people to respond to criticism, and the validity of any criticism cannot by measured by the intensity, or presence, of the reponse.Davkal 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to find a criticism of Carroll for his methodology in the sense he is relevant to this article has failed. Therefore, we are left no other option but to conclude that your obstructionism is because of your continued POV-pushing. You haven't referred to any substantive criticism that would affect the article itself, so I must conclude that you are upset because Carroll really upsets you with his criticism of your pet ideas. More than this, when people respond to criticism its because they think it worthy of response. That makes the criticism notable and definitely worthy of inclusion. Trying to hide behind pseudoskepticism as a defense is not going to go very far. --71.57.90.96 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

General question
I have a question that isn't directly related to the article, but is related to EVP, and will help me understand the subject better. Has anyone performed Macrae's signal processing (emphasizing and filtering certain frequencies so as to emphasis voice-like sounds) on plain old white noise? And tried to see if it's not possible to perceive phrases, and for people to agree on what they hear? Reminds me of monkeys at a typewriter or playing songs backwards. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Macrae used some commercial hardware/software that I don't personally have, but from my own experience with audio manipulation using different software/hardware (primarily salvaging audio tracks with a lot of hiss/noise, and modifying actual human speech for aesthetic purposes), I can tell you that you would have preform "extensive modifications" on white noise in order to make it resemble speech.


 * In order to "accidentally" do what you are suggesting, you would need would need a track with a lot of "clicks and pops" (pure white noise won't do any good. Any competent noise reduction system basically aims to turn white noise into silence, you'd need additional non white interference too), you would then need tune out as many of the random frequencies as you can you can and then boost the remaining "core" frequencies and bring them together (make them sound more alike). The "clicks and pops" would then become the voices or whatever it was that you want to call them. However, in a screened room there shouldn't be too many of them, and if he used broadcast quality equipment there would be none.


 * In my opinion, as a researcher, but not a parapsychologist, I think that a lot of EVP are the result of people turning the volume up on cheap tape recorders and then doing the above. With the volume right up on the mic even a small sound, like the rustling of your clothes, the sound of your breathing, or the sound of timbers creaking, could become a click or a pop, and if its a cheap tape recorder, turning the volume up will make it more vulnerable to picking up noise that it itself generates (we've all had a cheap pair of headphones where they crackly if you twist the plug in the socket a bit, haven't we, well, its the same with a cheap microphone). Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm not going to claim to have WP:RS for it.


 * perfectblue 12:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the many problems with MacRae's experiment is that he didn't use white noise as a control. It's probably that he doesn't even know what white noise is from a signal processing sense. JSPR doesn't care about oversight like that, it's not a scientific journal. --71.57.90.96 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 06:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Spurious and contentious references
How many of the references in this article are unreliable? Well, I clicked the first one out of curiosity. The one which is ''EVP Question Time. Fortean Times. Retrieved on December 1, 2006.''

The article still exists in the Fortean Times but is no more than the equivalent of a bulletin board system or blog neither of which would be reliable sources.

Is this the part which was meant to imply longer segments have been reported? Quote:"Very often we'll hear short bursts of EVP, presumably due to the method by which they were made, but we often get long, detailed sentences, sometimes they don't shut up!, but these are usually not Class A voices and too weak to be played for anyone other than the researcher."

"... too weak to be played for anyone other than the researcher."??? As in "only I can hear the voices no one else can"? Candy 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is an interview with an EVP researcher (Tina Laurent). Only the questions (not the answers) are drawn from the Fortean Times message board and their inclusion in the article as questions are, presumably, decided upon by someone at Fortean Times. What we have, then, in effect, is an interview with an EVP researcher which, for basic details about the phenomenon such as typical length etc. seems reasonably appropriate. Also, the fact that EVP are typically short although occasionally longer is not contentious in the least. We also qualify the sentence in quetion with "alleged examples of EVP..." so I don't see what anyone's problem would be. Is anyone now disputing that the point is correct.Davkal 14:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the Fortean Times should be considered a reliable third-party source for such an interview. --71.57.90.96 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For basic information on paranormal issues it is a pefectly reasonable source.Davkal 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And for evaluative information it is completely unreliable. --71.57.90.96 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evaluative information sourced to Fortean Times?Davkal 15:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote listed by Candy is evaluating "voices" in fashions that are completely unreliable. --71.57.90.96 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, it is used in the article as a simple decsription of the length of alleged examples of EVP.Davkal 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple description is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. See above. --71.57.90.96 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, see elsewhere.Davkal 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now, I guess your lack of a direct quote is more compelling than Candy's direct quote? Hmm. --71.57.90.96 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read - in the article the Fortean Times is not used as a source for evaluative statements. The point iot is used for is also so uncontentious a fact (that EVP are mainly the legnth of short words or phrases but are sometimes longer) that quibbling here appears to have very little purpose other than disruption.Davkal 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that claiming anything about EVP is contentious and the source needs to be neutral. Arguing over the length of words is silly when the words themselves don't exist. --71.57.90.96 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on where you look, it's not difficult to find references to proponents claiming they have recorded lengthy EVP's, such as where Sarah Estep presented a one minute EVP containing music thought to have been originated by Ludwig Beethoven. But this brings up a larger question regarding how this article is to be written: I'm not sure you can treat EVP on an equal basis as observable phenomenon (such as gravity) as it seems to be a mixture of religion, belief, and fringe science. --- LuckyLouie 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue you raise about how to write the article is reasonable, but the issue about length is not a big deal. All I am trying to do here is give readers an indication of what type of thing is being discussed. In that respect the wording as it is now (on that particular point) seems uncontroversial. If you look at all the examples of EVP you can find, almost all will be the length of single words or short phrase although occasionally (as on, e.g, the Ghost Orchid CD) longer examples will be offered.Davkal 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for 71.57.90.96, of course the words exist. You're not suggesting someone goes to the trouble of hoaxing white noise that merely sounds like a voice when they can just speak into the microphone (also think of what the stray radio broadcast scenario entails - voices again).Davkal 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom Butler admitted to as much above, Davkal. --71.57.90.96 11:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae's study is horrible from a methodological standpoint and should be excluded from this article
MacRae's study is so ridiculous that it takes as an assumption that EVP exists. The only thing MacRae is trying to do is see if different people will pick the "right answer" from a list of possible voice interpretations of noise. He did not include: "white noise" or "no voice" as an option. Even if he did, the study would be seriously flawed from a control standpoint, but this study is so fraught with innuendo and error it doesn't belong mentioned in the article as anything more than a sad excuse for a research project conducted by a third-rate investigator from the IONS center. --71.57.90.96 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not from the IONS centre, that's just where he found a suitable room in which to conduct his controlled scientific experiment. Davkal 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he would certainly fit in with those freaks in his investigations of the fifth dimension! You have to have some affiliation in order to use their rooms. It's no accident that he didn't use, say, a university. --71.57.90.96 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but it's still wrong. As is almost everything you have said so far.Davkal 15:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your Macrae edits.... Who cares, they'll be gone soon.Davkal 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the report on what MacRae did to make it clear to the reader how bone-headed his work really is:


 * He assumed that EVP were captured. That's a pretty bald assumption in his work.
 * He did not control his study.
 * His respondents were given leading questions as a way to provide the confirmation he desired.
 * He is a practiced self-aggrandizer and quite possibly delusional as can be seen from the ridiculously passionate prose.
 * He clearly has never learned anything of experiment design nor does he have familiarity with basic procedures.
 * There was no independent verification attempted, he believes in himself so much that nothing will dissuade him from reaching the conclusion he sets out to reach.

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of reporting such a terrible piece of garbage. We wouldn't accept this kind of work from a high-school student, why should MacRae's idiocy recieve any billing whatsoever in this article? What possible justification is there?

--71.57.90.96 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Butler responds

 * Jim Butler, the experiment you described has been conducted many times, as it is one of our concerns that

processing artifacts are always a concern and various experimenters have conducted such experiments to determine how much of a problem they really are. Faking EVP is pretty hard, although certainly it is done--almost always by people like our masked complainer trying to trip us up. Processing any steady-state noise gives us a steady-state result. Where we run into trouble is when someone will amplify a flat-line signal so much that they begin to make ground artifacts hearable. That is when they begin to see broadcast radio contamination. Our standing recommendation is to use no more than 15 to 20 db gain and to always go back to the raw signal, and if the "discovered" utterance cannot be heard, to discard the recording.


 * Perfectblue, we have top grade equipment available to us, and in fact, several of our members are well-trained sound engineers. We use cheap equipment because of the internal sound they produce. EVP are formed of ambient sound, and while high quality equipment will in principle work for EVP, some external sound usually needs to be added.


