Talk:Extrasensory perception/Archive 2

Science?
"The scientific field which investigates psi phenomena such as ESP is called parapsychology. The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.[15][16][17]"

Parapsychology is not a scientific field, as stated in the entry. So it can have no scientific consensus. The claims needs to be supported by reliable sources. Debbyo 08:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science.. I thought the "scientific field" of parapsychology has investigated this? Also, it implies that ESP exists and that science has yet to discover it.

Also is ESP about 'sources of information' or a type of perception? I would have thought that ESP is the What - the How still needs to be explained.

Also why all the details of the studies? Just the results are necessary. If someone wants to find out what evidence supports ESP, they shouldn't have to wade through so much detail. Debbyo 09:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) . ''Memory, for instance, was offered as a better model of psi than perception. This called for experimental procedures that were not limited to Rhine's favoured forced-choice methodology.''

I don't know what this means. And I'm a post-graduate. It must be written without jargon.

Debbyo 09:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After the investigations, Sony spokesman Masanobu Sakaguchi reported: "We found out experimentally that yes, ESP exists, but that any practical application of this knowledge is not likely in the foreseeable future."[18]'' The citations are not reliable. They are webpages on unproven claims about paranormal experiences. Debbyo 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make changes, or if you're not comfortable with that, post them here for others to comment on. Pairadox 09:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pairadox, I've never done this before. I would suggest deleting the following:

The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science. This implies that ESP exists and that science has yet to discover it.

I would also dispute the following:

"The scientific field which investigates psi phenomena such as ESP is called parapsychology. The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.[15][16][17]"

Parapsychology is not a scientific field. So it can have no scientific consensus. Those who are cited as supporting ESP "scientifically" are parapsychologists. Which, as I have stated before, are not scientists. This should be deleted.

What do you think? Debbyo 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence and linked "sixth sense" to an article that defines the five classical senses. Pairadox 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sixth sense

Have to disagree/agree with you on this one. Because parapsychology makes use of scientific methodology, it could be considered a "scientific field." We aren't here to judge whether or not the phenomena is real, just report what is said about it. See the policy of verifiability for more infomation about "truth v. verifiable." Pairadox 12:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Parapsychology


