Talk:Parapsychology

Pseudoscience? Let’s just remove that from the intro, it belongs in controversy or critique
Why are we not saying “Parapsychology claims…”? I’m confused where the animus comes from based on what I’ve seen that it’s generally not scientific taboo?

I should put out there before anything that I’m formally a physicist and by no means sure of how less rigorous the criterion for “mainstream” social scientific inquiry may be in terms of defining what is or is not a field. I simply wrote what makes sense. There are many of us, especially in the physical sciences, who sit here and look at models and conclusory statements of many a social science in a given respected academic journal and complain profusely about the logical fallacies or likely fundamental errors in rigor, reason, and method. This whole deal with parapsychology is a controversy based on what I’m seeing; and as a controversy or matter of general opinion that has differed significantly from several actual renown authorities on both sides of the subject as a whole, where the majority of academia has no problem discussing or approaching parapsychology on level terms as a social or semi-physical science, in a way reminiscent of the more abstract formats of traditional philosophy or sociology, it is clear that this is the case where two sides are well defined and somewhat ambivalent. Since this ‘pseudoscience’ label is an indubitably controversial classification by apparent authority on both sides, Wikipedia should always be taking a neutral point of view in accordance with encyclopedic tone (See generally, NPOV). This is not a supplication to the rules, it just seems shockingly crass to dismiss the entire section of the Dewey Decimal System dedicated to the field, when the world has been greatly affected by the contents of it, akin to the diminution of science in the face of several religious institutions. I will, honestly, say that I do not agree with the subjects major premise in most circumstances but that is, of course irrelevant to the body of knowledge that can be objectively considered.

The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which is the premiere scientific consortium in the world, recognizes the exploration of parapsychological phenomena as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. “Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, agreed to publish a paper by Targ and Puthoff, which presented results of a series of experiments apparently showing evidence of paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and remote viewing.” Field-defining clinicians and psychologists in academia to include Carl Jung and some heavy hitting notables like Phil Zimbardo, Daryl Bem, and even more media-prone clinicians like Jordan Peterson or Dean Radin (though the latter may be considered “fallen-from-grace” since aiding in the development of the U.S. Government’s Parapsychology program and leaving Princeton’s Parapsych Research Project) have sat and acknowledged the interesting volumes of research of this phenomena while emphasizing that the empirical study of it is unquestionably scientific regardless of if the content of the theory is less sound than the methods of research…. Why is it that even in 2022, we are pretending here on Wikipedia that if it’s not a model theory that is agreeable enough to meet an arbitrary threshold then it must just be all humours and hysteria, instead? THERE IS NO TABOO IN MAINSTREAM PSYCH OVER PARAPSYCHOLOGY. The consensus is (even if that consensus is reflected by the AAAS Membership) that it’s a field of inquiry. That doesn’t mean it’s absolute hocuspocus.

Methodologies and frameworks have been made theories and models have been constructed and experiments are being done to test against those theories and models how is that unscientific or pseudoscience? As a physicist, I love entertaining peoples misconceptions only to dash them at the earliest ambiguity, but this intro downright debases what is repeatedly emphasized as a rather lucrative and well-debated field; simply put the writing of that part of the intro in the article is just so arrogantly conclusory that I was perturbed and I’m not even a proponent of the claims the subject makes. For crying out loud the Dewey Decimal System and LoC separate parapsychology from pseudoscience, fiction, and mythology. It’s about as well regarded as hypnotherapy (which isn’t saying much, but hey, it’s practiced under law so it must be something.)

There is no taboo against the study of parapsychology or the field itself. Can the same be said of some of the theories and models therein? Absolutely not. Insofar as they blame quantum foundations for the phenomena, I regard them as pure fantasy. Others maybe not so, but the study itself is respectable. PsychologyToday’s skeptic piece on it could even acknowledge all of these things, but a neutral encyclopedia article can’t? Seems contrary to NPOV (Original here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201401/is-there-scientific-taboo-against-parapsychology?amp )

“ [Authors] of the opinion piece (Cardeña, 2014) “call for an open, informed study” of the subject. However, they do not explain what specifically prompted such a call at this particular time… The article starts off, apparently quite reasonably, arguing that scientists need to consider all evidence in an open-minded manner and “recognise that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.” This is in contrast to deciding things dogmatically or by appeal to authority figures. No argument from me so far… Skeptics on the other hand argue that they find the evidence unconvincing because attempts to reliably replicate initially successful psi experiments have had a history of repeated failure. This is not to say that no effects have ever been replicated, rather that replication results have been inconsistent and contradictory.

…“This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks” (emphasis added). Lack of funding and professional and personal attacks I can well believe. Funding bodies have limited resources and so may have good reasons for declining to fund a field they consider unpromising. Professional and personal attacks, however regrettable, occur in many fields of endeavour, and are hardly unique to parapsychology. But claiming that there is an actual taboo against investigating the topic is a very puzzling one indeed for which the article offers no evidence.[3] In fact, the article actually cites survey evidence to the effect that only a minority of scientists dismiss parapsychology as pseudoscience or an illegitimate area of study. If this is correct, then how could parapsychology actually be taboo? Does this minority group of parapsychology-deniers have some special veto power that they can impose on the majority?

