Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 20

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
The way to handle this is for everyone to stop responding.

Ignore non-consensus commentary on talk and revert any unhelpful edits to the article "per consensus on talk".

If this is taken to an admin noticeboard onlookers will see a civil discussion and will ask what the problem is. Of course an enthusiast will always reply to a response. It's other people who are feeding the disruption. When was the last time you converted a True Believer? Stop trying. Handy links: WP:NOTFORUM + WP:CONSENSUS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm in. I am ceasing respo
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not about convincing him that there is no psi, but about showing that his POV is fringe, that science as a whole disagrees with him, that his idea of NPOV is not in accordance with WP rules, and that his reasoning is spurious. If the rules are clear on this, it should be possible to point to the relevant pages. If they are not, they should be made clearer.
 * I think the problem is: he sees the rules pages and thinks "this does not apply to me, since my POV is in line with reliable sources" or something similar.
 * The goal of discussions like this is never to convince the opponent but to show up the weakness of the opponent's position to third parties. This cannot be achieved by banning or by not responding; those are only appropriate after the goal has been achieved. Has it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you think the current discussions on this page would ever end? People obviously enjoy showing the weakness of their opponent's position but that is not the purpose of an article talk page. Is there a realistic chance of the current situation leading to an improvement in the article? If not, then WP:NOTFORUM means the discussions should stop. Anyone wanting a continuous debate should find a different venue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am only addressing issues relating to edits. Unlike most other editors, I have not expressed any opinions, only tried to add cited information. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have expressed opinions. The belief that parapsychology is a science is a belief. People who claim to be neutral never notice their own biases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still had hope he would give up if people showed him how bad his reasoning is. Now I don't. His opinions are too strong and too inflexible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This sounds a tiny bit like you are saying want to change the rules to make them suit your point of view... You seem to be confusing my attempts to add balance with having a belief in psi. I have never stated any such opinion. Have you considered that perhaps it is you skeptics that are the true believers? You appear to believe quite fervently that parapsychology is not science, despite wikipedia findings and rules calling for balance. You seem to have a quite fundamentalist position on expunging all parapsychologists from wikipedia. How is it that you can see the mote in my eye but not the beam in your own? I thought the goal was to give a balanced view. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Guy Macon Has replied to this comment with You Thought Wrong here on my talk page. I'm not sure why he replied there. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me state this upfront: we admit that we have a bias, we are in fact very biased. Very, very biased for mainstream science, that is. If we would not have this bias, Wikipedia would succumb to chaos, it would become a mere PR outlet for each his/her own pet idea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You openly admit to having a religious and irrational starting point, an ideology that is above evidence and dictates how evidence should be sorted. An encyclopedia should only follow the strength of the evidence and not anyone's ideology, religious or otherwise. There should be no apriori preconceptions of what is factual and what is not on basis of ideological considerations. You fail at the first hurdle to rational and scientific worldview and should have no business editing wikipedia with that attitude and approach. An article on parapsychology or any topic for that matter, should look at the strength of the evidence and not sort it strictly through your or anyone else's ideological lens. To dismiss peer reviewed studies that fulfill wikipedia's criteria just because the results are contrary to your religious world view is not acceptable. The article should be completely rewritten to include an overview of the whole field of study. Now peer-reviewed information is being withheld from the reading public. The picture is being distorted to serve an ideological cause. That is not acceptable. And I do NOT personally believe in the parapsychological. But I do believe in the honest appraisal of evidence. You believe in summary dismissal of peer-reviewed evidence if it goes against your ideology. And it is sad to see wikipedia fail at this basic requirement time and again. Because of religiously-minded people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.219.228.92 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:RGW. We're not a research institute, we don't evaluate evidence. We are merely a mirror of scientific orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticising the critics
The article lead currently casts a negative light on parapsychology research because it is mostly privately-funded. Yet in the UK at least, all Universities rely to a greater or lesser extent on private funding, typically celebrating their greatest benefactors by naming a research institution, faculty, college, etc. after them. Such parapsychology labs have for the most part a strong track record of sceptical enquiry, failing to replicate positive results reported elsewhere and offering extensive study of our abilities to fool ourselves. The University of Edinburgh Koestler Parapsychology Institute is a case in point. Implied criticism of it and its ilk, simply because they benefit from private bequests, is unjustified and just gives the article a bad smell. Is it OK to cut back on such over-zealous and unjustifiable sceptical attacks, in order to better focus on the genuine criticism of the claims these institutions investigate? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should present private funding as a criticism. Neutrally reporting that there is no evidence that the subject of parapsychology research actually exists is more than sufficient. True, parapsychology research doesn't get public funding for the same reason that bigfoot research, ghost research and loch ness monster research doesn't get public funding, but we would need sources that specifically cover the connection something between not existing and not getting public funding in the context of parapsychology. I don't see that in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot see that negative light. THe article says it is mostly privately-funded, but where does it draw conclusions from that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The emphasis of the whole paragraph is in writing off parapsychology as a field of serious study. The mention of private funding has no special relevance to parapsychology and the only reason to include it has been as a part of the general dissing. I already edited it to tone down the negative innuendo, but really it needs removing. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I have done that now, and replaced the remarks with what I hope is a more balanced view of the current situation. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your POV-push. Please do not insert student newspapers and make uncited claims about scientific respectability in articlespace like that in violation of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I can accept that the student source is not normally reliable, though I was only quoting a University Professor. Note that the cited Prof. publishes sceptical results, and for the most part so do their colleagues, and I quoted them not in support of woo, but in support of the scientific method. So I am sorry, but treating the case for good science as PoV-pushing is not really acceptable on a pseudoscience topic, please desist. I am sure you are no more a woo merchant than I am, but it makes you look bad. And what uncited claim about respectability did I make? I cited a newspaper reporter and a University professor who both made the claim, I didn't make it! So please don't make unfounded accusations either. Nor have you commented on the "private funding" issue, so may I take it that you have no problem in treating that as an NPOV issue? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I did a fair bit of tidying because the references are in a horrible mess. Your mass reversion of all that was pretty darn discourteous. Please respect WP:CIVIL in deed as much as in word, not to mention WP:AGF; I am not a woo merchant whatever your kneejerk is telling you. I have restored the bits you didn't carp about; if you are still unhappy, then please give good reasons here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Psychokinesis
The position of brackets in the opening paragraph seems to imply that psychokinesis is a form of extrasensory perception, but psychokinesis is not actually a form of extrasensory perception. Rollo August (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability of claims in first paragraph
Hi there