 * I am puzzled. Even this encyclopedia describes parapsychology as a fringe science not accepted by "mainstream science". People reading this will think ESPs been proven by science. At one point the article even says it has yet to be proven by science. That, at least, you must concede is a contradiction. Debbyo 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I you're referring to the third sentence of the controversy section, I agree and have changed it to "A scientific methodology that shows statistically significant evidence for ESP with nearly 100% consistency has not been discovered." Now I have to go read the Parapsychology article again to make sure this aligns with the evidence prosented there. Pairadox 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry I didn't mean that. I meant the comment to Martin. But now you mention it, what you are saying here is that there is no scientific method yet discovered to detect ESP. This sounds like crystal ball gazing. If we have no evidence we should say so. If evidence is obtained through non-standard methods, we should say that. If belief not evidence is required perhaps it is in the realm of the paranormal or spiritual. Debbyo 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it really doesn't matter what we think about parapsychology- ESP still makes claims which are beyond current science. Anyway, see parapsychology article, and the recent ArbCom on the paranormal. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have just provided another example. Is parapsychology a science which has proven/shown evidence of ESP or has science not yet caught up with ESP? Which is it? Debbyo 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not for us to decide here. We should restrict ourselves to accurately reporting what the sources have said. Pairadox 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was talking to Martin here too - about the contradiction in the article on the science question. One one hand it claims scientific credence and on the other it says that science has yet to detect it. Which is it? Debbyo 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are open discussions, not private dialogues. Pairadox 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Pairodox, I didn't mean to sound like I was excluding you.I was just trying to clarify whose comment I was referring to. Debbyo 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right- we aren't here to decide truth or falsehood, and our opinions of parapsychology and its results don't matter. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. I'm not trying to work out if it exists. I'm trying to work out who thinks it exists and why. So people reading will get the full picture. I'm a teacher and my students use wiki. I want to ensure that the information they get is accurate and reflects the current state of knowledge. I'm not sure what you mean by "its results don't matter"? Debbyo 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL If it's true that you're a teacher, you'd do better to teach them to think and research for themselves than to rely on a bunch of anonymous editors. You also missed the first part of that clause, "our opinions of... it's results don't matter." Pairadox 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you don't think wikipedia is reliable source of information? Hmm. It could be if we stuck to the reliable secondary sources rule, for one. No, I did see the rest of your statement and I still don't understand. Are you saying the results of parapsychology tests don't matter? Who to? To science? Debbyo 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Disclaimers? Wikipedia doesn't meet its own definition of a Reliable source. Which is not to say there isn't a lot of reliability out there. You just have to know how to find it and what to discard. Talk pages and edit histories are invaluable; you can't rely on just the article. Pairadox 08:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean that wikipedia articles should be used as a source for a wikipedia articles, Pairodox. I was referring to the remark that i shouldn't allow my students to rely on a bunch of anonymous editors. I'm starting to agree with you. However, it would be an interesting example of biased writing. They could check, for example, if parapsychology is accepted by science. Ring a few universities. Then they would learn not to trust anonymous editors. Perhaps that's a good lesson. Debbyo 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Parapsychology in its academic form is a scientific discipline. That's also covered in the Arbitration.  Hope this helps. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, would you provide a link to the section of the ArbCom decision that you used to justify this edit? Pairadox 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the specific edit you mention is obvious by virtue of the skepticism section -ESP is definied as paranormal and hasn't been explained by current science- one of the most relevant sections is here:   —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think your interpretation is a bit of a stretch (and find #12 to be reason enough to remove the sentence), I was ambivalent enough when I made the edit to agree-by-inaction with your readding it. In other words, I don't care enough to debate it. [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] Pairadox 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok (-= Whatever you want. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Added "scientific" back in, based on that Parapsychological Association can be cited as member of American Association for the Advancement of Science. While what ultimately defines "science" is adherence to naturalistic methodology, this likely cannot be reliably cited for any subject at all. Please don't revert without a source to the contrary; skepticism, however, may deserve addressing in the title due to notability, so please add that if you can. --92.100.103.125 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The note at top of the page says that National Science Foundation identified subject of the article - Extrasensory Perception - as identified by scientific consensus as pseudo-science, however its reference only points to an editorial which references what a single study marks in its poll question as "pseudoscience", which basically means it expresses neither opinion of NSF, nor scientific consensus (furthermore, NSF is not an international body, and its decisions do not apply outside of US).

There should be a proper reference for this if it's true. Relevant and reliable sources on this would be genuine meta-studies of scientific literature, large opinion polls of scientists, official rulings by scientific bodies, or mention of any of the above in press. --92.100.94.4 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The most accurate way, in my opinion, to educate the masses as to whether parapsychology is a science is to present both of the strongest opposing viewpoints in the matter. If the controversy becomes apparent, then interested people may draw conclusions themselves. Stephjohnson92 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Skeptics say the phenomena of ESP does not really exist, but merely seems to exist as a result such things as self-delusion, or of magician's techniques such as cold reading and hot reading.

I think this assumes the reality of ESP and implies that skeptics are people who don't accept this reality. I think it would be more accurate to state where ESP stands in our current state of knowledge on the subject - from fields other than parapsychology, which itself is not accepted as one of the scientific disciplines. Nor I think does it claims to be "mainstream". Fringe theories should be represented as such. Which we all agree on. Parapsychology is outside the mainstream. If we don't state this we mislead trusting readers.

My understanding of the subject so far according to this article is that all the evidence of ESP come from the field of parapsychology. So we should say this. In a summary of best evidence. There is no need to go into great detail of each test (they don't generally do this is any science pages). The results should be strong enough to stand alone. Besides if we want people to know about the subject we don't want them to have to wade through masses of material, otherwise they might give up. Debbyo 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the lede section would be the place to present that. Before you start writing a new paragraph for it, though, I would suggest you read the more or less definitive word on how to deal with subjects involving the paranormal. Then submit your revised lede section on this talk page for editors to comment on and perhaps refine. Pairadox 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by definition, all scientific evidence of ESP comes from parapsychology- that's what it is when you scientifically gather evidence of ESP. Pairadox has a good process in mind for the lead.  But we shouldn't start at the lead.


