Talk:Psychic/Archive 5

Reliable source
Is the parapsychology association a reliable enough source for this statement to be in the lead?

"Some parapsychologists have reported evidence of psychic ability of extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis. "

I say no.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Parapsychological association is the ultimate reliable source for what parapsychologists think. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's 100% obvious. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have reverted to the longstanding consensus phrasing of the lead/article. There was never any consensus for ScienceApologist's edits. I also removed a source which was used in a way that the source did not intend, after first trying an edit which made the text consistent with what that source was saying. I also re-inserted phrasing which said that the scientific community outside parapsychology does not accept evidence for psychic phenomena. For the status of parapsychology in Wikipedia, please refer to this Three layer cake with frosting. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The source indeed appears to be problematic. The source is quoting a third party's comment in a public debate, but without adequate context to tell whether it is an expert opinion, a misinterpreted off-the-cuff remark, or something else.


 * However, it looks like you two are edit warring. Please don't. --FOo (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the next step will be tagging and DR. The source has more than the problems you say, because it is making the point that rhetoric was used by a skeptic to skew the debate, whereas here it was used to source something "reported".

"'Just as Victorian anthropologists were apt to think shamans merely crazy, so some psychiatrists and clergymen have dramatically or unreflectingly asserted that many mediums are mentally disturbed and probably certifiable. Such assertions are as mistaken in the latter case as in the former. (p. 21) John Maddox, the editor of Nature, in a debate that took place at the University of Liverpool, argued that 'psychic impressions are more likely to be hallucinations rather than true accounts of the world and that as such, they are probably symptomatic of schizophrenia.' Accordingly, he thinks that to the extent that many of these phenomena are conceivably and quite probably the reports of people suffering from real organic physical diseases of that kind, it is really rather cruel that we should humour them by taking their reports seriously when appropriate medication would help them better. (Maddox, 1990, p. 22). Although there may be important insights to be gained from the relationship between some mental health problems and reports of paranormal experiences, a statement of the kind above insinuates that paranormal experiences are only legitimate as a symptom of psychosis. The inclusion of paranormal experiences under the umbrella of a psychopathology metaphor forces the issue of the irrationality of such experiences. Maddox’s speech both intimates sympathy for the sufferer and encourages a view of unusual experiences as indications of pathology. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note that it is the people in power at any given time who reserve the right to create the metaphors that people will live by.'"

Also, the edit used WP:WTA "reported," without even any attribution. It was weaseled, making statements for the "scientific community" and had other problems. The dubious tag even acted like parapsychologists aren't a good source for their own opinion. It was just full of problems. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I agree the source doesn't belong. But don't edit-war anyway. --FOo (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I agree. Like I said, WP:DR (: —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The source points out that many have accused mediums of having mental illness. This is a fact as illustrated by the quote. This deliberate head-into-sand thrusting by Foo and Martinphi is simply game-playing. It is clear that it is an assertable FACT that those claiming psychic powers have been accused of mental illness. The rest is just gravy.ScienceApologist (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Be civil. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

POV war
The source is hardly the only issue we're dealing with here. Why is parapsychology mentioned at all in the lead of this article? Psychic powers are notable well beyond their treatment with the discredited pseudoscientists of the middle of the last century. What we need to do is describe the fact that psychic powers have certain attributes that believers think they have and that these properties have no scientific evidence in the mean sense. That is what should be in the lead. The sourcing can come later, and in any case, since the lead is supposed to be a summary, sourcing is something that shouldn't be done parochially but instead should be worked out as a secondary matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

rephrasing?
this sentance: "Early examples of psychics include the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi who, according to Greek mythology, provided prophecies from Apollo himself, [4] or Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future."  while I don't object to it content-wise, I do have to point out that it's a bit misleading. the Oracle of Delphi and Nostradamus are not examples of psychics per se (since the concept wasn't even invented in their day), but rather individuals who are pointed to because they did things that we might in our day consider to be psychic. not making that distinction misconstrues their place in the discussion. how can we fix that? -- Ludwigs 2 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, who according to Greek mythology, was thought to be the mouthpiece of Apollo himself, and Nostradamus a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future." are examples of early prophecy.


 * I'm not convinced there isn't a little OR here...At any rate another way to word it.(olive (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC))


 * oh I think there's more than a little OR - I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. your approach isnt bad, but it needs to be tied in to Psychic, somehow.  maybe: "Researchers into psychic phenomena point to historical figures - such as the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, who  according to Greek mythology,was thought to be the mouthpiece of Apollo himself, or Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future." - to suggest that this is not a new idea."? -- Ludwigs 2  22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Better . I was aware I wasn't connecting to Psychic but wasn't sure how to do it unless there is a source that says this. The problem may be do, "Researchers into psychic phenomena point to historical figures..." Is there a source? At any rate, I like your version(olive (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm pretty fine with phrasing,s, so long as the skeptical view isn't lef tout too much. Saying they definitely, unambiguously did predict the future - bad. Saying that people believed they predicted the future - fine. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot live with "skeptics." Therefore, based on Ludwig's known interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS that only one person has to complain, and that defeats the consensus, I'm complaining.  Skeptic is a term used by anti-science types to imply that scientists ignore know facts like magical paranormal behavior.  Since Psychics deny science, then let's be fair and call this whole article scientific denialism.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, you are a complete and utter disruptive editor. How dare you make another revision without have the maturity to discuss it here.  You deserve to be permanently blocked from ever editing this article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OrangeMarlin - as I said in the edit summary, 'skeptics believe' is undeniably true, but 'scientists state' requires a stronger level of proof. I'm more than willing to use your phrasing, but I need some kind of source that indicates that all scientists say this, unambiguously.  can you provide the source, so we can include it?