…A few years after Radin’s lecture, Daryl Bem’s (2011) paper that claimed to provide evidence that people can “feel the future” received an enormous amount of media attention (e.g. in Discover magazine[5]). Perhaps parapsychology is no longer so “taboo” as it was a few years ago? Alternatively, maybe it never was taboo in the first place…

According to Alcock (1987), when parapsychology research began in the 1880’s, a number of prominent psychologists, such as Pierre Janet and William James, along with scientists from other fields, were involved in looking for evidence of paranormal phenomena and psychical research societies were set up in France, America and Britain… many of whom turned out to be frauds. As a result, many psychologists eventually lost interest in the subject.

Parapsychology attracted attention again in the 1930’s with the pioneering experimental research into ESP by JB Rhine at Duke University. A 1938 poll of psychologists found that 89% of them thought that the study of psi was a legitimate scientific exercise (Alcock, 1989). I suppose they were not aware that this was supposed to be a taboo subject…

In 1969, the Parapsychology Association became an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is a well-respected international institution of mainstream science, rather than some fringe organisation. (It is worth noting that a 1982 survey found that only 4% of 339 of “elite” scientists in the AAAS thought that ESP had been scientifically established (Alcock, 1987).) More tellingly, in 1974, Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, agreed to publish a paper by Targ and Puthoff (1974), which presented results of a series of experiments apparently showing evidence of paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and remote viewing. Several of these experiments used the now notorious Uri Geller as their test subject…

A similar incident occurred again in 2011, when Daryl Bem, one of the signatories to the Frontiers article claiming that parapsychology is taboo, published his paper on precognition (Bem, 2011) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This journal is considered the flagship publication in its field, and news of this paper generated an enormous media response, even before it was officially published…

Alcock (1987) also notes that between 1950 and 1987 over 1500 parapsychological papers were abstracted in Psychological Abstracts, which is published by the American Psychological Association. Research on the subject has hardly been suppressed by the mainstream then…

On the contrary, Smith (2011) points out that mainstream science has actually advanced by accepting challenges to its model of the world. He gives the recent example of the discovery of dark energy. Prior to this discovery, the conventional view in cosmology was that the expansion of the universe was slowing down. However, astronomical observations led to the observation that the rate of universal expansion was actually accelerating instead, suggesting the existence of a previously unknown antigravity force. Five years of observation was all that was needed to completely revise our understanding of cosmology and now dark energy is being studied intensively and receives massive funding. Compare this to the over 130 years that parapsychologists have had to establish the existence of psi. It seems to me that if parapsychology has not won widespread acceptance it is because of faults within the subject itself References

Alcock, J. E. (1987). Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 553-643.

Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. doi: 10.1037/a0021524

Cardeña, E. (2011). On Wolverines and Epistemological Totalitarianism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25(3), 539–551.

Cardeña, E. (2014). A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness. [Opinion]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017

Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029709

Investigating the paranormal. (1974). Nature, 251(5476), 559-560. doi: 10.1038/251559a0

Judd, C. M., & Gawronski, B. (2011). Editorial Comment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 406.

Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 251, 602-607. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/251602a0

Luxnir (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(convenience break)

 * I read the first one-and-a-half paragraph of this incredibly long WP:WALLOFTEXT, and it was just boring and irrelevant chitchat - see WP:NOTFORUM - so I skipped the rest. At least the header Let’s just remove that from the intro makes a suggestion about improving the article, and the answer is no. Per WP:CSECTION, we do not restrict the mainstream viewpoint about something to a small ghetto section. And the image of parapsychology among scientists is a very important aspect of it, so hell no, we won't remove it from the intro.