 * Your argument about parapsychology is that it is not mainstream. Quite so, and we could say:


 * The existence of paranormal ESP abilities is highly controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.


 * We need to keep the word count down in the lead to proportionality with the article.


 * I disagree that there is any implication contained in stating what skeptics believe. What they believe is simply what they believe, and is in contrast to other beliefs contained in the article. I don't see the bias there.


 * In short, the lead is not POV as it is, but if you prefer to mention parapsychology in an NPOV manner as a non-mainstream pursuit, it's fine with me. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I like what you suggested, Martin although I think "no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community" implies that there is evidence but it is not accepted by the scientific community. Which is what you believe. Fine, but we must let the evidence speak for itself. Isn't the position now that only parapsychologists have evidence of ESP? If I read this as it stands now I would think that ESP has been proven by science. I would also be confused. The article seems to speak about ESP from a scientific point of view. Is it science or the paranormal? Excuse my ignorance, I just want to the article to be clear and informative. If it is science then we must state the position of ESP in the wider scientific community pretty much from the outset. After the definition, if you like. Debbyo 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we replace “The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science (crystal ball gazing). Skeptics say the phenomena of ESP does not really exist, but merely seems to exist as a result such things as self-delusion, or of magician's techniques such as cold reading and hot reading.[3]” with “ The existence of ESP has not been supported by scientific evidence outside the field of parapsychology". (Which is what I have learned from this article) Debbyo 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By definition, if it is evidence of ESP, it's parapsychology. So that would be like saying "Evidence of the existence of stars has not been collected outside of astronomy."


 * “The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science" is not crystal ball gazing, it only helps with the definition. We could take it out, but it would only make things more confusing.


 * I have no idea how you could read the article and think that ESP has been proven beyond a doubt. Paraspychology is really a scientific field, and the majority -though not all- parapsychologists think psi is real.  But skepticism is covered.


 * There is no controversy that there is evidence: the skeptics don't dispute that studies come out positive. It is whether the positive results really indicate psi that is in question.  To say that there is evidence is not to say that there is proof.  But no one questions whether evidence exists, only whether it is proof of psi.  For example, note that skeptics often complain that the evidence is anecdotal.  Well, if there weren't any evidence, they wouldn't be able to say this.


 * I think saying it is controversial and not accepted by mainstream science expresses the situation pretty well. I like your idea of expressing "the position of ESP in the wider scientific community pretty much from the outset," that's what I tried to do above.


 * Where the article says "The main current debate concerning ESP surrounds whether or not statistically compelling laboratory evidence for it has already been accumulated" pretty well sums up the current state of things. It isn't that there is no evidence, but the interpretation of what evidence exists (it could all be flukes etc.).


 * The article then goes on to say "Among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, 96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP, although 2% believed in psi and 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged.[20] The National Academy of Sciences had previously sponsored the Enhancing Human Performance report on mental development programs, which was critical of parapsychology.[21]"