The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article asserts that the majority of mainstream scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience, both for reasons of lack of empirical evidence and for a priori reasons. However, as far as I can tell, the 8 sources cited to support this sentence do not refer to any empirical research which actually shows that this is the view of the majority of mainstream scientists. I was able to access and check most of the 8 sources. In addition to this, only one of the sources, the first one, argues that ‘the data are irrelevant’ and that parapsychological claims should be rejected on a priori grounds.

Whilst I don’t doubt that most scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience, I am not sure that most of them would reject parapsychology on a priori grounds and consider that the data are irrelevant. In any case, whether most scientists do hold either of these views is not verifiable from the sources cited. So, I suggest this sentence be modified, deleted, or updated with verifiable sources that support the assertions made. Thanks. Gadoj (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gadom appears to have already decided on an answer to the question asked above. WP:BRD] and WP:TALKDONTREVERT apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, but that was a different issue (I'm not talking about reverting or adding a new sentence, but the accuracy of the existing sentence). Gadoj (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD paragraph is intended to be a summary of cited material contained in the body of the article, so inline citations aren't strictly necessary there. Have you looked at the rest of the article? And I noticed you have been trying to insert material cited to Journal of Scientific Exploration. Wikipedia doesn't consider that a reliable or independent source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the rest of the article refers to research indicating that the majority of scientists consider that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, based on lack of empirical evidence and/or for apriori reasons. As the lead paragraph is intended to be a summary of cited material contained in the body of the article, as you say, this is even more reason for the opening paragraph to be amended.To reiterate, the issue here is about verifying what the views of the majority of scientists are regarding parapsychology, not parapsychological claims themselves. Issues to do with the Journal of Scientific Exploration are also not relevant to this specific issue. Gadoj (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the above discussion, I propose changing the last sentence of the first paragraph by replacing 'a vast majority of mainstream scientists' with 'many scientists'. It can be changed again if sources are cited which verify the claims made. Are there any comments on this proposal? Gadoj (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