 * If there was a reason why why should still do it, or another suggestion, somewhere inside your novelette above, please repeat them VERY SHORTLY, without unnecessary white noise around it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The screed above appears to be a copyvio from here and could be removed on that basis? -Roxy the dog . wooF 09:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That main source is also a blog expressing someone's opinion. However, on Wikipedia the WP:LEAD is a summary of the article's body, and if you look you will see the section on pseudoscience.  The mention complies with the WP:PSCI policy.  I would agree with the author that "taboo" is an improper term to describe science's approach to parapsychology, however.  If there were convincing methods and results it would be more mainstream.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 90% of the wall of text above argues against the word “taboo”, but the word “taboo” doesn’t appear in the article. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't argue taboo, it argues the classification of Psuedoscience. That word's connotation is severe and doesn't even show up in any modern authoritative depiction of "parapsychology". So the large resistance to that reasoning with such vitriol... that doesn't seem like good faith presumption at all and while you bring up the Wall-of-Text, it's pretty apparent this is just the practice of "an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy... dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". I'm not going to bother trying to convince a bunch of psuedoacademics about the classification of parapsychology as "pseudoscience". Obvious, you social science types are better suited to answer that for whatever reason. The mainstream scientific viewpoint (actual science) is that it is simply the study of non-repeatable statistically significant phenomena involving human experience and/or perception, not absurd fantasy. The psychology today article quoted was referenced in the beginning, as in "look at these relevant portions of this article". Nevertheless, this isn't even my subject; three people pointed it out to me and I was simply trying to improve encyclopedic accuracy, but whatever-- do with that what you will, I can care less (: sorry that I didn't have the care nor the time to respond to the unnecessary hostility in the first place. It's pretty appalling actually. Luxnir (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bye. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 18:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like it was changed as requested. Thanks! Luxnir (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean science is not a democracy anyway so it's not like the evidence presented in parapsychology studies becomes any less factual just because it is published by non-mainstream journals, or because a bunch of pseudosceptics emotionally knee-jerk react to literally anything which this field of science puts forth by decrying it as "pseudoscientific" (often without even looking at the evidence).
 * Also, the scientific community is not some monolithic collective with a uniform opinion. It's a very diverse group of scientists having all kinds of differing views, interpretations and opinions about various subject matters. This comment isn't directed at anyone specific here, but simply a general statement. I'm glad though that this article has become less biased than in the past, even though there is still much room for improvement (less one-sided sources for example). 193.32.248.206 (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Psi encyclopedia
I included the SPR's psi encyclopedia in the article, but then an editor removed it without providing adequate reason. The encylopedia is a valuable resource with articles by experts on hundreds of topics, and it seems obvious to me that the WP article should include reference to it. Is there any good reason why it should not? Brian Josephson (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I mildly support inclusion of a reference to it, because it's a very well known 'resource', at least in the skeptical and true-believer communities, but I think such a reference would need to be properly characterized to merit inclusion. I've seen the edit and revert, and I don't think the initial edit quite did the job right, though it didn't seem unduly promotional or credulous to me. Happy  ( Slap me ) 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Basically, I agree with you. Something short and simple would be good.  I'm too busy to have a go right now, but do you have any suggestions yourself? Brian Josephson (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, we need a source other than the publisher to mention it. The objection that @Ixocactus raised was perfectly valid. Happy  ( Slap me ) 17:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The logical place would seem to be following the Society for Psychical Research, publisher of the Journal of Society for Psychical Research, just adding 'and the Psi Encyclopedia', and including the link to the latter just as the JSPR has a link included. There's no obvious reason to include the one but not the other. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see Ixocactus has now done this, but without the links. I'm fine with that as people can easily locate the items with a search on the names. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I see there's an 'external links' section that includes reference to the SPR, saying 'it continues its work today', which would be a natural place to refer to and link to the encyclopedia. There would be a number of options in that case.  Any thoughts? Brian Josephson (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The very simple mention of it right now is fine by me. I'm on the fence wrt including it in the external links section. I know that there are threads of skepticism in it, but I've often seen it characterized as credulous, as well. I haven't read it myself, except for brief excerpts here and there, so I can't really weigh in on the appropriateness of including it as an external link. I'd like to hear what others think before I make up my mind. Happy  ( Slap me ) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since it is one of the most useful sources, it seems to me that it should most definitely be included in the external links. Can you be more specific about 'threads of scepticism' (I know about the 'read more' link on the home page, which is not really part of the encyclopedia). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted your indenting a bit to better reflect the flow. Hope you don't mind.
 * I was making reference to the fact that the encyclopedia occasionally treats subjects with something approaching a proper degree of skepticism (using research methods designed to disprove and then relying on said research and commenting on it's successes and failures to arrive at a conclusion objectively). The only example I can cite from my own knowledge is the "Experiments" section on the Psychic Detective entry, but I've read that there are a few other such cases. Note that I still find the work to be a bit too credulous, I'm simply saying that they do make some effort to engage in a degree of skepticism, which puts them heads and shoulders above many similar works. Happy  ( Slap me ) 16:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Over the years have improved their methodology so as to avoid aspects that might be sources of criticism, and have been better than doing this than psychologists as a whole. Thus they are more inclined to self-criticism than most, but on the other hand they do not engage in unwarranted criticism.  There's no gain in incorporating scepticism for scepticism's sake where there is no good cause for this.  However, if you do find what seems to you to be good cause, then why not write in indicating your views and I'm sure they will modify any article where this turns out to be appropriate.  As your example shows, they are not against referring to problems where there are any.  However, I must note that they will not adopt the view that starts off as some critics do from the position that psi is extremely unlikely and then applies Bayesian statistics to show that the evidence is not good enough.  That is indeed an unscientific attitude to take — one can't take the current perspective as gospel, that is religion not science. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Gost Arcologist
What is the study of Spirit, monster, Alen are called what Arcologist 157.49.236.143 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)