 * Can't get much clearer than that. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, you said " Is it science or the paranormal?" The paranormal is by definition not explained by current science (which is where that comes from).  But you can study the paranormal scientifically, so it is not either/or.  This is why the ArbCom has academic parapsychology as a scientific dicipline, even though the paranormal has not -by definition- been proven to the satisifaction of most scientists.  So there can be evidence for it, and there can be a consensus that it is real within a field of science, and it can still be paranormal. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I have read the history of all of this.ArbCom lists parapsychology and the link says it's a fringe discipline. There is nowhere on wiki or anywhere that accepts parapsychology as a field of science. But I can see why this page is in the condition it is. People are just weary of fighting for balance. The fact is parapsychology is a fringe science. It hasn't made space rockets or cured small-pox. We can't see it working like when we turn on a light switch. That's what science is. It makes things work and you can see the results.You have admitted that you believe it is a limited view of the world, and you could be right. But it is science. Parapsychology does not employ the methods of science. So we have to be careful not to mislead readers into thinking that your idea of science is everybody's idea of science. It is not. Okay, put it this way. I have ESP. And I channel a wise woman from ancient Egypt, named Vdorka. She tells me to tell you that you must let go. She sees that you love the other world with a fierce passion, but she tells me to gently remind you that the real world is even more splendid, even more powerful than the dusty old place called death where she sits knitting until eternity. She says it's much harder to learn formulas than to just feel the energies. But a wise, courageous man without ego would walk the harder path. He would start with self-doubt. Debbyo 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been gone over ad infinitum, here and in other venues. Read the ArbCom again, especially where it says parapsychology is a scientific dicipline.  I must repeat that what you think doesn't matter.  What I think doesn't matter. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick Comment
Other than more inline refs to the various studies and to the reivews/criticisms this article is acutally pretty good. As a professional scientist (geologist) I would caution folks to not over play the purity of mainstream science. The arguement about science v pseudoscience seems to be a waist of time. While there are ESP quacks, there are also people trying to do real research. Criticize the poor research, play up the good research, USE MORE REFERENCES. Articles such as this one cannot be referenced to much. --Rocksanddirt 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I would like to request comments on my recent edits to the page, which got rid, I feel, of a lot of the junk. I hope people will discuss before just reverting. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as I would have preferred that you talk about it before removing such large amounts of text. Pairadox 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they were BOLD edits. Is there really a problem with them?  If so, is it possible to fix them without reverting? They were partially in response to complaints above. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Side note:Could you change your sig? It tends to overlap and obscure the line above it; probably because of the white box.) Pairadox 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'll look into it. Sorry it's causing trouble- only tested in Mozilla. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now to answer the question - yes, I think the fact that your edits were reverted, with an edit summary, shows that there may be a problem with them. Personally, I think any removal of sourced info needs to be handled with care. If their removal is reverted for valid concerns, such as POV, then the editor who removed them should probably explain why s/he did so in some detail rather than risk an edit war. This is especially true for controversial topics. While I haven't studies all your edits in detail, I know that I would agree removing some of the stuff you did. Pairadox 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I believed that the editor simply doesn't like me due to past conflicts- since there was no explanation I did one revert back. Next step is to put it up for re-write in another way. But some of the editors here don't know the history of the paranormal pages, and are going over old arguments, such as the status of parapsychology. So as you say it is a hard article to deal with. If you want any of the deleted stuff back in, let's discuss it.

A lot of the deletion was because the topics need only be summarized here. They are covered in detail in other articles. Tell me if my sig is ok now. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(Better, but still a bit large. Try reducing the padding to 1px.) Breaking it down a bit, I think you shortened this section to much, and the Main:Clairvoyance label is not accurate; in many cases these are seen as different, albeit related, phenomena. I'll have more analysis later, both pro and con. Pairadox 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Types of ESP


 * Okay, reduced the padding to one px, thanks. I also restored the entire section.  We can either leave it as is, or reduce it by agreement. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to see it modified into less of a list, and the mention of parapsychology (along with it's fringe status) moved to the lede (to more fully summarize the scientific investigation and skepticism sections). References showing these are considered forms of ESP would be a nice addition also; most of them could probably be pulled from the linked articles. Pairadox 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it was pretty hard not to do it as a list. Don't know how to do that.... —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Framing
One of the major points of contention previously was whether weasel words ought to be inserted before we could define paranormal terms. Here is what the ArbCom said on that —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I interpret that differently. Wouldn't the "introduction of an article" be the lede? Even if you interpret that one strictly, I don't feel that fulfilling "serves to frame the matter" requires a sentence containing grammatical errors. Also, look at the actual decision. That would seem to say that aditional wording is not necessary, in this case because it's defined in the next few words. Just looking at the sentence itself, isn't "Paranormal perception" the same thing as "by means other than the normal senses?" Thus "paranormal perception by means other than the normal senses" is a redundant, if not downright confusing, statement. Pairadox 06:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I agree with you. But I know what it takes to avert edit wars.  You have to be able to quote chapter and verse.  But if you want to take it out, go ahead.  If we have trouble in the future we can put it back in and point to the ArbCom. Have you read the RfC on me, and the workshop page for the ArbCom?  And their talk pages?  It'll tell you the history pretty much!   —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can also point them to this reasoning. I haven't read any of those (didn't even know there was an RfC on you). I deliberately chose to read only the decisions by ArbCom because I know how... heated, and personal, the backstory can be, as told from various viewpoints. Rather than prejudice myself because of personal interactions amongst individuals in the past, I wanted to approach it with a totally uninvolved (and hopefully neutral) perspective. Pairadox 07:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that's probably the best choice come to think of it. Editors like you are unusual- or they are in the paranormal arena (—— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I am disputing the neutrality of this article because it has intermittent claims that ESP has a scientific basis. I do not believe that this POV can be supported by reliable sources.