 * Masked man with no name, please stick to the merits of the subject and not to personalities and stop saying things you cannot possibly know. Your use of derogative is cheapening this whole discussion. Tom Butler 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

''We use cheap equipment because of the internal sound they produce. EVP are formed of ambient sound, and while high quality equipment will in principle work for EVP, some external sound usually needs to be added.'' -- That's quite an admission. "We use bad equipment because we need to get results." Riiight. --71.57.90.96 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A related question. I have seen no reference to anomalous voices being formed of ambient sound in the journals of actual audio and signal processing professional bodies such as Audio_Engineering_Society or IEEE. If anomalous voices are indeed popping up on consumer and pro grade recording devices, these are the people that would know about it. --- LuckyLouie 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Luckylouie, I have no documentation on this, but "unexpected sounds" thought to be EVP were reported to us by a local videographer who knew to look for EVP. He was using a studio quality camera for a television reporter and recorded examples on at least three occasions that we know of. One of the videographer recording us for Universal also reported an EVP.


 * If you think about it, you might see that a sound man for the media might be reluctant to announce the recording of an EVP unless he or she is involved in the study because of the guarantee of ridicule. We do have people using very good audio equipment with a little success, but a second point is that quality audio equipment is designed to reduce all sound but that which is introduced at the input. EVP are thought to be formed in the electronic circuit as a transformation of available audio frequency energy. If there is no such energy (noise), then the next available source is the recorded music or voice, and those are generally (not always) too strong signal to be affected by the weak EVP influence. The hypothesis is that stochastic resonance is the active physical process. Last, most EVP are not Class A, but are small bits of intelligible sound. They are usually considered contamination and filtered or clipped out of the track.


 * And as an aside, the reason we consider Baruss' experiment so poorly designed is that he recorded so many hours and probably listened to them as a continuous stream looking for strong voices. It takes us around a half-hour to listen to a two minute recording. I would wager that one of our members could find all sorts of EVP in his recordings because they know to use a headset and examine every little bit of noise. The formation of EVP is energy limited and the resulting voices are very seldom loud enough to clearly make out. That listening experiment I just conducted makes that pretty obvious.   Tom Butler 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re IEEE and AES. You misunderstand. I was not referring to anecdotal tales (and paranoid speculation that soundmen and videographers do not report EVP for fear of ridicule) or to film and video tradesmen's unions such as IATSE or NABET. I was talking about EVP (or any "unknown" anomalous sounds) being reported or discussed in the decades-old records of authoritative technical journals such as http://www.aes.org/journal/sample_issue/ or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp  These are the technical journals of the professional organizations who focus specifically on audio electronics. --- LuckyLouie 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your tone with, "paranoid speculation." I made an honest attempt to give you an honest answer to what I have. I do not review those journals and do not know whether or not they comment on EVP. Evidently you do so I gather your question was rhetorical and it seems it irritated you that I offered any answer at all.

Perhaps the best thing to say is that I have nothing to tell you that would change your mind so please stop tossing out these innuendo-laden remarks. I am beginning to see them as a personal attack. We still have the option of deleting the entry or are you afraid you will lose such a public platform to espouse your conservative skeptical views? Tom Butler 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not trying to embarrass you. Just looking for authoritative sources about EVP. You said,  " I am an engineer and an author from the corporate/technical world " so I assumed you were familiar with the concept of engineering/technical journals. --- LuckyLouie 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Embarras? That should not be a factor in this discussion. The facts are what they are. Like the masked man's comment about my interesting admission that we use cheap recorders on purpose. That is a statement of fact that has always been on the table. Admission "implies" hiding and my screen name should tell you that I am not in the habit of hiding things.


 * Once again, you have no foundation for assuming anything, as the corporate world is a big place and I spent the bulk of my time in communications with network management and DOD.  Tom Butler 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The formation of EVP is energy limited and the resulting voices are very seldom loud enough to clearly make out. -- in other words, EVP researchers like Tom spend all their time analyzing noise. Might be something worth including in the article. --71.57.90.96 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"single blind trial"
I'd appreciate a reference for the "single blind" claim. The MacRae document only uses the term "blind" in reference to sending the email blind carbon copy. There's no mention of the listening test being a blind trial, single or otherwise. Please provide the specific mention in the source text, otherwise the term needs to come out. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, it wasn't blind because there was no control. --71.57.90.96 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Raudive Experiment
"In 1971, the book’s English publisher, Colin Smythe, arranged scientific tests of Raudive’s work, overseen by acoustics experts and recording engineers from Pye records, in which four tape recorders were shielded from radio interference and left recording for 18 minutes. The assembled listeners heard nothing while monitoring the recording through headphones, but on playback, some 200 voices were heard.["http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/194_evp1.shtml] (and please note that this is not the source used in the article)

Now, if there are sources that say the people involved at PYE were paranormal investigators, or paranormal believers, or whatever, rather than merely observers, let's have them.Davkal 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, it there are source that say the people involved at PYE were the ones listening to the recordings, let's have them. --71.57.90.96 12:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not stating explicitly in the article who the observers were. You are. It is therefore your responsibility to find a source that says, paranormal believers, or paranormal researchers, or Raudive's team. The quote above makes it clear, I think, that the obsrevers were simply the people at PYE and the peeople from Clin Smythe publishing but it is not stated explicitly so observers is a fairly neutral desription for an assembled group who observed.Davkal 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Fortean Times at about the same level of integrity as The Sunbday Sport or National Enquirer? It should be avoided as a suitable source imo. Candy 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, but please also note that I said above "and please note that this is not the source used in the article" it is merely a report of the original source cited in the article. None of this matters though, because there is no source to suggest anything like what 71.57.90.96 is assuming - that they were paranormal believers (spoooooky), or raudive's team (whatever that means), or paranormal investigators by dint of anything more than their being present during a paranormal investigation, or that "Those who don't believe in the paranormal were not asked". All this is just made up nonsense.Davkal 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to stick to a discussion Davkal. The sockpuppet accusation is not relevant here. No it's not is not an explanation why you think it is. Please expand on your thoughts. Candy 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We have no sources for the alternative views that 71.57.90.96 wants to include. They are just his imaginings. Given that we already have a source in the article where "observers" was the chosen term (I don't have access to that source) and it was like that for ages before 71.57.90.96 changed it, and given that "observer" is neutral with respect to who the observers were and will be true of any observers whatever their leanings, it seems reasonable to leave it at that.

2. The Fortean times quote is simply meant to illustrate/support the point already in the article from another source and as such suggests that 71.57.90.96 might have got it wrong.

3. The Fortean Times is a fairly reliable source inasmuch for simple reporting as it doesn't make anything up itself. In this respect it is very diffferent from the Sunday Sport and National Enquirer which, as everybody knows, simply make up stories of a sensational nature for entertainment value.

Anyway, much of this is irrelevant. We have a source in the article already that said "observer" and given the 3 different ways 71.57.90.96 kept changing the wording it is clear he is not working from that source or any other other than his own wild imaginings. Once again, "observer" is neutral and true whoever observed, and since that is what the article originally said, that is what it should go back to, pending some evidence that it is wrong or misleading .Davkal 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow
I go away for a weekend and when I get back, all of my Talk page contributions have been archived - and not through censorship but because of the huge amount of yada that intervened.

I have two points that I'd like to make.

For anyone who thinks this is a good argument... ...might I suggest you consider this counter-example... It should be clear that the error inherent in this apparently logical deduction lies in the redefinition of a term partway through: 'peer-review journal' in the first example, and 'nothing' in the second example.
 * Scientific research must be published in a peer-review journal.
 * Macrae's evidence is published in a peer-review journal
 * that's all we need in order to discuss it in the article
 * Nothing is better than complete happiness.
 * A ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing.
 * Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness.

Secondly, the Baruss paper is noticeably of higher quality than the MacRae one, by the standards of a scientific research paper. For example, Baruss begins with a review of the scientific literature, goes on to describe his methodology, details his results, and comes to a conclusion where he goes so far as to comment that "there are no results to explain" - a clear indication that he at least understands the form a scientific report should take. MacRae, on the other hand, cannot get past the introduction before he indulges in what, if it appeared here, would be edited out as "blatant POV-pushing."

Just to be clear: I am not opposed to including MacRae's work in this article, provided the article makes clear the distincion between it and a scientific research paper published in a peer-reviewed scitific journal - but, short of a secondary source that evaluates these papers, we may not be able to do so without commiting a WP:SYN.