<—-The subject has been discussed innumerable times here, with the present text as the end result. -LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response but, again, the issue being discussed here is not whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The issue is citation of empirical research which verifies the assertion that the vast majority of scientists consider it a psedoscience, and do so on both empirical and a priori grounds (personally, I think is is possible that most scientists would reject the proposition that the 'data are irrelevant', as Reber and Alcock attest). If this issue was already discussed and resolved, then the sources which verify the sentence in question need to be updated to reflect this. Gadoj (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus of Wikipedia editors strongly supports the current wording and not a single person has expressed agreement with your suggested changes. I doubt that you will find anyone who surveyed scientists on this exact question, but just try to find any legitimate scientist who considers parapsychology to be anything other than pseudoscience. Maybe historically, when the very first experiments were being performed, but the complete lack of any experimental evidence that any of it exists pretty much convinced everyone who has looked into this.
 * Here is some advice for you: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll consider a RfC or 3O. But before I do that, are there any objections if the sentence is amended to:
 * "It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists because of a lack of replicable empirical evidence, and because many scientists consider that parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't." ? Gadoj (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You want to change...


 * ...[rejected by] scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims [cannot by true]


 * ...to...


 * [rejected by] scientists because of a lack of replicable empirical evidence, and because many scientists consider that parapsychological claims [cannot by true]


 * This, in the context of your edit warring, convinces me that you are pushing the fringe POV that there are legitimate scientists who believe that parapsychological claims might be true. Other than a few kooks who are laughed at by real scientists, no such scientists exist. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My single reversion (which does not qualify as edit warring) happened because my original edit was reversed without any consultation or explanation being provided as to why. Admittedly, that was also my first edit on Wikipedia and I had not investigated all these processes for obtaining consensus. The point I am trying to make is that no evidence has been provided that the majority of scientists believe the data are irrelevant in relation to parapsychological claims and they they can be rejected on a prirori grounds.
 * In any case, all I need to know before proceeding to RfC is whether or not anyone objects to the proposed edit. RfC will make a decision based on whether the sources cited support the claims made in the sentence. Gadoj (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You’ve been here a couple days and made 15 or so edits and you’re filing an RfC? Is this your first user account? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of your question, but yes this is my first user account. I found out about RfC through the advice Guy Macon provided above. Gadoj (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about what just happened. Alas, we get a lot of users who get banned from Wikipedia and come back with new identities. We need to WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem.Gadoj (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Something to remember is that since it's pseudoscience, it's even a given by WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL that we don't even need to WP:ATTRIBUTE to many/some scientists that it's considered untenable. Thus "rejected by scientists" is acceptable. Alternatives would be: "is considered to be pseudoscience and there is no evidence to support its claims and tenets", etc. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "It is considered to be pseudoscience and is rejected by most scientists" would be acceptable to me (as at least it doesn't legitimize Reber and Alcock's position that the data are irrelevant). If Reber and Alcok's position is considered worthy of inclusion in the article by editors, perhaps another section could be added for it, rather than condensing their argument into half a sentence in the opening paragraph.Gadoj (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to remember that scientists tend to laugh at paranormal nonsense, rather than investigate it. It's kinda difficult to fund investigating nonsense, and the investigation itself would be a waste of time. Scientists tend to look at the probable, rather than the batshit insane. I do not support the watering down of the lead in this manner, we must follow policy and call this spade wot itis. -Roxy the sycamore . wooF 18:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are saying could be true, but it should be verifiable with a reliable source b4 being included in an article.
 * Interestingly, this reliable source, whilst not referring to the beliefs of professional scientists per se, concludes that a better understanding of science 'could be protective against pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs, but not against conspiracy ideation' (unfortunately the full article is behind a pay wall). Gadoj (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.


 * Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." Source: --WP:PARITY

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "it is reasonable to demand that the parapsychologists produce consistently significant findings from experiments that are methodologically adequate before their claims are taken seriously." --Psi experiments: Do the best parapsychological experiments justify the claims for psi?
 * "Although parapsychology has been studying paranormal phenomena for over 130 years, currently it exists mainly at the fringes of scientific institutions. Mainstream science largely ignores psi, e.g. physics textbooks make no mention of the possibility that mental events might influence physical objects at a distance and science funding agencies generally will not financially support parapsychology research. Naturally parapsychologists object to this state of affairs..." --Claims about the "taboo" status of parapsychology lack substance
 * "If any person claiming to have paranormal ability did in fact poses it, he, or she, would easily be able to claim the James Randi Education Foundation's million dollar challenge offering a prize US$1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Anyone possessing a genuine paranormal ability should easily be able to reach an agreement on the test criteria with James Randi (aka "The Amazing Randi"). No one was able to claim the award, so no one posses any provable paranormal ability. Period. " --The Best Proof that Paranormal Phenomena do not Exist
 * "The big problem with parapsychology as a field is that science is all of a piece. Thus, physics is consistent with chemistry, biology and so on... Basic physics leaves parapsychology as a field to be completely impossible. All matter [is made] of quarks and leptons; everything else they do is emergent properties of the behaviour of quarks and leptons. And the quarks and leptons interact through the four forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. Thus either it's one of the four known forces or it's a new force, and any new force with range over 1 millimetre must be at most a billionth the strength of gravity or it will have been captured in experiments already done. So either it's electromagnetism, gravity or something weaker than gravity. This leaves no force that could possibly account for telekinesis, for example. Telepathy would require a new force much weaker than gravity that is not subject to the inverse square law, and also a detector in the brain evolved to use it for signaling. Precognition, the receipt of information transmitted back in time, would violate quantum field theory. What this means is that these ideas have pretty much no chance of being right even before we test them directly." --Rational Wiki: Parapsychology
 * "From the standpoint of physics there seems to be a major problem with the assumption and alleged discovery by some parapsychologists that spatial distance is irrelevant to psi. Three of the four known forces in nature weaken with distance. The skeptic would rather believe that ESP doesn’t exist than that there is some very strong and powerful force that is undetectable even though we’re able to detect what must be a much weaker force, gravity, without any trouble at all." --The Skeptic's Dictionary: Parapsychology