This statement contains not one but at least three controversial claims since it covers three different phenomena: "The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically."

The preceding argument about whether testing for ESP is scientific is phony and irrelevant. It is possible to undertake scientific tests for specific forms of ESP such as card reading. The problem is that the community that undertakes these tests is pseudoscientific and therefore its claims tend to be suspect. This section describes some of the potential problems associated with any such claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#Criticism.

Take for example the source http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#20, cited for the above mentioned quote. This is exactly the sort of parapsychology site that I would cite as biased in favor of the paranormal. There needs to be mainstream scientific sources that support this statement, but I don't believe there are any. If parapsychology were truly recognized by the mainstream scientific community, it would be one of the most sensational scientific findings of all time. Instead, parapsychology seems to continually slip under the scientific radar. This indicates to me that parapsychology is the providence of kooks and charlatans, not the mainstream scientific community.

Here is a suggested rewrite: "The parapsychology community claims that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established by scientifically controlled experiments. However, many such experiments have later been discredited."

More suspect statements:

"People who believe in psi ("sheep") tend to score above chance, while those who do not believe in psi ("goats") show null results or psi-missing."

"Personality and attitudinal effects have shown greater predictability, with meta-analysis of parapsychological databases showing the sheep-goat effect, and other traits, to have significant and reliable effects over the accumulated data."

"These studies have proved to be even more successful than Rhine's forced-choice paradigm, with meta-analyses evidencing reliable effects, and many confirmatory replication studies."

Billebrooks 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See recent entries on Parapsychology talk page, and the full article. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with ScienceApologist's POV more or less, if not SA's choice of suggested language. But the parapsychology article is of much higher quality than this one.  I don't really see any problems with it currently.  This article is wrapping pseudoscientific claims in a cloak of science.  It uses language that causes alarm in a skeptic such as myself and it appears to be propaganda for the parapsychology community.  Billebrooks 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing, but I think what needs to be changed isn the attribution. For instance the sheep/goat thing merely needs to be attributed. More later.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that the references need to be changed, but rather that they do not support the text of the article. The text needs to be downgraded to more accurately reflect the quality of these references.  Also, the article needs to make clear in some way that meta-analysis is unscientific, and that meta-analyses do not really support anything at all.  A layman reader should be able to draw this conclusion without cross-referencing the parapsychology article. Billebrooks 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But your POV is not supported by the facts of the material or the sources. So you need to find sources stating this, and then attribute properly. I mean, you just made some claims. But you don't have sources as far as I know, to back them up. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I already responded to this. The problem is not that I need sources, but rather that the article was misrepresenting its current sources.  It is also did not have sufficient couching (cf. the Parapsychology Page).  Still, I improved the most offensive sentence that had the kooky claim that ESP has been scientifically proven, and others have improved the article.  Thus, the article is at a minimum less out of compliance than it was.  My sources for my change were the already cited articles which specifically cite the Parapsychology Association as their source.  User:Lucyintheskywithdada used your repeated question as an excuse to turn off the NPOV flag.  I'll leave it to someone else to determine if that was a good decision in spite of it being for a bad reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billebrooks (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first sentence ESP is differentiated from the other senses by claiming that it is a product of the mind; the problem with this statement is that all senses are products of the mind. Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to state that ESP does not have external stimulus. Stephjohnson92 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added 4 citations re the connection between spiritualism (and Spiritualism) and ESP.
hi,

I added 4 citations re the connection both historically and theoretically between spiritualism (and Spiritualism) and ESP. There are plenty more where they came from. Just to substantiate the infobox.