SheffieldSteel 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. We should mention both papers, but we need to be careful that we don't write the article in such a way that it sounds like either is the definitive word on the topic.  Nor should we assume that peer review is a guarantee that the conclusions in those articles are anything more than the conclusions of those who wrote them.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not very well said I'm afraid. There are some other differences between the two arguments. The first is invalid in that there are possible circumstances in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. This is caused (in this particular case) by having nothing remotely like the premises in the conclusion. Once you sort that out in your example, however, you are probably also going to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If A then B, B, therefore A. And this is before we even get to the issue of equivocation. Try this though:

(p1)If a source is peer-reviewed then it meets Wiki:RS

(p2)JSPR is peer-reviewed

(c) JSPR meets Wiki:RS.Davkal 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that peer review by itself automatically makes any source Reliable. At least WP:ATT doesn't seem to say that.  Peer review is one indicator, but we shouldn't follow it blindly.  Also, could you please indent your replies?  Trying to read this page is a nightmare.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a little amazed that more comments are not addressed at the conduct of this unknown editor. Is it that he is speaking for all of the skeptics? If so, then you are all being shamed by his comments and disregard for fact. The one I like is, "Tom Butler admitted to as much above, Davkal." I did not say anything of the sort, but using "admitted as much," he manages to make a nonfact sound like reality. He is doing this in the article apparently with your blessing.


 * Milo, you said, "Nor should we assume that peer review is a guarantee that the conclusions in those articles are anything more than the conclusions of those who wrote them." No journal, not even your beloved mainstream science journals can make such a guarantee. Since the researcher is the one who conducted the study, we certainly want his or her conclusions and not those of a jury. MacRae used well qualified people to make sure his protocol was scientifically sound and his conclusions were supported by the research. Either us the report at face value or delete it, but stop trying to put your assumptions into the article.


 * Baruss conducted a technically flawed study. He is a college professor and is paid to know how to write a scholastic looking paper. You are elevating style over function. Our goal is to teach the reader about EVP. Keep in mind that readers will be reading other sources and are probably more able to make up their mind than you give credit. Using terms like paranormal believer is pretty obviously designed to bias readers and in the long run will only invite more edit wars.  Tom Butler 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Milo's point: WP:ATT says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." I think both clauses should be noted. Davkal 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliability is and always has been the issue here. Most of the paranormal sources are not reliable. --ScienceApologist 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds just like somebody else I know.Davkal 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense bit
I just had to remove this bit.

"EVP has not been considered or accepted by the mainstream scientific community"

It has been edited round and around and still there is no chance, apparently, of getting a consensus. I think the article is better off without it. As it stands, the sentence seems to imply that the lack of published research is somehow the fault of the mainstream scientific community. This is only true insofar as the scientific method (a) precludes anything where investigation of the cause gets as far as "spirits or aliens" and stops (b) requires higher standards of objectivity and intellectual rigour in its research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SheffieldSteel (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Re aliens: SETI not a scientifc projects then? Re nonsense: I don't see why it's nonsense and comes stright out of Wiki guidlines.Davkal 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Are you hoping that the mainstream scientific community will one day "accept" that paranormal sources are responsible for the observed pheonomena, i.e. that EVP - per your definition - exists? As I have said before, I do not see how that could ever happen given the methods and principles of scientific research. Scientific research on the subject may either confirm a hypothetical mechanism within the bounds of defined knowledge of the natural world, or it may extend the bounds of that knowledge. It will not under any circumstances conclude that the observations are due to supernatural causes. The scientific approach will always dictate a search for natural causes.


 * Science researches, hypothesises, theorises, predicts, confirms or refutes. It neither considers nor accepts. SheffieldSteel 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for that scientific community phrase being wiped exactly for the reason you say Sheffield.

To davkal. SETI is a scientific project. This has nothing to do with the "alines" that Sheffield is talking about and I think you know that. Candy 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Which aliens are seti looking for. The real ones, whereas EVP reserachers are speculating about the unreal ones. I get it.Davkal 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re SS's final point: so when science is researching, hypothesising, theorising and predicting, it is not considering in the slightest. And when science confirms something it doesn't accept it in any sense. As Blackadder put it: you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.Davkal 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Science has not considered EVP. Science has not accepted EVP. Science has not purchased or subscribed to EVP. Science has not disproved or adopted EVP. Science has not respected or cooked a meal for EVP. Science has not been returning EVP's calls.


 * Although arguably all true, I don't think the article needs to contain any of the above statements, because there is no reasonable ground for expecting science to do any of these things.


 * I really don't know how much clearer I can be on the subject. SheffieldSteel 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, we wouldn't want science to investigate the world around us.Davkal 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment is not helpful to the discussion. Please stop this kind of advocacy. --ScienceApologist 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And your comments are always so pertinent and helpful.Davkal 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's nice to see some acknowledgement of this from those who disagree with me. --ScienceApologist 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion on MacRae
According to (http://www.lulu.com/EVP) and (http://www.skyelab.co.uk/)


 * (Mr. Alexander MacRae, Owner, Skyelab) "Welcome To Skyelab: Researching The Fifth Dimension Through EVP"

According to http://aaevp.com/research/research_grants.htm MacRae's "research" is commissioned by life-after-death proponent foundations. It is clearly not objective research. Here is how the AA-EVP explains MacRae's use of a "listening panel" to confirm if a sound is an EVP response or not:


 * "We already know there are responses, but to prove it to the scientific community we have to go through this sort of thing."

And please note that he approaches his "work" with the assumption that EVP are otherworldy "entities"...


 *  "Alec tells us that the entities are starting to learn the procedure and are giving answers just before or at the same time as the question is asked. On a couple of occasions Alec wrote that they "reversed the situation and asked me the question instead!" 

How about this one, http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/aa.htm "A Bio-electromagnetic Device of Unusual Properties" where MacRae hooked up people to a device he created called ("The Alpha Unit") which used random galvanic skin responses triggering electronic noise generators to produce "anomalous sounds" -- which he then interpreted as speech. All this was apparently an effort to evaluate people and technology "for mediumistic abilities". (That's "mediums" as in "psychic mediums", by the way.)

To those who believe in this stuff, I am sorry to be blunt. MacRae's activities are clearly pseudoscience, fringe science, junk science, call it what you want. Wikipedia has no business presenting it as something it's not. MacRae's work must not be confused with legitimate science. I agree with SheffieldSteel, I am not opposed to including MacRae's work in this article, provided the article makes a VERY CLEAR distinction between it and a scientific research paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. --- LuckyLouie 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LuckyLouie, Baruss and MacRae are equally flawed but in different areas. One is very well trained specifically in electronics, speech analysis/recognition and in the idiosyncrasies of EVP and Baruss is trained in research and writing. His psychology degree has nothing to do with EVP.


 * The phrase about science not studying EVP can be removed but it was added in the first place because the article implied that science had rejected EVP when in fact science has not considered it. If you can write it in a way that explicitly state that science has not accepted or rejected EVP but does reject anything considered supernatural, that would work for me.


 * You all insisted on having this article because you said EVP was too much a part of the culture to ignore. I have asked that you reduce it to the basic "This is EVP" article and skip all of the rest. However, if you insist on including it, you must state the evidence as it is written. You can state the source and you can state opposing opinion, but this nonsense about science does not study supernatural subjects is purely the skeptic platform and has no place here. Science studies nature and EVP exists in nature. There is nothing supernatural about it. It is just unexplained.


 * Surely you can compose this article without glorifying any of the parties or opinions. Just state the simple facts and stop.


 * I really don't know how much clearer I can be on the subject. :-) Tom Butler 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * EVP exists in nature. this is plainly not a fact. I believe that all editors must acknowledge this in order for us to move forward. --ScienceApologist 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * EVP is easily and often demonstrated to exist in nature. But that is not the point I have been trying to make. You cannot use this article to prove EVP does not exist, nor can you use it to convince others that it does not exist. Enlisting the help of science is point of view pushing unless you can show us studies by qualified scientists showing that EVP does not exist. I will be happy to provide the protocol if you can find a scientist.


 * Once again, the only way we are going to stabilize this article is to simplify it.


 * Considering your actions, I think it is time for you to take another vacation. Tom Butler 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, SA. No doubt you do.  Because if everyone says it is a known fact that they don't exist in nature, then you get to say exactly what you want.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You both have completely missed my point. The existence of EVP "in nature" or anywhere else is simply not a fact. If you don't come to terms with this, you will both end up under censure. I'm speaking from experience here. See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience paying close attention to the article bans and probations. --ScienceApologist 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, original research, self-published material, fringe material and so on are considered unacceptable or at best, unreliable. I know that and that is why I have asked for deletion. Based on Wikipedia's rule, you cannot fairly explain EVP so long as you insist on equating skeptical beliefs/hopes with what little research there is.

Milo, the points I am making are valid, just not allowed by your interpretation of Wikipedia. The ethical thing to do is to delete the subject. Tom Butler 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not up to you or me or any one editor or group of editors whether this subject gets deleted. It is a community decision based on consensus. You are free to offer up the article to officially request deletion again if you think you have a case, but imploring us to delete the article will not have the effect you are looking for. What is clear is that the controversial nature of EVP makes its existence questionable. A good NPOV article will make this clear and also make clear its marginalization. --ScienceApologist 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that it is a conflict of interest for Tom to edit the article per WP:COI, his opinions and advocacy of EVP hold no weight for me on this Talk page. I offer my opinion in response to ScienceApologist's wish to move forward: there is no evidence that EVP as defined by proponents exists in Nature. --- LuckyLouie 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no on is missing you point, SA. Your point is only your POV, and though you, as Tom (re Milo's message to Tom) have a right to it, it has absolutely no place in the article (though it is fine on the talk page).  Leave it behind.  This disruptive editing of yours has not changed the article; it will not change the article; the article will not be POV; the article will be NPOV.  This is Wikipedia.