 * Technically, there is one procedural objection to a RFC: a local RFC cannot trump a WP:AE decision. This article is already under discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science. So, even if a RFC would be successful, it cannot trump that binding for all Wikipedians this is an article about pseudoscience or fringe science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That would only be an issue if Gadoj posted an RfC asking whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience or asking whether parapsychology is fringe science. I don't see any problem with an RfC about their suggested changes described above. Gadoj appears to be following the advice I gave at WP:1AM. I would ask everyone reading this to please take another look at that page, and if any of my advice is bad, inaccurate, or just needs tweaking, please start a discussion on the essay's talk page so I can fix the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. Taking it into account, I propose changing the sentence from:
 * " It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't."
 * To:
 * "It is considered to be pseudoscience and is rejected by a vast majority of mainstream scientists."
 * Are there any objections to this? Gadoj (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to see your reasons why you think this change should be made before deciding. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reasons:
 * 1. I think Reber and Alcock's argument that the data are irrelevant for parapsychological claims, that they cannot possibly be true, and that such claims can be rejected on purely philosophical grounds is ridiculous. Skeptics such as Paul Kurtz  would agree with me on this point: "He promoted what he called "Skepticism of the Third Kind," in which skeptics actively investigate claims of the paranormal, rather than just question them. He saw this type of skepticism as distinct from the "first kind" of extreme philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility that anything can be known, as well as the "second kind" of skepticism, which accepts that knowledge of the real world is possible but is still largely a philosophical exercise."
 * 2. Reber and Alcock do not claim that the vast majority of scientists agree with their argument.
 * 3. No sources are provided which verify the claim that the vast majority of scientists agree with their argument.
 * 4. If Reber and Alcock's argument is accepted then the rest of article lacks coherence (why discuss data if it is not relevant?).
 * 5. The WP:LEAD "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Reber and Alcock's argument is not discussed in the rest of the article, so referring to it in the opening paragraph means that the lead section is not summarising the most important contents of the article. Gadoj (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. One compelling reason would be enough to get me to support the change, so let me go through what to me are the best first.
 * #5 by itself is convincing. Shorter leads are better, and moving things from the lead when the body covers them is often a good idea. Based upon argument #5 alone, I am going to support Gadoj's proposed change unless someone comes up with a good reason why I shouldn't.
 * #4 is weaker. Many Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience topics discuss data and arguments that someone thinks supports pseudoscience.
 * #2 and #3 are WP:PARITY arguments. Find me a source which verifies the claim that the vast majority of scientists think that the moon isn't made of green cheese, that pigs can't fly, or that vampires have no reflection. While it is absolutely true that the vast majority of scientists agree on these things, only a tiny minority have addressed those specific questions -- or parapsychology -- in print.
 * #1 is completely wrong and I completely reject it. We don't say that parapsychology cannot possibly be true on purely philosophical grounds. We say that parapsychology cannot possibly be true because it violates what we do know to be true. It really is the case that if parapsychology is true that all of physics, chemistry, optics, probability, and another dozen scientific fields are completely false. Even such mundane tasks as designing Las Vegas games where on the average the house comes out ahead or designing a pacemaker that doesn't allow someone to kill the patient by thinking about it become impossible if parapsychology is true.
 * But again, argument #5 is good enough for me and I only need one good reason. Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it is or is not published in respectable journals is not relevant, according to the reasoning in the lead paragraph. A direct quote from the Reber and Alcock article : "We did not examine the data for psi, to the consternation of the parapsychologist who was one of the reviewers. Our reason was simple: the data are irrelevant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadoj (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True, there are no reputable publications, so it's garbage in, garbage out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is a consensus, so I will edit the sentence as per the above (it can always be reversed if new issues come up). Thanks all. Gadoj (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is a consensus, so I will edit the sentence as per the above (it can always be reversed if new issues come up). Thanks all. Gadoj (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Anomalous operation
Anomalous operation redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A bit of googling makes it clear that it's a descriptive term (most of the hits are to scientific works making note of observations which didn't match predictions). It seems to have some use by the woo thing clan, but it's not a distinct term of art. I'd MfD that redirect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked back at the stub underlying the redirect, but couldn't find an independent WP:FRIND source to cite for it. This one is surprisingly neutral, considering it's from a metaphysical book dealer site, and it says: Types of parapsychology: the phenomena in question fall into two broad groups. Extra-sensory perception, also known as anomalous cognition, includes telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. Anomalous operation includes psychokinesis (in the past referred to as telekinesis), out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, and reincarnation. So it seems to be a term used (inconsistently) within the parapsychology bubble to delineate one of two broad groupings of "phenomena". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Anomalous operation was a stand-alone article for awhile that was flagged in 2013 (by LuckyLouie) for merging into the parapsychology article after a brief discussion on the Fringe Noticeboard. The merge happened by a different editor on 19 November 2013‎. Some time after that the term disappeared from the parapsychology article. See also Talk:Anomalous_operation. The redirect is no longer justifiable and should be eliminated imo. It's one of those invented terms by paranormal paper writers who don't like the term psychokinesis and thought and still think technospeak will add validity to their research.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Found these pages with rather loose definitions (basically anything involving psychic powers), but no current use in any full Wikipedia articles.


 * Operation (disambiguation page).
 * https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Parapsychology/Intro (Wikipedia sister site).


 * Please leave a note on my talk page if there is ever a vote anywhere to delete this redirect, if a vote is even needed.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Organized misinformation campaign
On July 8th, 2021, the Society for Psychical Research tweeted, "Parapsychology's battle for the Internet". The tweet had this image attached, titled "Parapsychology's battle for the Internet: A Critical Insight into the Wiki Problem".