 * Shoemaker - that sounds good to me. I didn't put this reference in, though -  I was just trying to preserve what was already in the document -  so I'm not quite sure how to work the skeptic POV in more.  let me read through the sources carefully and see what I can figure out.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin, stop being uncivil. And no, you can't find a source that says what all scientists believe.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For best results, let's please keep discussions focused on the article, and not on the editors, thanks. --Elonka 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, because every scientist knows "psychic" is anti-science and can't be tested, they don't all jump on board. You can't prove a negative, precisely because no one spends time disproving it.  Not every scientist studies fossils, yet 99.4% of scientists accept evolution as a fact.  Same here.  How about you find one source that shows a single reasonable scientist thinks this field actually exists.  By your and Ludwig's logic, any unsourced statement can be put into any article as long as there's no negative proof.  Doesn't work.  Oh, I'm about as civil as a multi-blocked editor deserves.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Freeman Dyson, one of the most respected scientists of our day, recently wrote in the New York Review of Books that he was open to the possibility of psychic powers that might lie beyond the realm of scientific investigation.” (olive (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I have revised the section on The Delphic Oracle to include a little more information as was there originally. Since the Delphic Oracle was not one person but many over time I thought to remove people and  to add priestesses by way of explanation. I have also added a source that notes the Oracle and its connection to "psychic". Although, I think citing Broad's book The Oracle (Penguin Press) noted in the article would be stronger, I don't have the book, and haven't read it so include this article. I believe the addition is neutral in terms of tone. That's the extent of my knowledge in this article (Greece), so good luck with the rest.(olive (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * ... and this revision is based mostly on the suggestions of other editors above.(olive (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * looks good to me.   -- Ludwigs 2  01:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited just now to make sure that it's clear that the term "psychic" refers to either stage magic or ESP, and removed qualifiers which are completely unnecessary if this is the definition. Also removed the incorrect dubious tag, as the statement concerns what parapsychologists say. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * SH why would you revert something that is historical in Nature and cite WP:Fringe. You reverted a reference as well as the whole thing and didn't even comment.(olive (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I apologise, but that's a pretty minor source at best. Does an obscure weekly internet newspaper actually reach the standards necessary for reliable sources? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Partially agree. The source is not impeccable as I noted above. It is, however, Greek and that's what we're taking about here, and it notes a book on this topic by a respected author. I felt that for now given this paragraph shouldn't be contentious, that this source would be adequate. I could cite the book. I felt that noting information about the Greek Oracle could not cause an edit war or I wouldn't have bothered. I was attempting along with Ludwig's input to make that section a little stronger, and to steer clear of the science/[pseudoscience arguments. The best laid plans.....(olive (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * It is factual to say that people believe certain things. It is not factual to say what the ultimate truth about certain things are. I suppose almost nobody now believes that the delphic Oracles are true revelations of gods, but to those that did, they were religious, not psychic. To those who think they were psychic, there could still be many theories of their origin. for example, they could be in at least some cases, deliberate conscious political statements disguised as being psychic. Labeling tends to over-simplify. I think they are best removed from here and left to their own article. DGG (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Pseudoscience case
As a reminder, this article now falls within the scope of the "Pseudoscience" case that was heard by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. As such, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place discretionary sanctions as needed, to ensure the smooth running of the project. See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: ''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