I seem to have pressed some folks buttons, it appears to be over the religious use of the terms/activities in America and so I just want to make clear that I am not pushing a religious POV, nor a theistic, nor becoming engaged in the adherent/skeptic debate, spiritualist/materialist debate. I am really coming from an anthropological one and stating ... "it happens and the references clearly support the interconnections".

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific investigation of ESP?
I´ve changed the mentioning of "scientific" and "science" in this section to, respectively, "parapsychological" and "parapsychology". Parapsychology is not a field of study accepted by the scientific community, neither in the US nor elsewhere. I also refer to several discussion held here above. I hope you can accept this change, since the section talks about parapsychology anyway. Maybe this article can be a little less POV this way? //Misopogon from Swedish WP | 85.229.98.193 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Million dollar challenge....
I'd like to add a reference to JREF's million dollar challenge to the article. Can anyone suggest where? James_Randi_Educational_Foundation

Thanks Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Extrasensory perception? There is also List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal. The topic is definitely prominent to ESP, but care should be taken not to heavy-handedly portray the issue as "ha-ha, this large cash prize proves that those silly espers are charlatans and frauds". - Eldereft (cont.) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

bad cite
In 1978, parapsychologists largely abandoned any further defence of the findings... {Schmeidler G. 1945} - why is a 1945 text being used to cite a 1978 event? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing 33 years into the future! Another example of ESP at work! Plazak (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Real "Sixth Sense"
The term "sixth sense" is a misunderstanding, as there are more than five senses recognised by science (eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_spindle). - Paul Coddington

1st Paragraph
I removed the 41% statistic from the end of the first paragraph. Please do not put it back without a reference.66.120.181.218 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone put the sentence "Hey, I love goats..." right in the middle of a section on humanistic psychology in this article. That particular remark had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic the article is covering, either from a proponent or skeptical point of view. So whoever did this, please refrain from such vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I laughed when I saw this. I'm guessing it's a reference to the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats", which parodies ESP among other things. 72.175.152.16 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits
A number of my edits have been reverted so far, first without any explanation whatsoever, which would make any contribution impossible.

Please don't do this, I was just trying to clean up the article a bit. Tell me what's the objection, whether the edits should be discussed here first.

Last revert was for the reason that a claim "skeptics claim" is uncited. I beg it does appear to be cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph - to an extent - while the original statement, as well as the one at the beginning of the article, is not. A bunch more changes were reverted alongside this one.

Please be a bit more friendly, thanks. --92.100.103.125 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ESP - Coining the phrase
When researching this subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception), Sir Richard Burton was credited with coining the term 'ESP'. It goes on to state that J B Rhine adopted the term, yet when visiting J B Rhine's own entry in Wikipedia, I discovered that he had been credited with coining the term.

I double checked by visiting Sir Richard Burton's page and discovered that nowhere is ESP mentioned at all.

I'm now confused and would really like to know who coined the phrase and when.

86.167.225.127 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Nick B

I have also seen credit for coining the term given to Frederic Myers in 1882 as well. With such conflicting crediting, I would find it difficult to credit the term accurately at all. Perhaps credit for coining the term should not be given in the article; it does not add much meaning, but a false crediting decreases Wikipedia's validity. Stephjohnson92 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the name to Frederic Myers after seeing the name repeated frequently in credible sources. I chose the source so if anyone finds more evidence that someone else coined the phrase, he or she is encouraged to credit the more likely phrase-coiner. Stephjohnson92 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ESP and computers
There seems to be many ways of communicating in using artificial intel., and computers. Have been experimenting with using hieroglyphs <|>, >|<, /\~^~/\, , in representing what is difficult to put into words, and can be used to associate many different subjects that are relative in universal ways, and combining languages. Clairvoyance could also be involved. A.I. Seer75.203.146.56 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like original research, which does not belong on wikipedia.--199.46.198.232 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What properties are present in someone with ESP?
Though the article does well to explain what the term ESP is, it does not cover what ESP entails. What sorts of properties someone with ESP would possess should be more prevalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephjohnson92 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing
Please stop adding the following claim: Parapsychology is the scientific study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP.