There is a section titled "Wikipedia", which states that it's a "particular problem for parapsychology" and claims that its editors are "hostile to parapsychology."

The next section titled "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" criticizes Susan Gerbic, and her work and her group's work on Wikipedia.

The next three sections are titled "Professional Skeptics", "Bias is Rampant", and "Resistance is Impossible!", and are self-describing.

Then there is the "What Can Be Done?" section, which encourages organized misinformation campaigns online, including on Wikipedia. The final bullet point in this section says "Whenever possible, [people sympathetic to parapsychology] should challenge the anonymity of Wikipedia editors and urge them to permit the creation of more balanced views." My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "challenge the anonymity of Wikipedia editors"? I can't be sure exactly what that means but its sounds like they're encouraging people to dox editors they don't like. FYI @user:Sgerbic since she is mentioned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been at this for a while now. Basically Robert McLuhan set up the Psi Encyclopedia in an attempt to get their articles above the Wikipedia articles on Google. The project has not been a success. Recently they have been on social media platforms trying to find information about editors. I clicked on the Twitter link which attacks Wikipedia, the co-author is Callum E. Cooper. Obviously not a reliable source for science matters. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow they never get tired of this. A lot of these statements sound just like the attacks on GSoW and I from 2013. As usual these paranormal pushers don't understand the rules of Wikipedia and well ... other things. If only they would understand that I would LOVE evidence of the paranormal. Just can't accept shoddy research, anecdotes and blurry photos as evidence. If the evidence is out there then we can't use dirty test tubes - it must be the best science possible. They are welcome to edit Wikipedia pages, just learn the rules. I guess they gave up on creating a new Wikipedia, that was one of their last great ideas to "find their own Gerbic". Thanks for the tag Louie Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They did a live lecture about this . I am surprised Northampton University would host something like this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Northumbria Uni as well. One of my offspring did a first degree there. Another actually works at Northampton uni. one of those authors actually supervises awhat is a PhD student doing - An examination by experiment and survey of the differential effect of omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets on psi abilities and paranormal experiences. Gosh. Reading further, this thingy is a virtual conference poster presentation. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 18:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * They'd do better to actually fulfill the numerous "prove the paranormal for a million dollars" challenges out there and actually get some money to fund their "research" than they would campaigning to fix Wikipedia.


 * It's been my experience that anyone calling on the masses to "fix Wikipedia's biases/mistakes/misinformation" who isn't already a long standing Wikipedian with a good reputation is just butthurt by the facts not agreeing with their beliefs. And people butthurt about the facts not agreeing with their beliefs seem to be a hallmark of our current times, unfortunately. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If interested their is an interesting discussion here about how many see Wikipedia editors. Sgerbic (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay several things:

1) How is Callum Cooper "not a reliable source for science matters"? He is a parapsychologist with over 80 publications in the field (https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/en/persons/callum-cooper). People would hardly talk this way about a biologist talking biology or a physicist talking physics. Please show how he is unreliable using peer-reviewed papers (not other Wikipedia pages).

2) The James Randi experiments are not scientific experiments. They are publicity stunts
 * 1) Scientific experiments specify what their success criteria is before hand. They don't simply make the participant walk into a room and do something on the fly.
 * 2) The data for Randi experiments was never made available to inquirers. Rupert Sheldrake reached out to him when Randi said that his idea of morphic resonance was wrong and asked for his data and Randi did not have any. Journalists also asked Randi for the data he had on these experiments he conducted and he kept dodging the question.
 * 3) Randi makes the participants cover the cost of the experiments themselves which would easily dissuade tons of people from participating.
 * 4) His foundation is really sketchy. It's an educational foundation but it hardly gives any grants and 20% of it's money is spent paying Randi a salary (a far higher percentage than any other non-profit). Please see: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html
 * 5) His bar for clearing the experiment is so high that you basically have to be a Marvel superhero to clear it and most of the participants can't do nearly as much as they think they can do. This does not mean that they do not have a power. It only means that they do not have the type of power to clear the hurdle set before them.
 * 6) He selects people beforehand who he knows he can debunk (i.e. people who he suspects are illusionists).