Just use a sock Tom - it's all the rage. Then you can edit without any threat of COI.Davkal 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it hadn't occurred to him. I think he has found himself to decent for that.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Though personally I think it would be fine, as one of the legitimate reasons for using a sock puppet is to avoid harassment.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop going after Tom for COI. He as a perfect right to edit the article.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To some extent, Martin, every point on the talkpage is "only" someone's POV. All editors explicitly acknowledge this by signing their contributions. However, this is completely beside the point. The issue is what are the policies and past-precedents for Wikipedia and how do we deal with the issues specific to this page. One of the issues we need to deal with is that a number of editors do not want to admit that it is not a fact that EVP exists in nature. This is a problem because if editors such as yourself will not acknowledge that other perspectives exist, there can be no going forward with normal editting procedures and we will quickly find ourselves in more elevated levels of dispute resolution. Arbitration is very unpleasant and I would like to avoid it, but if you, Davkal, and Tom Butler continue to resist the efforts of the other editors, there may be no other course. It is frankly not true that the edits of myself or any other editors (disruptive being entirely subjective here) has not "changed" the article. The article right now is very different from what it looked like when I first got here. This is most certainly due to my contributions as well as the contributions of others. And yes, the article will end up being NPOV. That's non-negotiable. However, you are not the arbiter of NPOV. Neither am I. Neither is any one editor. However, according to the standards of attribution there is a level of incredulity towards the sources you prefer and an increased level of credulity towards mainstream opinions. This is a plain fact of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will find that you can exist harmoniously at Wikipedia.


 * In terms of conflict of interest concerns, Tom should refrain from editting the article, but I see no problem with him contributing his opinions on the talkpage.


 * --ScienceApologist 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) One solution that might offer a way forward is to change the definition of EVP that the article presents. This would allow the tone of the article to be more moderate. If, rather than defining EVP as (essentially) paranormal voices, we define it as (essentially) unexplained sounds - and there should be room for us to agree a form of words there - I think perhaps we open the door for looking at the subject from a more constructive angle. For example, the debate between psychics / pseudo - skeptics / scientists becomes, not a question of "is this something real or something alleged to exist?" but one of, "what is the nature of this phenomenon?"

SheffieldSteel 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but this has been discussed many times before and very few people want to use such a defintion and one (LuckyLouie) is very much against it.Davkal 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, unexplained sounds. Gives me chills. Last time we tried that angle, the article became extremely paranormally-slanted. --- LuckyLouie 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
I've put in a request for mediation. I don't see how we can proceed any other way. It is clear now that a number of editors are intent on inserting their POV without any thought to the policies they cite freely in their criticism of others. One example, "Raudive's team" is now in the article to desribe the observers of the voices in the PYE experiment. No source for this change has been provided, and the sources we do have do not support it in any way. Nonetheless this has changed from the neutral "observers" to "paranormal believers", and then to "paranormal researchers" and finally to "Raudive's team", and it is clear that all three are simply unsourced POV speculation inserted in an attempt to slant that part of the article in line with certain editors' views.Davkal 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Observers is non-neutral in that observation is a very scientific term that is in dispute about EVP. The term also has connontations of scientific control that should be avoided when dealing with EVP-research that wasn't subject to even the meanest sense of this concept. It's pretty clear from the sources that the people he used were part of his crack-team of investigators. There is no NPOV issue with spade-calling. --ScienceApologist 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can only call spades spades if you know they are spades in the first place. You have no idea whether those present were spades or not and the only source we have doe not support the contention that they were. By insisting that they are, and by putting this into the article without any supporting evidence, you show a fundamental disregard for the truth when it fails to tally with how you would like the world to be. For the umpteenth time, if you have a source to say that those present were all paranormal believers, or paranormal researchers, or all part of Raudive's team (in any meaningful sense) then cite that. If you have no such sources then revert to "observers", or "those present" or some other neutral description. Davkal 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have changed text to "those present" as a neutral way of describing those present. Davkal 00:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Macrae and Baruss
Your attempts at speculative analysis, and the high regard in which you appear to hold this given the edits to Macrae, encouraged me to try a bit of my own. Re Baruss' conclusions: Baruss merely assumed that they had not captured EVP in the strong sense by assuming that if he could not identify something definitively as EVP then it could not be EVP. Baruss' reasoning here is clearly fallacious. He may very well have actually replicated EVP and was simply unable to clearly identify it as such. Hence the argument which concludes that they had failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense is invalid. I think we must now include something about this logical error in the article.Davkal 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have had to re-insert information into the MacRae section in order to balance what was there. This was not speculative or unsourced; it's all in the cited paper. As I mentioned in my edit comment, it is important to point out that the multiple choice format was not intended to determine whether or not voices or words were present in any of the recordings, but whether the email correspondents picked the same phrase or different ones. MacRae's conclusion was based on the correspondents making the same choice. It should be up to the reader to judge what conclusion he came to, in the light of this information. SheffieldSteel 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My Surrender to the Skeptics

 * After the exchange of the past few days, I can no longer participate in this process. Since I never come in contact with hard-core skeptics, my time here has been an education for which I am grateful. It is sobering to know how reluctant supposedly rational people can be to examine evidence offered in good faith and how quick they are to go for the person, rather than the issues. It is also a little disconcerting that the skeptics find no problem with misleading behavior, yet are so righteous about following Wikipedia rules when they favor their viewpoint.


 * One reason we ask AA-EVP members to use their real name on the discussion board can be found in the novel, The Lord of the Flies. See www.essaydepot.com/essayme/2059/index.php. From that essay about the book, "These masks also let the boys hide from their conscience we can see this when we are informed, 'The mask was a thing on it’s own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness.'”


 * My thanks to those of you who have tried to find the middle ground.  Tom Butler 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the article is about to go into mediation, and it would be a pity if you did not join in on this. As the only person here with any depth of knowledge on the subject I think you could make some valuable contributions to the process. If not, then all the best.Davkal 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I come out and call them pseudoskeptics, in the tradition of Truzzi. And Davkal is right, staying for mediation might be a rational course; if nothing comes of that, abandon it.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting EVP "Article"
This article showed up in the online magazine "American Chronicles" (typical online ad farm of the 'quick-n-dirty' school of journalism) last month. What's interesting about it is that it appears to be written entirely from content found in the Wikipedia article.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20509

--- LuckyLouie 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bender quote
From the "Jürgenson" section:


 * "Jürgenson's recordings attracted the attention of German parapsychologist Hans Bender, the head of a research team at the Institute for Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Health (University of Freiburg). After analyzing them, Bender concluded that Jürgenson's tapes were "susceptible to a paranormal interpretation" 