What does this mean for most of the editors here? Hopefully, nothing. :) For those editors who are participating in a civil way, assuming good faith, trying to build consensus, and doing their best to ensure that additions to the article properly reflect what is in reliable sources and do not give undue weight to minority viewpoints, there's nothing to worry about. Any editors who do not comply with these Wikipedia best practices, may receive warnings on their talkpages, which may escalate to a ban on editing this article (or in the worst cases, bans on editing in the topic area, or possibly having their entire account access blocked).  But that's several steps down the line, and there would be clear warnings before something like that would happen.  So in the meantime, please carry on with editing as normal.  If anyone has any questions though, please feel free to ask! --Elonka 00:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The POV pushing is getting pretty fierce, Elonka. There was a longstanding consensus that the term psychic is defined as both ESP and stage magic, and can be used without qualifiers.  Not to mention that we went through an ArbCom on the same subject which says "A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist" .  There is POV pushing to say "scientists say," as opposed to scientists outside the field of parapsychology have not accepted.  There is extreme incivility.  There is edit warring.  There is re-insertion of the dubious tag on a statement which merely repeats what some have said .  These are precisely and exactly the same issues which we argued over before that ArbCom.  They are not new issues, in any way whatsoever.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV/FAQ, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." - This is what I'm attempting to uphold. By giving more weight to the fringe field of Parapsychology than to science as a whole, the changes made caused the article to promote a fringe point of view, in violation of Wikipedia policy. We should certainly include the parapsychological view, but we have to do so proportionately, and not treat it as more important than mainstream science. Substantially weakening the mainstream view, while adding strong statements from fringe publications and the like emphasising the fringe views is not compatible with this, nor is treating what is at best a tiny minority in the scientific community, and at worse outside the scientific community (parapsychologists, a term which encompasses both fringe scientists and people outside of science) as having views equal in importance to the mainstream views, and hence insisting that they be given equal weight with the mainstream scientific view. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, it helps to get a more well-rounded view of the issues here. Which steps in dispute resolution has this article undergone so far?  Any RfCs, noticeboard threads, or attempts at mediation? --Elonka 02:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Shoemaker -It may be worth clarifying, but my sense is that the passage you cited refers to references to pseudoscience within the context of mainstream articles, not within articles about pseudoscientific topics. sure, psychic phenomena should not be treated as equivalent to other ideas on a page that talks about communication media, but that doesn't suggest that scientific viewpoints should be the predominant voices on a page about psychic phenomena, since science really doesn't have a whole lot to say about the issue.  or am I misunderstanding your point?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I don't think there's really any room for argument from a policy level here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker - you have A and you have B, but A & B do not imply C.
 * any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view - so, on pages where pseudoscientific views compete for space with scientific views, scientific views need to be presented as the established majority. fair enough; we don't want to present pseudoscience as though it could actually compete with scientific perspectives.
 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant - so, on pages specifically devoted to pseudoscientific topics, the scientific view should be made clear, so that there's no confusion that the pseudoscientific view has more weight than it actually has. also fair enough; we don't want runaway POV pages spreading all sorts of bizarre information as truth
 * however, it does not follow that
 * By giving more weight to the fringe field of Parapsychology than to science as a whole, the changes made caused the article to promote a fringe point of view, in violation of Wikipedia policy. We should certainly include the parapsychological view, but we have to do so proportionately, and not treat it as more important than mainstream science. giving precedence to a pseudoscientific view in its own article by no means gives more weight to the fringe topic than to science as a whole; claiming that would be a gross category error.  Fringe topic articles are (not surprisingly) supposed to talk about fringe topics. scientific dissent is required to the extent that it keeps the article from sounding as though it advocates the fringe perspective, but the article is not about the mainstream scientific perspective, and so the mainstream scientific perspective only needs to be included to the small extent required to keep the article grounded.