77.166.70.218 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit
(This is the first time I've used Wikipedia talk pages and am not certain whether or not I'm following proper guidelines, but I would like to make an edit to the second paragraph. Although this post is a bit long, I think all of what I say here is relevant to the topic.)

"Parapsychology is the pseudoscientific[1] study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP. Parapsychologists generally regard such tests as the ganzfeld experiment as providing compelling evidence for the existence of ESP. The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.[2][3][4][5][6]"

I question the claim that Parapsychology should be classified as a pseudoscience simply because the mainstream scientific community says it is. The study of ESP phenomena has been studied for years by the Society for Psychical Research and other similar organizations. This has been studied since 1882 by a large number of scientists, philosophers and other open-minded individuals with varying degrees of skepticism and a large percentage of them who studied this using scientific procedures have concluded that there is good evidence for ESP. I don't think too much weight should be given to what the mainstream community thinks, mainly because a large number of scientists simply haven't studied the subject. Many simply don't think that ESP is possible and therefore, don't believe that the issue is worth pursuing. We should give greater weight to people who have studied the subject and those who have are called parapsychologists. Although many parapsychologists believe that there has been convincing evidence for years, a paper done by Daryl Bem in the respected Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has provided more recent evidence of this in his paper called "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect." ( http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf ) Despite the link to the paper that I have just provided, I doubt that I am going to convince the editors on this forum that ESP is a reality. I think that a drawback to many of the studies including this one, is that the papers are so dry and boring that it is tough to get anyone to go through them that doesn't believe in ESP to begin with. (A much more engaging account of the evidence for ESP and paranormal claims in general can be found in Colin Wilson's best-selling book "Beyond the Occult." http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/770509.Beyond_the_Occult) So I'm just going to propose some modest changes to the article.

First, the word psuedoscience is removed and it is mentioned at the end, what organization or organizations are declaring it as such. Secondly, the word mainstream is put in front of the words scientific community to highlight the fact that there is a minority who do think that evidence exists. Finally, the word perceived is put in front of the word absence to highlight that this a matter of perception rather than certain fact. Here is the edit:

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP. Parapsychologists generally regard such tests as the ganzfield experiment as providing compelling evidence for the existence of ESP. The mainstream scientific community rejects ESP due to the perceived absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP and the perception that there is a lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. For this reason, organisations such as the National Science Foundation declare Parapyschology to be a pseudoscience. Jdsg1 (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your proposed edit violates many different Wikipedia policies in many ways. Please read up on the following policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Parapsychologists are still part of American Psychological Association (APA)
Even though this article states so bluntly, "Parapsychology is the pseudoscientific[1] study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP.", FACT is that APA, with authority far beyond the whelps, is recognising the parapsychology and the parapsychologists (5 years academic training or more) with it! Shame on you! Please correct! 46.9.42.58 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Please, watch up for these under APA, also the issuer for psychologist's license, Society for General Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics, Society for Humanistic Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Psychologists in Independent Practice, and International Psychology as body nr. 52 46.9.42.58 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I can also inform the readers of Wikipedia that Parapsychological Association is a member of American Association for the Advancement of Science, the publisher of Science! Hah-hah, try to call them pseudoscientific!!! (Losers!!!) 46.9.42.58 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Instead of "Parapsychology is the pseudoscientific[1] study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP.", can we have "Parapsychology has an unknown/undecided status in its study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP.", please? Or one of them, at least? 46.9.42.58 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Do you have a reliable, secondary source for your statement that its status is unknown/undecided? With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   19:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, a fact only needs to be stated because it's easy to confirm as true. However, you may check out some Psychology Today from the 80s, as matter of strained recall. ;-) 62.16.242.218 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but checking out "some Psychology Today from the 80s" will not do as a source.  Lova Falk     talk   19:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but checking out "some Psychology Today from the 80s" will not do as a source.  Lova Falk     talk   19:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)