I don't understand the purpose of this quoted statement by Bender. Was he saying that "people could possibly interpret J's tapes as paranormal"? It seems like this ambiguously neutral quote was taken out of context so it appears to be supportive. The source is Chisolms web page. Unless there is some way to clarify this quote, it's gotta go. --- LuckyLouie 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First you say you don't understand the purpose of the quote, then it appears like it is the meaning you are querying, then you describe it as "ambiguously neutral" (whatever that means), then it looks like it is the source that you find problematic, before finally telling us that we must find a way to "clarify the quote" otherwise it's "gotta go". What exactly, or even roughly, is it that you want?Davkal 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The passage's purpose, meaning, and source were questionable. If you feel it is essential to the article, please explain why. --- LuckyLouie 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the statement is almost meaningless in terms of its set-up, delivery, and context. I will remove it now. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New format
I have removed the spoonfeeding sectioning of the history section and removed a lot of the arbitrary details that were included in the text. This way the narrative outline for EVP-research can be clearly seen as a progression. I also removed Baruss's critique to its own section since it is a fundamentally different analysis than the other parts of the history investigators section. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that User:Davkal wasted no time in reverting this change. It would be nice if he would keep his knee-jerk reactions to a minimum. --ScienceApologist 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the above in any way justifies the removal of many items with individual discussion. It is merely an "I don't like it, this is better" general statement used to remove much sourced material without any real reason being given. Davkal 12:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is better because it makes the article more fluid and less confined to an arbitrary sectioning. Many of the separate researchers actually worked in conjunction: Raudive with Jurgensen for example. Many of the subsections were stubs and unlikely to become longer due to a lack of verifiable and reliable sources. So combining is a much better option and will help organize the article. --ScienceApologist 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, let us have a discussion with other involved editors here before making so many changes. The Raudive section about the PYE experiment, for example, is well sourced and important in my view. As such it should not simply be removed without discussion on this specific point.Davkal 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with all the changes, I think overall the streamlining is a big improvement. Please don't revert war over this, I'd like to see SA finish the edits he's currently working on and go from there.  Both of you should keep 3RR in mind.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to streamlining in general, but here I think "streamlining" is merely a euphemism for removing a lot of stuff that doesn't tally with one particular POV. For example, The conclusion of the Baruss experiment has once again had the "while we did replicate EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audio tapes" removed. This is clearly being removed for no other reason than to try to hide the fact that this happened. As such it misrepresents what was found in the experiment and focuses solely on the negative conclusion which only make logical sense given a definition in Baruss' article of what would count as "replication". The reintroduction of the start of the quote, brings this point to the surface nicely.Davkal 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have specific concerns, I'd recommend editing or reverting those instead of a wholesale revert of all changes. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should the one negative critique get it's own section. Why is there no mention of the Faraday Cage and soundproof room in Macrae - this is surely one of the key features re its importance for several sceptical speculations on the origins of EVP. Why is Raudive's PYE experiment (also notable for the use of a Faraday cage) not worthy of inclusion. The point is that the edits have merely removed a lot of material that the pseudosceptics find unpalatable. Where is the justification for the removal of any, let alone all, of these points. The neutral "streamlining" reason simply doesn't even begin to describe what has happened here.Davkal 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The negative critique should get its own section because it is the first independent study done of the subject. That is fundamentally different from the other "studies" quoted in the article.
 * 2) MacRae's set-up is irrelevant to the study MacRae did because he wasn't looking to see if EVP existed but rather studied the interpretations of supposed EVP. That's the significance of his work, not his collection.
 * 3) Raudive's PYE "experiment" did not, according to the sources, represent anything more notable than his other experiments. He always got the same results regardless of where he conducted his studies and under what conditions. There is no reason to single out one particular group of recordings except to be arbitrary. Raudive is notable in this article because he made EVP famous in a way. His PYE recordings are not notable in regards to this.
 * 4) There is a reason that certain material is unpalatable: it lacks reliability and relevance to the subject material. This is not an article about EVP studies: it's an article about EVP and its perception across the board. EVP derives its notability from the popular considerations of it: the fact that fringe believers and pseudo-scientists studied this thing is not notable nor is it technically verifiable from Wikipedia's standpoint. We need to spend less time on specifics of "experiments" when the entire subject is arguable.
 * 5) I think you may be expressing a case of serious sour grapes. You're upset because you want to see EVP research promotes here, but in fact the opposite should occur according to guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ.

--ScienceApologist 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is PYE? And Davkal, could you please indent your replies?  Please?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pye Records. --ScienceApologist 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been asking for a consolidation of the old "History" section of the article for a long time.  Glad to see SA undertake the project. As for MacRae's Faraday cage and Anechoic chamber: he placed a person connected to a VOICE SYNTHESIZER in the cage. Of course he got "anomalous sounds". It's not a "pseudoskeptical" position to see that the presence or absence of the cage isn't significant in this instance. It's common sense. --- LuckyLouie 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've further moved material and created transitions in an effort to avoid unnecessary sectionalization and to increase readability. Additional improvement is welcome. --- LuckyLouie 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for digging into this. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pye
I question the veracity of "the Pye experiments". I can't locate a reliable source of information about what exactly they were. According to Victor Zammit's site:


 * The Pye Laboratory tests conducted by Colin Smythe and Peter Bander (prior to the publication of Breakthrough) were set up and paid for by the Editor-in-Chief of England's The Sunday Mirror. Ronald Maxwell, a reporter for The Sunday Mirror, had supervised the tests and had prepared a three page feature article with photographs which was very supportive of them. He was delighted that the electronics experts chosen by the newspaper had verified that the voices were genuine and that no trickery or fraud was employed. However at the last minute the extremely important article was stopped without explanation by the Editor-in-Chief who refused to have the story in the paper. As Peter Bander put it: The experiment which had been arranged and paid for by The Sunday Mirror had yielded results which did not please the man at the top (Bander 1973:68). Maxwell and Cyril Kersh, the features editor, tried again a week later. This time they had collected information and statements from leading scientists including Mr Peter Hale. Again the Editor-in-Chief refused to publish it (Bander 1973:68).

Zammit goes on to infer that The Sunday Mirror conspired to withhold proof of the paranormal. Whatever actually happened, the entire affair appears VERY questionable. Just the fact that the "tests" were set up and paid for by a British Tabloid newspaper would require us to question them. --- LuckyLouie 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that notability and verifiability was more important than whether or not something was questionable. If it's a notable sham, then let's include it as such. Else, if it's not notable, it's not useful.

perfectblue 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, if it is a sham, its verifiability becomes very difficult. --ScienceApologist 12:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was, it doesn't sound verifiable as a controlled experiment. --- LuckyLouie 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be verifiable as a controlled experiment, only as a controversy. Hoaxes, shams and frauds are all covered by wiki-regs. Notability is the key. If it's notable, it belongs in the history section, just like the Thomas Edison hoax.

perfectblue 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it would only be mentioned for historical value. Was it notable at all, did it get any kind of coverage?  Obviously the article isn't going to list every EVP experiment ever done, what's special about that particular one?  --Minderbinder 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say it has historical value -- if we could find the original source. Chisholm, Zammit, and other sites synthesize conflicting hearsay versions. It would be important to find who exactly claimed what. Maybe it's in Bander's book. --- LuckyLouie 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I just get this clear. 1. Without any evidence at all, some here are concluding that the whole Raudive/Pye EVP tests are a hoax of some kind. 2. This speculative "conclusion" is based solely on the involvement of the Sunday Mirror in financing the test. 3. We are all now invited to share this conclusion and either describe the Radive/Pye test as a hoax in the article or not mention it at all.

I don't share that conclusion. I can't even detect an argument. All I see if frantic clutching at straws in an attempt to have something that may cast even a small degree of doubt on one part of one sceptical argument removed from the article.Davkal 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Davkal. It's not psuedosceptical to be suspicious of sources that infer a conspiracy has suppressed evidence of EVP. It's common sense. --- LuckyLouie 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's what is being argued here at all. What we are trying to do is establish a reliable and verifiable account of what Raudive did rather than rely on sources which may be biased due to the sensationalism that journalists for tabloids like to stir-up. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For a start, to mention this we need a reliable source which gives an accurate account of what happened. Do we have that?  --Minderbinder 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you removed it from the article - remember.Davkal 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I do that? --Minderbinder 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Davkal, do you have a diff on this? I don't remember doing this and I think you may be mistaken.  --Minderbinder 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae again

 * I believe the AA-EVP and its followers feel that "EVP heard in a screened room" is their trump card, so they tend to publicize it ruthlessly. The mysterious Pye tests are always held up as "evidence", along with MacRae's work. In MacRae's case, the screened room is totally irrelevant, and to represent it as significant is misleading in the extreme. MacRae placed a "spirit operator" connected to a voice synthesizer within the room, virtually assuring the production of "anomalous sound products". --- LuckyLouie 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I'm not certain that you've quite understood what the Alpha box is. It is basically a means of changing an input of one kind into an output of another kind that can be picked up via a radio. It can't actually create anything on its own other than static, which is a long way from human speech.


 * I'm also concerned that some people here don't understand the relevance of the cage. The cage means whatever output the Alpha box gives can't be from a local radio station etc. This rules out almost every scientific argument except for Pareidolia. So Macrae's "voices" can be one of three things. Pareidolia, faked by Macrae, or paranormal.


 * perfectblue 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With equal respect, the "Alpha Box" is quite clearly a pseudoscientific creation which uses a spirit operator as a key component. MacRae states that the rig is intended to investigate "mediumship". It is not a scientific device. MacRae's "voices" are culled from the "anomalous sound products" generated by the rig. --- LuckyLouie 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We understand the relevance of the cage. We just don't feel there's "proof" that the cage completely blocked 100% of radio and other interference.  If you read faraday cage it doesn't say that they block all radio signals.  Not to mention that "faraday cage" isn't an absolute.  There isn't one single way to construct one, and different designs have different degrees of radio isolation.  MacRae believes it completely eliminated radio as a possibility, but ruling it out as a possible scientific explanation means we have to take MacRae's word for it.  When the results of a scientific experiment haven't been replicated, it leaves the possibility of operator error.  --Minderbinder 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the pseudoscientific methods of his investigation, here's why I think the MacRae "faraday cage" is not universally conclusive of anything, and even potentially misleading:


 * 1. Enthusiast gets a tape recorder and microphone. Records mysterious "voices" in home. Claims EVP.
 * 2. Critics say radio interference is one possible cause of "EVP".
 * 3. MacRae puts a tape recorder and microphone in a Faraday cage. To this he adds an artificial noisemaking device. Records mysterious "voices". Claims EVP.
 * 4. Enthusiasts promote #3 as universally invalidating #2

--- LuckyLouie 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is trying to claim that Macrae (or Raudive) universally invalidated anything here. But how about this.
 * 1. Sceptics claim some EVP is stray radio communications.
 * 2. Several people claim to have succesfully recorded EVP in a Faraday Cage.
 * 3. Recording EVP in a Faraday cage would seem to rule out stray radio communications in those particular cases.
 * 4. Pseudosceptical enthusiasts attempt to remove all mention of (2) above from the Wiki article on EVP.