 * To make this clear, I made a venn diagram of the issue. note that with respect to some general context, the scientific viewpoint should be much more prominent, but with respect to the Fringe topic itself, the mainstream view is only represented by the overlap, which is relatively small by comparison. trying to assert that the mainstream scientific perspective should have some universal prominence neglects contextual domains entirely. -- Ludwigs 2  07:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am open to suggestions as to how to stabilize the article, via discretionary sanctions. Generally these boil down to categories of possible sanctions:
 * Editor-based sanctions, meaning remove certain editors from the article, or place limits on their editing (such as 0RR "no revert")
 * Article-based sanctions, such as to place the entire article on a reverting restriction, forbidding the deletion of reliable source citations, etc.
 * Some combination of the above.
 * Just based on what I've been seeing over the last day or two, I'm leaning towards a temporary 0RR or 1RR restriction, combined with "do not delete citations to reliable sources, unless there is talkpage consensus". Then again, I'm still coming up to speed.  Anyone else have suggestions? --Elonka 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on this. Bob (QaBob) 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I'm not convinced the 0RR or 1RR restriction will have meaning here. take for example the recent dispute over using 'skeptics believe' rather than 'scientists state'.  I removed the latter phrase because it was a strong statement about scientists' beliefs that had no sourcing; I even requested that some source be given for it.  instead, a series of editors - OrangeMarlin, Shoemaker'sHolday , and finally QuackGuru  (LittleOliveOil reinserted 'skeptics' once ) edited it back in without providing sourcing, or even discussing the matter in talk.  with a 0RR or 1RR restriction, this piece of what is either OR or pure opinion would have become a solid and incontestable part of the article, which strikes me as a violation of wikipedia's policy and intent.  If you're going to make a rule here, then I would suggest the following - place the major players on this page under a 'no-edit before discussion' rule - i.e., none of us are allowed to make any edits to the page at all (excluding clear vandalism reverts), under sanction, without first finding a consensus on the talk page.  new editors who enter the page merely to edit on the points under contention will have their edits reverted automatically by the admin, and be notified of and placed under the same rule at the admin's discression.  a rule like that should force discussion to consensus while avoiding the system-gaming that the 0RR and 1RR rules are subject to.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 does have a valid point here, IMO. While there was a footnote citation on the statement, it was not valid as the assertion didn't appear in the referenced article. Bob (QaBob) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletions
SH. You are making massive deletions to this article without discussion, or any kind of agreement or consensus. Please follow appropriate procedures for contentious articles.(olive (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry, Olive, but there are basic policies here, and the removed material was, by and large, either all added in the last week, not cited to reliable sources, or covered in the body text and thus unnecessary in that much detail within the lead. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * SH. Whatever the reason. You are deleting without discussion, and that's not appropriate action for any article let alone a contentious one.(olive (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I wish you wouldn't use that abbreviation. I'm horrible with acronyms, and it always confuses me who you're talking to. I will point out that I also added five sources to the article that were malformed, and that one of the links was to a skeptical site that didn't seem to meet basic notability. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I won't use the acronym again, and thanks for letting me know.(olive (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Is it this link to Skeptic's Dictionary? It obviously meets notability requirements for having an article here, which, BTW, are not required for sources. They have lower eligibility requirements for inclusion, and notability is not one of them. -- Fyslee / talk 03:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the one. Perhaps I'm ignorant of it, but I always thought it was just a couple people, not really related to any major groups. In any case, I'm not trying to be disruptive, just to keep pushing his article towards where it could be a GA. Sometimes this means a little trimming before expanding back, because we really do need decent sources, and I'm pretty sure there should at least be some decently-notable books on it we could use to present proponents' views. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing ref citations
These edits switched the references being used. One of the references was a book and now it is an article. Q ua ck Gu ru  04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The book refers only to antebellum American scientists. You know, pre-Civil war. A bit stale, don't you think. There were two references named Carroll, one a book, and one The Skeptic's Dictionary, but because the book came first, it appeared to be the only one used. Bob (QaBob) 04:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First you requested the page number of the book. But the refs are now switched around. I don't understand.  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. Neither source supports the statement. If you disagree, provide a quote. Bob (QaBob) 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But to explain. Prior to that reference being added, there were two different named refs in the article with the same name. Somebody added a call to the reference called "Carroll" but it's impossible to know which one they meant. The first one was a history of Spiritualism. It didn't seem to support the statement. The other looked closer, but doesn't appear to be reliable. Hope this helps. Bob (QaBob) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV?
This edit added the phrase "some scientists" and deleted the mainstream scientific view. This implies most scientists disagree. Please provide a quote from the source to verify the text. Q ua ck Gu ru  04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference being used was ambiguous. Was that supposed to be supported by Carroll1 or Carroll2? The statement, "The existence of psychic abilities is unsupported by science, and scientists state that psychic occurrences are attributable to either intentional trickery or self-delusion." seems awfully strong to actually have come from a reliable source. Carroll2 doesn't make such a statement, and Carroll1 is historical and no page number was provided. Did you add that statement and reference? Could you clarify which source you intended? Bob (QaBob) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We are discussing your edit and the source you added. This time you replaced a reference.
 * This edit added the phrase "some scientists" and deleted the mainstream scientific view. This implies most scientists disagree. Please provide a quote from the source to verify the text.
 * Please read my comment again. Some scientists is misleading. Do you think your edit violated NPOV.  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but not in the way you think. I'll fix it. The source said "A few" rather than some. The "mainsteam scientific view" presented was not in the source cited, so it violated WP:V. Bob (QaBob) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think saying a few or some implies that most scientists disagree?  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Few scientists go so far as to say in print that other people are fraudulent, though some skeptics and debunkers might. The actual scientific view, such as there is one, is in the first paragraph, "There is no scientific consensus that such abilites exist." The sentence that I replaced may indeed be the personal opinion of the author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, but he does not present it as "the scientific view" or say anything about what "scientists state" or even that a particular scientists states or stated anything. Bob (QaBob) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that's how science works. In other words, for anything scientific to be accepted, every single scientist must study and accept it before it becomes a fact.  Damn, I've got a lot of work to do on this project.  I helped Alzheimer's disease get to FA status, but I've never once studied an Alzheimer's patient.  I just assumed very smart people studied the disease, and their publications represented good science.  Little did I know.  You know what, I've never studied a dinosaur fossil either.  So that must mean that the Bible is right, the earth was created 6,000 years ago.  My sarcasm aside, the fact is that once something is debunked, most scientists don't waste their time repeating the debunking.  Psychics are frauds.  Every scientist knows that.  I don't have time to poll them.  The logical extremes pushed herein overwhelms rational thought.  Can someone remove the crap in the lead, and make it NPOV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

QaBob - prior to QuackGuru's edit, the last line had read "The existence of psychic abilities is unsupported by science, and skeptics believe that psychic occurrences are attributable to either intentional trickery or self-delusion", which I think is better written and more NPOV than the current version. do you concur? if so, I think we should go back to that.

OrangeMarlin - again, you are confusing scientists with skeptics. Most scientists know that there is no substantive evidence that supports a belief in psychic phenomena. however, most scientists would not say psychics are frauds; most scientists wouldn't bother to speculate at all in the absence of evidence. Skeptics, on the other hand, are not bound by scientific objectivity, leaving them free to make speculations of this sort. in fact, this whole act of 'debunking' belongs entirely to skeptics; scientists don't do it. scientists will refute particular claims and reject theories when expedient, but 'debunking' is a different kind of activity (it tries to remove or destroy an idea, rather than simply showing it doesn't work in the way presented). see what I mean? -- Ludwigs 2 09:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no argument as long as that statement can be supported with a source. It wasn't so supported when I removed it. Bob (QaBob) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified the lead so that it contains "There is no scientific consensus that such abilities exist. A few scientists have dismissed the experimental literature of parapsychology as fraudulent." I believe that this is both more accurate and likely the strongest statements that can be supported with reliable sources. They are now at the end of the first paragraph rather than part of the previous dubious and unsupported fourth paragraph. I'm not sure that the views of "skeptics" add anything to the lead. It's a tautology that they are skeptical after all. Certainly individual skeptics' positions should be reported somewhere in the article, but these skeptics are not all scientists, nor do they always report the views of actual scientists accurately. Certainly statements implying what all scientists might believe could not be based on skeptical views, but only on some reliable and unbiased survey of the views of scientists. I suspect many chemists, for example, don't give it much thought. Bob (QaBob) 13:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the sort of thing needed in the lead of the article Parapsychology and moved the applicable part here. I hope this resolves the issue. Bob (QaBob) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the statement "t. A few scientists have dismissed the experimental literature of parapsychology as fraudulent." is correct. A few scientists have actively worked to disprove the claims. M The sentence as worded about has the distinct implication that "all but a few scientists do not dismiss the experimental literature of parapsychology", a statement which I believe not even the strongest supporters of the field as a science would actually make. WP:Words to avoid has a good discussion of the difficulties produced by such adjectives. I suggest a wording such as "scientists do not generally believe..." or "The experimental claims are supported by very few scientists..." as closer to the real world. DGG (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence is gone now, and already replaced by something similar to what you suggest. Bob (QaBob) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic, or stoned?
I am moving this from the article to the talk page for discussion:

"The priestesses of the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, who according to Greek mythology were thought to be the mouthpieces of Apollo, were considered early examples psychics."

It is unsourced, and it seems that not every reliable source would regard the definition of the priestesses as "psychic" to be correct.

It occurred to me that another example of an oracle might be better, like the one consulted by the Dalai Lama, but the descriptions of that (and other oracles) seem to fit better the definition of spirit mediums. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Malcolm here. Back application of a modern term to ancient mediums seems fraught with difficulty. Some who were considered prophets might have operated in some cases using what we would now call psychic abilities, but as the term didn't exist then, none of the writings of the period would be able to verify this. Bob (QaBob) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it occurs to me that one source which might have some bearing on this would be Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. While it is hardly an uncontroversial source, it might have some observations which could apply here. Bob (QaBob) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with removing this, but we do have sources which describe them as being "psychic". The Oracle of Delphi may be more of a medium, but unfortunately for this pop culture subject there isn't much in the way of reliable disambiguation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did some work recently on this section and rather like the historical perspective. It does however lean on OR a little .... I think William Broad's book The Oracle (Penguin Press) connects the Oracle to the idea of Psychic. The Delphic Oracle, although it  may have as Science Apologist notes, a pop-culture perspective these days, is a well researched  historical/archeological site. However, since I'm not a regular editor on this article and my interest is in Greece and the Oracle, and Wikipedia compliancy rather than on the topic, Psychic, I will go with whatever makes the article strongest and with the consensus of the other editors.(olive (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

another problematic word
"The scientific community has not accepted the work of some parapsychologists who have reported what they believe to be evidence for the existence of psychic abilities," This implies that there are also some parapsychologists whose work the scientific community accepts, which is not a true statement. I would in this case remove the word "some." I don't think anyone has said that there is any parapsychogist's report of the true existence are that are accepted by the community, or that  anyone  has even claimed as much--they   that there are at least some scientists as individuals who accept them-- which is true. DGG (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've removed it. Bob (QaBob) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good edits
Ludwigs2 says the previous version has "pronounced bias". I disagree. Anyone else disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lopsided Psychic POV-assertions and POV-statements
in defiance of his arbcom sanctions has disruptively changed the wording in the lead to indicate that parapsychologists are recognized scientists, that they have verifiable evidence for specific kinds of psychic powers, that they are represented in sum by the Parapsychological Association, that the scientific community has rejected their "work" with the implication that what the parapsychologists are doing is as professional as the rest of the scientific community.

Problematic to say the least. We shouldn't allow such edits. Ever.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasels
You don't have to be an expert in this area Psychic to see that this paragraph does not comply to WP:NPOV in part because it is loaded with weasel wording. I don't want to get in to the discussion too far here because I'm not an expert, but I think these words/phrases are worth noting.

The existence of psychic abilities is disputed by the scientific community, and have attributed demonstrations of psychic occurrences to be intentional trickery or self delusion.[1] Some parapsychologists[who?] have reported that their experiments to test for extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis have yielded evidence[dubious – discuss] of psychic ability.[2] The scientific community outside parapsychology does not accept these experiments as sufficient evidence for psychic functioning partly due to the intrinsic unlikelihood of psychic phenomena.[3][4]

Note: The whole, entire scientific community? .... that's pretty far fetched unless someone is polling all of the scientists in the world ... this is a huge generalization, which is what weasel wording creates. The syntax of this sentence also implies that this so-called entire scientific community thinks these powers to be "intentional trickery or self delusion", another gross generalization.