3) What are these "shoddy" research practices you are talking about? Please support with a peer-reviewed article. Because most of these claims tend to be unfounded and even when they are founded, the meta-analyses still show highly statistically significant effects.

There is a price to pay for pathological skepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdk32020 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for discussions about article content. What are you claiming is not relevant to Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think responding to point #1 is in order, since it is relevant to sourcing in Wikipedia. Callum Cooper is not a reliable source for science matters because he is a parapsychologist. There is no analogy to biologists or physicists, since those are scientists talking science. Parapsychology isn't science, so a better analogy would be to homeopaths, astrologers or flat-earthers talking about their pseudosciences/fringe views. We don't take those people seriously, because that would be stupid of WP:FRINGE. VdSV9• ♫ 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fallacious line of argument that posits that a person who is an expert in a topic that the person advancing the argument doesn't like like should be excluded from editing the article or being cited in the article purely on the basis that they are an expert in that topic, has been tried and failed here before. I draw your attention to this Rfc Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest This Rfc came to the conclusion that no they don't. It is obvious why i.e. if they decided yes then any expert in any subject could be excluded.
 * This topic was also addressed explicitly about Parapsychology here Parapsychology article being edited by an advocate for an association promoting parapsychology.
 * Finally I refer you to WP:COI which states that "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work." Please note it doesn't say, "except parapsychology". Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The fallacious line of argument Well, then it's a good thing that nobody has used that fallacious line of argument here. The point was that parapsychologists are not reliable sources because of WP:FRINGE, not that they should not edit because someone does not like them.
 * Finally I refer you Here, to, you are refuting an argument nobody used. Are you sure you are on the right Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do worry about you Hob... You have clearly missed "Callum Cooper is not a reliable source for science matters because he is a parapsychologist.", and "Parapsychology isn't science," which appear in the paragraph immediately above my reply. Sure sounds exactly like the fallacious argument to which I refer. Sure sounds exactly like a personal opinion about not liking a recognized field of study in the academy. Maybe you need a rest? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this matters. We go by independent, reliable sources and those sources are clear in their evaluations. Parapsychologists are constitutionally unable to get the attention they recognize that they need to make their case. They are normally unable to break through and publish in mainstream journals and, when they do, they find their work is excoriated and often retracted. Sure, there are a few elderly psychologists and even fewer philosophers left who want to give them a hearing, but in spite of 150 years of trying, the lack of any convincing evidence presented has meant that we are in a state now where the scientific consensus against parapsychology is essentially uncontested in the independent literature. The only people who believe in parapsychology are those who assume psi exists. jps (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to win the battle for Wikipedia? Then produce a smoking gun. A no-nonsense, undeniably objective smoking gun. Till now parapsychology has produced none.
 * Even Nicola Tesla, the archetypical crazy scientist, has produced more evidence for his claims than parapsychologists have produced for theirs. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You should worry about yourself instead. Nobody said Callum Cooper should be excluded from editing the article, nobody said that Cooper should not be used because the person advancing the argument doesn't like his field or is not welcome here because he is a Subject-matter experts (SMEs). Cooper is rejected as a source because his field is not a real field. That may sound like the same to you, but that is not because they are similar, it's because your view is crooked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you Hob, jps and tgeorgescu for your reliable simultaneous appearance to share your usual comments. As ever, they are reliably informative and revealing. But my thanks to you especially Hob, the "please cite evidence but you can't because any evidence you supply will be disallowed because we say so" argument is my personal favorite and brings me much joy. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red herring and strawman in one sentence. Not bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, read WP:SIGN and to WP:INDENT. I formatted your contribution to make it more readable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Parapsychologists have produced till now weak correlations which cannot be explained by mainstream science.


 * Okay, let's assume that humans have immortal souls:


 * why the soul has to be telepathic?
 * why the soul has to be telekinetic?
 * why the soul of a dead person should appear as ghost?


 * These questions cannot be properly answered without invoking a shipload of other dubious assumptions. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)