Davkal 12:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Faraday cages that completely eliminate radio interference are very difficult to build. To do this you need to use a "perfect conductor" which only exist as superconductors. No one has ever, to my knowledge, built a Faraday cage from a superconductor so no one, to my knowledge, has ever built a perfectly shielded Faraday cage. What's more, Faraday cages are frequency dependent EM shields which means that there is some radiation, radio and otherwise, which get through. Now typically one builds a Faraday cage to shield one's work from the particular frequencies and wavelength that one is sensitive to, but there are plenty of frequencies and wavelengths that can penetrate such set-ups. The problem is that many of the EVP investigations -- including MacRae's -- look for very weak electronic signals which could very well be signals that penetrated a Faraday cage. Thus Davkal's syllogism is scientifically and physically invalid. The Faraday cage is a basic distraction from this article because there was never any indication that the actual interference transmissions that could be mistaken for EVP were blocked by said Faraday cages. To do this honestly, one should run a series of tests and indicate what level of radio transmission can penetrate the appartus. It will usually be a frequency-dependent function that can be easily determined by looking at the power received outside the cage and the power received inside the cage. Just saying "I built a Faraday" cage is therefore a meaningless statement -- the specifications are much more important than the existence of a device that can shield some EM radiation. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which "actual interference transmissions that could be mistaken for EVP" are you thinking of? What wavelengths did you have in mind? How many different senses of "radio" are you using here? What does equivocation mean? And what does equivocation usually mean for an argument?Davkal 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any radio transmission that can resonate in the electronics of a circuit can be a potential source for a signal, especially when investigations "into the noise" are accepted. Radio waves are a very easy thing to define in terms of the wavelengths or frequencies of the radiation. That's the sense in which I'm refering to "radio" here. Simply building a faraday cage without providing the specifications of the cage and the device being shielded is a meaningless appeal to general authority: most of the people who believe in EVP have never studied the physics of antenna reception and transmission and will not know what a faraday cage is, let alone be able to evaluate whether the faraday cage will be able to shield intereference signals from the device. Since MacRae doesn't provide the specifications of the Faraday cage he used nor does he provide the circuitry specifications, it is impossible for anyone to judge whether his Faraday cage was an effective shield or not. --ScienceApologist 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscientific waffling, tangential (at best) to the point at hand.Davkal 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The point "at hand" was your attempt to justify the rationale for mentioning that MacRae used a Faraday cage. When I pointed out that the spoonfeeding issues of a such a claim were problematic (that there is no indication that the Faraday cage adequately shielded MacRae's device) you then turned around and tried to say that this is tangential to the point at hand. The point at hand is whether to include mention of the Faraday cage in the bit about MacRae. So far we have the following reasons not to mention it:
 * The recording devices were not alone in the cage but were place in with a noisemaking device.
 * Faraday cages only block some EM radiation, they are not perfect shields.
 * The specifications of the Faraday cage and the recording device circuitry are needed to know whether the Faraday cage is acutally effective in blocking intereference transmission. These specifications are not provided.
 * Most people who investigate EVP don't know enough physics to understand what Faraday cages are let alone decide whether they are effective at answering the "skeptical" argument that interference can happen. To includes such a point in the article is basic spoonfeeding and highly misleading.
 * As such, I think that the one being indirect is you. I have seen no indication that you are willing to deal with any of these points. --ScienceApologist 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

None of them matter to the sceptical argument that EVP are actually the voices of radio DJs and the like. That, I belive, is one of the major reasons for the use of the faraday cage by both MacRae and Raudive. What is it that you think they were trying to screen out. Why does Macrae mention the study conducted in Spain. Thy are not trying to shield the devices from everything, they are trying to shield the devices from West Coast Talk Radio.Davkal 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And while MacRae believes he was successful at doing that, we have no evidence that his assumption was correct. --Minderbinder 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That, I belive, is one of the major reasons for the use of the faraday cage by both MacRae and Raudive. What is it that you think they were trying to screen out. Why does Macrae mention the study conducted in Spain. Thy are not trying to shield the devices from everything, they are trying to shield the devices from West Coast Talk Radio. --> That's idle speculation. We have no evidence that anything you "beleive" is verifiably correct. --71.57.90.96 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, no evidence other than the paper published in a peer-review scietific journal you mean. Sockboy71, no no evidence other than the paper published in a peer-review scietific journal you mean.Davkal 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One researcher making a claim doesn't make it a fact, regardless of where it's published. --Minderbinder 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make what a fact? It is a fact that Macrae used the Faraday cage to screen out radio broadcasts containing human voices, and it is a fact that the room at IONS was up to this particular task. A few people wishing these things weren't true doesn't make them false, or doubtful, or anything else that would prevent us from noting them here. Davkal 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that he used it. It's not a proven fact that that particular piece of equipment screened out 100% of radio signals.  MacRae obviously had the opinion that it did, but that's his opinion, not fact.  I'd also appreciate if you'd point out where I removed the Pye reference.  Thanks.  --Minderbinder 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You as in you lot.Davkal 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. So me as in someone other than me.  And way to lump editors into "lots", nicely done.  I'd still like to see where it was removed, when did that happen?  --Minderbinder 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It happend when the section dealing with it (with source) was removed from the article.Davkal 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this?  I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.  --Minderbinder 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I've already told you numerous times that that's not the source used in the article. The source that was removed from the article was Raudive's book Breakthrough. The Pye tests were also mentioned in a book by Petre Bander (Carry on Talking: How dead are the voices) and I think that this, at one point, was the source in the article but it was also removed. And a further source is the book Is there an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence, by Professor David Fontana - fellow of the British Psychological Association, and Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University. There is also the Fortean Times article and Victor Zammit's website. Anything else you would like?Davkal 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fontana's quote i actually quite good:
 * ...demonstration of EVP organised by Raudive and supervised by technicians from Pye records that convinced the well-known publisher Colin Smythe to bring out the English translation of Raudive's book Breakthrough. In this demonstration, attended by Smythe and other independent observers, four tape recorders, all suitably shielded from radio intereference and supervised by the technicians, recorded between them over 200 paranormal communications of which 27 were accepted by those present as clearly understandable.

Davkal 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on readability
Just a quick note to say that readers generally either tune out or skim when faced with a large section of text on a website. If we wish people to actually read this page and to take in what it is saying, it should be broken down into neat chunks.

perfectblue 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine to point out, but having sections based on "history" and specific investigators is not a good idea. We were headed toward a different organization where Baruss was singled out for reasons related to the fundamental difference between his study and the other investigator's work and a paring down of descriptions for each paranormal investigator who studied EVP. The large section on investigation can be broken into two or more sections based on timing perhaps, but doing it based on personality is focusing too much on non-notable people rather than the topic of EVP. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

two points


 * 1) Traditionally, you only break chronology for conclusions and exceptions, What you have done implies that Bauss' work is "the definitive piece", which it is not, or that it is more notable than the others, which it is not.
 * 2) Bauss is perhaps the least well known of all the people here. He's not even notorious, let alone especially notable. If you check for people citing Bauss and Macrae and the others, the others win hands down. They have more public recognition, more skeptical response/critisism, and more they have a broader coverage in the paranormal press. In fact, more people have used used Macrae as a example of bad practice than have highlighted the fact that Bauss' couldn't find anything worth looking into.