The paragraph as a whole contributes to a definite POV sense in that it appears to debunk any psychic abilities. Whether such abilities exist cannot and should not be an issue here at this point in the article, but the neutral reporting of information is. Later in the article information on the "debunking" side of the information is presented. The paragraph is heavily, non-neutral in tone and that is definitely non=compliant.(olive (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The fact is, psychic abilities have no scientific mechanism so their existence is not acknowledged by those who study related phenomena. The generalization makes sense if we are going to be taking seriously the fact that there is no scientific acknowledgment that "psychic powers" exist. Rewording may be possible, but certainly this is no weasel word situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically as per Wikipedia this is weasel wording. I still don't think that the existence of psychic abilities is the issue, and whether they have a scientific mechanism seems a bit of a blanket statement since for starters there is a fairly wide filed considered to be psychic, and debate on what the term "psychic" actually includes. For example there may be certain so called abilities that in  the past were considered psychic but which now given the technologies in brain/body  "scanning" are now commonplace ideas. Unless those parameters, that is, what constitutes psychic are established, and at this point in time they aren't, "no scientific mechanisms" is quite a general statement. For those reasons, complete neutrality here would seem to be key, and that, in this part of the lede there is no sense of POV. That said, I would think there are ways to reword this as you say, so the weasely words/phrases are removed and the paragraph reads as neutral. Just a thought, or two, or three.(olive (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC))
 * No, I think you're getting confused here. You seem to think that "psychic abilities" are acknowledged to exist simply because people believe in them. Then you say because some people confused cold reading with psychic abilities that this is somehow a tacit acknowledgment that psychic abilities exist. In fact, the scientific community evinces a disinterested skepticism with regards to psychic abilities in much the same way it evinces a disinterested skepticism with regards to the existence of ghosts, angels, or invisible pink unicorns. The difference is that a "psychic ability" is claimed by the people advocating the existence of such, to have direct observational consequences which receive no legitimacy in the mainstream. This point must be made abundantly clear if we are going to do any service to the reader. Do not confuse "neutrality" with "balance". You may feel that your opinion about the existence of psychic abilities is somehow being marginalized by stating the facts that there isn't scientific evidence or, indeed, any acknowledgment within the scientific community of those psychic abilities, but the fact that this happens must be communicated to our readers if we are to maintain proper neutrality. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Science doesn't just study correlations between purported causes and effects. It also studies the mechanisms by which a specific cause leads to an effect. For instance, in medical science, it isn't enough to just say that the use of a particular drug correlates with relief from a disease; one has to also describe the mechanism by which the drug works. For instance, beta blockers reduce blood pressure; but why? Because they block the action of epinephrine on particular receptors.

Historically, it hasn't always been immediately possible to understand the mechanism by which a particular phenomenon works. For a long time, physicists (such as Isaac Newton) studied the behavior of light without knowing about photons or the quantum physics that explain certain behaviors of light. But they worked with some idea of the mechanism: even luminiferous aether, although it turned out to be wrong, explained certain aspects of light.

Likewise, it's a common misconception about evolutionary biology, prevalent among creationists, to think that biologists are engaged in attempting to prove the existence of evolution. They aren't. That happened long ago. Today's evolutionary biologists study the mechanisms of evolution: the processes by which it takes place. We already know that evolution happens; the interesting part for the past century has been by what means it happens.

Similarly, a scientific study of claims to psychic phenomena would not content itself to merely look for correlations that suggest the existence of psychic abilities. It would have to also look for the mechanisms by which these abilities would work. It wouldn't focus solely on the question, "Do psychic abilities exist?" any more than physicists stop with, "Does light exist?" or biologists stop with, "Does evolution exist?" -- it would go on to ask, "By what mechanism do psychic abilities work?" --FOo (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this and also that science is not some frozen environment but is rather, organic.(And I 'm not talking about vegetables here :o) ), Science in its most overarching would seem to be about the processes, the mechanisms, not whether there are black holes but what that black hole is, does, functions, was formed, and its implications . In fact SA, I was actually not judging this paragraph in any way from my own experience or belief in the psychic, which might be described as a healthy, but also thoughtful skepticism . I've seen some pretty interesting, inexplainable things, but I've also seen hysteria, suggestibility, and straight out lies. My concern is that the paragraph creates a sense of the skeptical in the lede of an article so that neutrality in terms of POV is lost.I wasn't confusing balance with neutrality or using neutrality in the sense of the material in the paragraph, but rather that the quality of the wording creates a non-neutral sense, and immediately would serve to prejudice the reader. I think that by simply focusing on rewriting, so that generalizations are removed, and they are weak in any kind of writing, the whole paragraph would swing to a more neutral sensibility. I think its appropriate to have something in the lede about the  skeptical view its just about how much, its sources, and the language used to describe it.(olive (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, no one knows any theory which would explain/give a mechanism for psi. Psi (parapsychology). Science is half observation and half theory. But just because there isn't a theory doesn't mean science isn't being done, nor does it mean that nothing has been observed. There is some knowledge of mechanism, in that they are said to come about through mental faculties. Some parapsychologists believe that they have some idea of a theory, but personally I don't' think they are there yet. However, I should say that parapsychologists have within the last few years stopped focusing on "proof" studies and started trying to find out mechanism- it's as major trend. Like the article says, the consensus is that some forms of psi exist. But, as the quackwatch source says, because there is not real theory, it isn't accepted. However we can't say it is rejected, either. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that parapsychologists have "stopped focusing on 'proof' studies and started trying to find out mechanism". Who? Where? What are the major hypotheses? The best way to demonstrate that this is science is to demonstrate that there is a productive research program underway, producing testable hypotheses and reproducible evidence for them.


 * I assume that we are in the early days of parapsychological research, so there should be some analogy to the early days of scientific physics or biology. In the early days of scientific optics, there was testable speculation as to the mechanisms by which light worked. The original speculative hypothesis (luminiferous aether) was tested and debunked; other ideas followed, leading to the modern understanding of light as elementary quantum particles (photons).


 * Likewise, in the early days of evolutionary biology, Darwin and other biologists created testable hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution. Lacking knowledge of genetics, they came up with hypotheses like blending inheritance that (just like luminiferous aether) had to be tested, debunked, and improved upon before evolutionary biology could make much progress. This is part of the scientific process. What are the analogous hypotheses in parapsychology? --FOo (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know I'm not an expert in parapsychology, and this is beyond my ability to answer well. If you like I can email someone who could answer your question.  But just here and now, I'm not trying to prove parapsychology is science- I can't do that to the satisfaction of people here.  I could say that the major skeptics, even James Randi, call it a science.  Also, it gets into the question of "what is science."  So are you really interested, and should I get someone to answer? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, sure, I think it would make a good contribution to the parapsychology article, and to the "Research" section of this article, to know what the current research program is. Rather than argue over whether it is "a science", or whether some expert or another claims that it is, we could present the evidence and let the reader decide for themselves. --FOo (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there is all sorts of information about the field which is just not being put in because it is under attack, every word. It's just too much hassle to put it in.  I could put in loads of good information, but do not do it because it's just to difficult.  Case in point in the last few edits by Shoemaker.  BTW the removed quote accurately summarized the thesis of the article, giving both sides of the equation .  All you have to do is read the summary at the top to see that the logic is "yes, they have evidence which would normally be good enough, but it isn't good enough because the intrinsic unlikelihood of psychic phenomena."  The quote says in part "Skeptics mostly still feel that the intrinsic implausibility is so great that nothing short of airtight and well-repeated research would be sufficient to support ESP. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical."  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it or lump it, the fact that people think that psychic abilities exist and that there is "evidence" for it is derided by the people who get to decide what is and isn't interesting about the observable universe. To try to "balance" this away from NPOV or ascribe it to a "skeptical POV" is like trying to ascribe someone who is writing about circumnavigation of the world matter-of-factually as having a "skeptical POV" because they don't accommodate the yo-yos who believe in a flat earth. It's the same ball of wax, it's the same bollocks being promoted by the crowd crowing about their personal interactions with "some pretty interesting, inexplainable things". ScienceApologist (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee SA. Nice, friendly, thoughtful, civil comment to someone who is attempting to indicate there is no POV here for me. I could care less about this article 's topic, although I did care about the non-compliant quality. Dealing with my comments this way does not deflect away from my points, and unfortunately your treatment of someone who would really like to collaborate with you, indicates bias and POV that seems lacking in depth and thought. I am not promoting anything, but obviously you are. You have very little idea what I think, and your ignorance in thinking you do and in wording it as you do above is unfortunate and sad. (olive (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I've posted my response to SA here on his talk page, since it has less relevance to this article and more to the relation between skepticism and parapsychology, and the need for skeptics to address the issues rather than be dismissive and insulting. --FOo (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify. There seems to be some mistaken notion that someone who comes onto a page like this and attempts to deal with POV is a parapsychologist. I'm afraid it would be an insult to the parapsychologists to have me thrown into their ranks. I know almost nothing about it, but I do know POV when I see it. That was my concern.(olive (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree, it's an unfortunate if you're not with us you're against us attitude... -- Ludwigs 2  19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, it is nearly impossible to edit an article from the standpoint that "some pretty interesting, inexplainable things" exist therefore we should try to mitigate the sense in which the article makes definitive statements about how scientists/sane people/the majority of reliable resources view the subject. It's this crazy game of parity that we get into whenever we deal with the fringe where the fringe-apologists say things like "we can't write things that are too hard on the fringe because that's not NPOV" and the others say, "we write things in the article as they apply to a proportionally weighted, verifiable, reliable degree". Either you accept that psychic abilities are considered eye-rollingly unlikely in the preponderance of good sources or you leave Wikipedia to those who do. That's my position on the matter, and I've been here long enough to see that this is generally how things turn out sooner or later. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was with you until the "eye-rollingly". Leave it out and I'm still with you. These sorts of disparaging overstatements don't help. Bob (QaBob) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are enough sources that refer to the "rolling of the eyes" that I'm rather surprised that you think this particular word choice was problematic. Anyway, we are discussing things on a talk page, and I don't anticipate this neologistic adverb will appear in the article anytime soon. Nevertheless, I don't think that this adverb is very far removed from what the best sources say about the subject, nor do I think that referring to the eye-rolling of critics to be any more "overly disparaging" than any other characterization we get from the best sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess I wasn't aware that "rolling of the eyes" had now become a scientific term. My point was, it doesn't hurt to be respectful of other people's beliefs, even when you don't agree with them. It does seem clear that we may disagree with what constitute the "best sources" if they contain such terms, though. Bob (QaBob) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Respecting people's beliefs means, in an academic setting, allowing them the space to express them. Certainly I haven't been removing words from the talk page. However, I would be doing us all a disservice if I didn't let my particular take on the dangers of certain editorial perspectives known. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statements are false conclusions SA based on an inaccurate reading, whether deliberate or not I can't say, of my statement above, and I'm going to assume you're a smart enough scientist to know it, so I won't bother explaining again(olive (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Perhaps you don't realize that I wasn't making any conclusions about you. I was only stating that there are real ediotrial risks to taking your words as seriously as I propose some may take them. These risks are so high as to make me feel compelled to comment on the words themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary
Is The Skeptic's Dictionary really being used as a reference? The things a piece of rubbish. I'm sure a better source can be found to support the scientific view that this! Bob (QaBob) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it was being used for history. Don't look at me. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source and should not be used. It's a self-published website stating the opinions of one person who is not an expert.  If anything from that source is actually verifiable, the info can be found elsewhere.  Skeptic's Dictionary should not be used.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The author is indeed an expert. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As per many discussions in the past, the SD is an RS for skeptical opinion, and if and only if it is attributed in the text, it is a very good source for that opinion. If it is cited for statements of unattributed fact, it is not an RS. It is also a good source for less than highly disputed facts. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop Sylvia Browne site
I've made inquiries on the biographies of living people noticeboard, and received the option that as a self-published site, it can only be used for information about the site itself. To use it as a source for information about Sylvia Browne would be in violation of WP:BLP. Bob (QaBob) 22:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Fortunately, it is the site itself we are referencing (the fact that they offer a debunking of Sylvia Browne). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it still violates WP:SELFPUB, which strictly disallows even such a use under point 4: "it does not involve claims about third parties". The whole site involves claims about a third party, and the citation is about the fact that it does. Bob (QaBob) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty strange reading of "self-pub", if you ask me. "Claims about third parties" to me indicates something along the lines of hearsay. That is, if we were going to use the site to reference a claim such as, "Sylvia Browne says she is a non-smoker, but she, in fact, is not", I would agree that doing that would be a problematic case of WP:SELFPUB. However, the "claim" we are referencing here is that there exists a group that has attacked Sylvia Browne associated with her putative psychic abilities. That's not a "claim about a third party", that's a claim that the source is making claims about a third party. In any case, WP:PARITY is closer to what we should be considering here, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A third party must report the self-published attack site (for that is all it is). It can't be referenced to itself! Bob (QaBob) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation
I recommend reverting to this version as it seems that the disruptive editors are not here to actually discussing their edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead section and npov
Why, especially in the lead section, is the opinion of the Parapsychological Association weighed against that of NSA? Seems inappropriate per WP:LEAD, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable opinions. The Parapsychological association represents the discipline which studies purported psychic phenomena, thus it is even more highly relevant than the NSA.  The NSA source is from 1988, thus is badly deprecated. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "The NSA source is from 1988, thus is badly deprecated." How so?
 * Per FRINGE, I can imagine a good argument for placing the NSA statement in the lead. But why PA?  And why put their opinion against NSA as if they are equal?  As I wrote, it seems like a FRINGE and NPOV problem.  Maybe even WP:SYN the way the two opinions are presented together as if they somehow balance each other. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I started this kerfuffle, I'm liking the lead a lot more. But, the Parapsychological Association does not come close to the NSA in quality.  In fact, is there a single reliable source that publishes for the PA?  The weight of science falls firmly on real science, since it can be verified using said reliable sources.  Now if we can find some reliable scientific sources that might lend some credence to Psychic, put that in there.  Let's delete the paraspsychology stuff, and we have a nice NPOV lead.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The PA is the association (member of the AAAS) which represents the scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology. Won't do any good to try and obscure the fact that parapsychology does real science. Parapsychological results have been published both in mainstream peer reviewed journals and in parapsychological peer reviewed journals. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The AAAS isn't exactly an organization that picks and chooses its members. The US National Academy of sciences would be good place for them to be located if they're so scientific.  But wait, they aren't.  I wonder why.  Probably can't afford the membership fees?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The membership fees being appointment by one's peers. :) ScienceApologist (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But wait, there's more. Equating the Journal of Parapsychology with mainstream peer reviewed journals like Nature?  Wow, that's just amazing.  Exactly what parapsychology article (I mean a positive one, not the few thousand deriding psychics) has been published in a real journal.  I'll take Nature.  Psychiatry.  Something?  Is there?  Of course, without batting an eyelash, I got this:  .  So, in other words, there are no psychic powers, it doesn't exist.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the journal Science is published by AAAS which is the organization to which PA is still an affiliate member. Ironically, parapsychology has never graced the pages of Science. They're good enough to take their money but not good enough to get into the journal, I guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not true. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you count letters and symposia reports, you're right. . However, I am counting peer-reviewed articles of which there are zero. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps.  Perhaps not, I'll leave it to others who know more about how they designate things.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm. You do realize that this paper is classified by the CIA.  We can't read it!  LOL.  By the way it was quickly discredited.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to say that if we're charged to find what the "consensus" is that exists within the "field" of parapsychology then sourcing the PA is probably the best we can do. However, since parapsychology itself is derided and not considered a science by the preponderance of the best sources we have on the subject, equating PA with science is essentially POV-pushing and the activities of Martin to this effect are disruptive and in violation of his arbcom sanctions. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom ruling seems to leave too much scope for disagreement. Time to go back to them for more help. Personally, I'm thoroughly confused as to whether parapsychology has aspirations to scientific status or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it aspires to science but does not use scientific methods, then it is a pseudoscience, and there's not much more to say.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)