By separating Bauss out from the others you're effectively pushing his ideas and his findings, and saying that he's special. He either gets his own section like everybody else, or he gets chronologied like everybody else, he can't have special treatment without it being a WP:NPOV violation.

perfectblue 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Baruss' study is fundamentally different from the other investigations quoted above his section in that Baruss was the first person who was an independent investigator who at least ostensibly wasn't biased beforehand in believing that EVP exist. That makes his critique fundamentally different. Editorially, we shouldn't lump Baruss with the other investigations because the other investigations were not attempting to determine whether EVP existed or not -- they were fundamentally opposed to such an outlook. I'll also point out that claims to a "chronology" are higly exaggerated. While it's clear that Jurgensen influenced Raudive, there is no other indication that any investigator was directly influenced by the investigators who came before them other than by virtue of the fact that they could be aware of investigations that occured in the past but not the ones that occured in the future. As such, a claim to chrnological cohesion is dubious, we can follow it for ease of reading but it's basically an arbitrary organization technique and when more pressing editorial concerns come up, breaking that organization is perfectly reasonable. Your claim that Baruss is the "least" well-known is probably due to your bias in these matters having been heavily involved in studying paranormal activity. Baruss may be the "least" well-known in paranormal circles (for obvious reasons), but he is the only "investigator" who is a contemporary academic which gives him a level of credibility above-and-beyond the other investigators. I don't anticipate that Baruss will remain the only critique on this page. In particular, Carroll's critique will be going in shortly. We aren't finished with writing this article and eventually we will have a greatly expanded critique section. So, please, let us finish adding in information and text and then comment. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is not flatly circular, but something like it. It has the form, figuratively speaking, of a closed curve in space.Davkal 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
We have, at present, three times as much space devoted to sceptical speculation in the "explanations" section as we do to paranormal explanations. POV pushing anyone?Davkal 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The paranormal explanations are not very easy to source because there is disagreement amongst paranormal believers. --ScienceApologist 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't say that two sides of an issue should be given equal space, it says that they should be discussed proportionally in terms of the degree of acceptance. Since the argument for EVP is a minority view, it would violate WP:Undue weight to give it equal coverage. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"  --Minderbinder 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The views of the pseudosceptics are a minority view. They are, in fact, basically the views of one man. They have no support within the mainstream scientific community. And indeed, while some are based on accepted scientific principles the way they are extended to account for EVP are laughably pseudoscientific. If you look at the pareidolia page, for example, you will see an alarm clock that appears to have a sad face, but Carroll's extension of this point to the degree that someone might actually ask the alarm clock what's wrong (mistaking it for an actual person) are frankly ludicrous.Davkal 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "minority" view is the one which makes extraordinary claims that have not been verified in the mainstream. Paranormal investigations from the standpoint of Wikipedia will be a minority view until they are recognized as being mainstream investigations. When the scientific community comments on paranormal ideas they either dismiss them outright or they apply the same skeptical critique that you dislike. That's just the plain honest truth about the situation. Your evaluations of the points here are, frankly, irrelevant. You are free to believe in whatever fantasy you desire, just don't impose that belief on the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Davkal, are you claiming that a majority of mainstream scientists and the general public believe EVP are caused by "discarnate entities" or other paranormal things? And that those who say it's just radio station bleed and or similar things are a minority?  --Minderbinder 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am saying mainstream science has nothing to ay on EVP. And I am saying that your repeated attempts to align Carroll with mainstream science are unjustified. Carroll's views, then, are Carroll's views and should be treated as such. They are also laughably pseudoscientific as shown above by Mr Alarm Clock. Davkal 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are saying mainstream science has nothing to say on the topic, how can you possibly argue that the Majority View is the paranormal one? If science hasn't commented on a pseudoscientific topic, we rightly assume that it doesn't accept the pseudoscientific "explanation".  And I don't get your fixation on Carroll, that section has a number of sources, not just one.  I should also point out that your dismissal of pareidolia out of hand is original research.  Personally finding something "laughable" isn't a valid criteria on wikipedia, sorry.  --Minderbinder 13:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the paranormal view is the majority view here. I am saying: we have no mainstream scientific view on EVP and hence we have no majority view (in that sense) about what they are or are not. What we do have is paranormal speculation from paranormalists and we have pseudoscientific speculation from the pseudosceptics. And I am saying that the pseudosceptical peculation is largely down to one man/small group.Davkal 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And "original research", that old chetsnut. I wondered when it would be wheeled out.Davkal 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Saying that science has nothing to say on the subject is - at best - disingenuous, when the definition we are using for EVP states that it is of paranormal origin. It is not necessary for any scientific spokesperson to make specific comments about any phenomenon which is claimed to be caused by supernatural or paranormal causes. The position of the mainstream scientific community is perfectly clear with respect to all such claims. SheffieldSteel 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the position is not sufficiently clear inasmuch as it appear to be poorly understood here. The position of mainstream science is one of "not shown to be" rather than one of "shown not to be". As I have said before, I have no objection to mainstream science's lack of invstigation of EVP being mentioned, nor to the inclusion of a general statament of the non-supportive position of mainstream science regarding the paranormal (the "not shown to be" position). What is not acceptable, is either: a) to pretend that science has explicitly rejected EVP (te "shown not to be" position); or b) to pretend that the views of Carroll et al are mainstream scientific views in either their own right or by default. The point being that the theories proposed by (pseudo)sceptics such as Carroll to account for EVP are suscepptible to scientrific evaluation but have not themselves been subjected to that evaluation. As such they are mere speculation, and given the scientific legitamacy claimed for them, I would argue in many cases they are pseudoscientific speculation.Davkal 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend reading Pseudoscience since you keep applying that label to things that don't fit the definition or criteria. --Minderbinder 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Especially read | this part. --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition seems exact - Carroll pretends he is doing science but isn't. Davkal 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Current enthusiasts
I've rearranged these in order of notability/public visibility. The bulk of references (published media, search engine results, etc) to those active with EVP refer to ghost hunting/paranormal investigation. The second most visible are the groups dedicated solely to EVP. The third most visible are Spiritualists, and there is some crossover between the latter two. --- LuckyLouie 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New tag
I've put the totally-disputed tag on it, for multiple reasons- not the least of which is the underhanded POV-pushing such as calling people "famous," "Enthusiasts" complete innacuracies such as saying that EVP is rejected by those outside the paranormal community- which of couse it is probably not, as it is usually not known, except perhaps from the movie. And things like saying there are "supernatural" explanations for it- I've never heard of one.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly are the factual issues? --ScienceApologist 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just said.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those are factual errors. Tag removed.

Martin, I'm sorry you disagree with the use of "enthusiasts". Can you suggest a better word? According to guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ we should not be applying misleading terms such as "researchers", "analysts", "experimenters", "investigators" etc. to a broad group that include ghost hunters, paranormal fans, people trying to contact dead relatives, etc. --- LuckyLouie 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It does? Perhaps I missed something.  I searched the pages you linked to for those words, and I read the sections linked to.  Nothing there.  And why are you giving the minority view of the skeptics so much weight?   You aren't accepting Minderbinder's stupid -yes, stupid and irrational- contention that anything a conventional scientist would say, or that a minority of skeptics have said, is ipso facto a majority opinion, are you?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be part of a popular culture section, or it could be headlined current developement of EVP, or EVP today, or any number of other NPOV things. But it could also be called "EVP experimentation" or "experimenters." There is nothing POV about that -one can experiment with prayer, or whistling up the wind-, nor is it forbidden by policy.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Experimenters" has physical science connotations, which is misleading. The existence of EVP in nature or anywhere else is simply not a fact. I guess we could call those who experiment with audio recorders believing they'll get EVP "believers", but I thought "enthusiasts" was much more preferable. --- LuckyLouie 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "The existence of EVP in nature or anywhere else is simply not a fact" This may be true. But if you are in any sense letting it dictate edits -or if you are accepting of the edits of others who are- it only means that this page will be continually re-written, forever, till the POV pushing stops.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to e that you just want to promote the idea that parapsychology has more legitimacy than it does. --ScienceApologist 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV(2)
I note we now have the claim that "professional sound engineers who have commented on the techniques used by EVP enthusiasts have been highly critical". This makes it sound like a general point about sound engineers, when it is in fact clear POV scene setting for the views of one (amateur?, self-described?) musician & sound engineer & (professional?) sceptic David Federlein, whose lengthy quote now accounts for around 10% of the whole article. There are a number of things wrong with this. Firstly, many of those who actually investigate EVP (Raymond Cass, Hans Konig etc.) are well qualified sound engineers/technicians (perhaps far more qualified than Federlein - if indeed he has any real qualifications at all) and they obviously don't subscribe to Federlein's views. Therefore it is disingenuous to pretend that Federlein is represenatative of sound engineers in general. Secondly, Federlein basis his criticism on one unnamed website. As such his argument is a straw-man argument (assuming the website even exists). Thirdly, it is completely unclear what Federlein's point about Frampton is supposed to be about. No information is provided re which recordings are supposed to sound like Frampton's guitar-work and it is questionable whether any really do. This is just a case of saying any old thing that is negative and hoping that some of it sticks (i.e. mud-slinging). Finally, it surely breaches undue weight rules to give 10% of an article over to one man's speculative claims and attempts at ridcule even if the points made were sound, which I think they obviously are not (e.g. the stuff about filtering white-noise and wah pedals and open vowel sounds (what about the consonants) and making this say "just about anything" is almost certainly false.) Given all of the above, it is clear that extensive clarification and trimming is needed to the section if indeed such unspecific speculative criticism has any place in the article at all. Davkal 08:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sceptical "explanations" also have their own section. Federlein's speculations should be/are already covered there. I will remove the section from it's present position, and if any of it is to be kept (see above) it can go in the appropriate section.Davkal 09:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to remove a careful deconstruction of the claims of EVP-promoters is blatant POV-pushing. Aside from being references in a published source that is verifiable according to the standards of Wikipedia, the quote by Federlein is accurate from a signal processing standard and can be verified by going through the wikilinks that are made in the quote. It is this kind of analysis which needs to be included in the article rather than the vague innuendos that had been quoted in the past from MacRae's paper or from Raudive's book. Detailed evaluation is an important feature of a good critique and since this is a section about critiques, Federlein's quote is highly appropriate. As your removal of the quote was unilateral and done for reasons that are not in-line with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, I have reverted. --ScienceApologist 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Detailed evaluation is good. Federlein's unspecific, rambling, untested, nonsense hardly constitutes that. It is merely a few glib comments on one alleged way of recording EVP picked from an unnamed website from one (possibly qualified) man and in no way represents the views of anyone other than himself (and maybe the unqualified Carroll). It is also in the wrong place - sceptical speculation also has a section - further sceptical speculation (if it is any good) should go there. You also have very little idea what deconstruction means do you - stick to teaching physics.Davkal 12:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your personal feelings about Federlein's critique are irrelevant here. There is no pretense to representing anything other than the views of a sound engineer so that's not an issue. It's not in the wrong place because it is a critique and it is published. It isn't speculation any more than any other point made in the article (see Fringe theories). I will thank you to stay away from the personal attacks and also encouarge you to take some physics in the near future. --ScienceApologist 12:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "There is no pretense to representing anything other than the views of a sound engineer so that's not an issue." And yet the article says "professional sound engineers". Now, you see the "s" at the end of "engineers" (the one that looks like a little snake); well in English that means the word is plural. And so if all you want to say is that DF criticised EVP and he's a sound engineer (and professional sceptic) then you need to rewrite it and make that clear, because as it stands it looks like the criticism is common amongst sound engineers.Davkal 13:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's verifiable through the Skeptic Dictionary which uses Federlein as an example. Are you seriously arguing that only one sound engineer questions the existence of EVP? Because you can look at Baruss' paper to see that's not true. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. But what I am saying is that many EVP researchers are sound engineers or work with sound engineers. Indeed it is in some cases their being a sound engineer that first alerted them to EVP. And so to claim, as you do, that the only sound engineers who have commented on EVP have commented negatively is a massive distortion of the truth.Davkal 13:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And what I'm saying is that this claim of yours which is totally unreferenced and based on your own personal interpretation is countered by the Skeptics Dictionary which is more reliable than certain people (read you) who claim otherwise. There are even EVP-promoters who have admitted to this fact. Tom Butler admitted on this very talkpage that most sound engineers are wrong in their dismissal of EVP because they don't realize that it is the noise itself that the EVP researchers are interested in. Sound engineers who have commented on EVP have been nearly uniform in their skepticism of it. This is a fact delineated by The Skeptics Dictionary. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have sources for the claim that many EVP researchers have qualifications and expertise in sound engineering etc. Fontana, for example, but then he's only a professor and fellow of various respected scientific bodies. Davkal 13:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * David Fontana is an unreliable crank when it comes to these things: he may be a reliable source for "transpersonal psychology", but he's not a reliable source for what sound engineers think. Being heavily involved in New Age spiritualism makes him a completely unreliable source in these matters. The fact is, there is no evidence to back up any of his pseudoscientific attempts to prove EVP exists. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You simply cannot expect everyone to buy into your prejudices and to use the agrees/disagrees with ScienceApologist rule for reliable sources. Fontana is a qualified academic/scientist and his book will be cited here.Davkal 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're free to cite his book, but not for the point you were making above. --71.57.90.96 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We also have this:


 * Latvian psychologist Konstantin Raudive who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson made over 100,000 attempts to receive electronic communications "from the dead". [31] His interpretations of his recordings have been criticized for being highly subjective in nature,[32]as well as for their seemingly nonsensical content. [33]

1. What does this section mean, and what is its point? Is it the point that Raudive collected around 75000 examples of possible EVP of which 25000 were said to contain identifiable words (said by those in (2) below)? Or is it some other point such that Raudive made over 100,000 "attempts" and only his skewed interpretation has it that they are not simply noise.

2. How were Raudive's interpretations arrived at: "Raudive invited panels of listeners to hear his tapes [...] and then inform him what words they thought they had heard. His panels included highly respected scientists and parapsychologists such as Professor Hans Bender, Dr Julie Eisenbud, Dr Karlis Osis and Professor Walter Uphoff as well as a wide range of other professional people. In all cases a high percentage of the voices were said to be heard clearly." (Fontana: Is There an Afterlife) But you wouldn't think that from the text in the article, you would think Raudive was sitting on his own making things up, was roundly criticised for it by the voice of reason and that was the end of that.

The way the section on Raudive is written now is a POV pushing hit-piece and nothing more.Davkal 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that Raudive made a large number of recordings.
 * Claiming that Bender, Eisenbud, Osis, and Uphoff are "highly respected" is simply not going to cut it here. These people are simply not reliable vetters of such experiments nor are they neutral evaluators. Claims that there was some rigor to Raudive's work have been sufficiently debunked to make it imperative that we describe how people have criticized his shoddy controls and set-ups. Whether a high percentage of voices were "said to be heard clearly" or not is quite beside the point as the entire endeavor is sucipious for reasons beyond simply getting unnamed "experts" and named parapsychologists to agree with Raudive. Raudive has been criticized for making things up by independent evaluators. I have yet to see a person who is not involved in parapsychology or psychic research evaluate his work otherwise. The lack of independent verification of the methodology and results is extermely telling.
 * --ScienceApologist 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who "debunked" Raudive. Ellis? Ellis offered his own views but his analysis was criticised because neither he, nor many of his listening panel, had sufficient familiarity with the languages of the "voices" to really judge. And if you look at the source for the second part of the criticism (The Anomalist) you will also see that the criticism there is qualified in a number of ways that do not appear in the article. In other words the criticism is taken out of context and the result is the shoddy hit-piece that currently appears in the article.Davkal 12:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether someone is criticized or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The Anomalist is not a reliable source, so using it to remove the issue will not work. The criticism certainly is not taken out of context: it is directly applicable to Raudive and it is clear that you are resisting it simply because you don't like seeing EVP criticized. --ScienceApologist 12:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The anomalist is your source for your criticism. Don't you even know what you are doing yourself.Davkal 13:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Carroll is the source of my criticism. That he quotes Ellis is incidental. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources for the Raudive stuff (which is what is being discussed here) are listed as Raudive, Smith, and Poysden. The criticism part is referenced to Smith in the JASPR and Poysden in the Anomalist. Davkal 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all very interesting, but it is entirely incidental to all of this. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's not incidental is that criticism from the Anomalist article is strongly qualified there (it's mainly rejected) and as such the use of it here clearly takes it out of context. Even the use of the word "nonsensical" is far too strong here since in the anomalist what is meant, from the examples given in that article, is trivial.Davkal 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But the qualification at the Anomalist is not the issue here. Your attempt to claim that Carroll is taking things out-of-context is simply unfounded. Just because Carroll comes to a different conclusion than Ellis doesn't mean that Carroll necessarily took Ellis' writing "out-of-context". --ScienceApologist 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim Carroll took anything out of context, I am claiming you did in the article on EVP here. Carroll has got nothing whatsoever to do with the criticism of Raudive that currently appears in the article. That criticism comes from the Anomalist and the JASPR. And it is the stuff referenced to the Anomalist that I claim is taken out of context.Davkal 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The criticism comes from almost directly from Carroll, but we reference his sources as per discussion above. If you like we can reorient our citations to Carroll directly and sidestep the rest of these references. However, it is clear that neither Carroll nor this article is taking anything out-of-context. --ScienceApologist 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would probably recommend referencing Alcock instead since his work is available on-line. Only the abbreviated version of Carroll's critique is available on-line. --ScienceApologist 14:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Alcock doesn't make the criticisms listed in the article. He actually makes very few criticiss of Raudive. But so what.Davkal 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So I think we're done here. You have tried to claim that the criticisms were out-of-context but were unable to come up with any evience to that effect. You also haven't learned how to place colons before your posts, which would be polite, but in any case, it is clear that you are all used-up in your inability to prove your point. -ScienceApologist 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting summary. I have pointed out that the criticism is heavily qualified and often rejected in the article from which it comes. And since it is presented here without qualification and as the last word it is clearly out of context. In response you suggest that we source that criticism to a completely unrelated article which contains nothing like it. And I am supposed to be the one who is used-up in my ability to prove my point. My point was proven the instant you rejected the current sources and suggested we use one that doesn't actually contain the needed material. I will suitably amend the article.

Re indenting. I fail to see what is uncivil about not cramming all my text over to one side of the screen.Davkal 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)