Talk:Watseka Wonder

These edits
The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology.74.108.121.70 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point out in our article text where it mentions "incompetency"? Again, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not be familiar with our editorial policies. As mentioned above, we do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can cite the page from the book, and was trying to get it in the cite before you swooped down on it.  It's a completely unbacked up statement by Hoffman, seriously undermined by Hodgson's cross-examination.  74.108.121.70 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but where in our article is the mention of "incompetency" located? Also I'm not sure you realize that we (editors) don't do original research to refute the conclusions of reliable sources, and lastly, we don't require that mainstream views be "balanced" by defenses supporting the fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no more mainstream text out there than William James's Principles of Psychology. So what the edit is about is taking a fringe author's completely unsupported charge of "incompetency" and balancing it with the contrasting judgement of a mainstream author who offers actual first-hand evidence in its support. 74.108.121.70 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, no text accusing Hodgson of "incompetency" is contained in our article, so I honestly don't understand what you're on about. And I don't see anything in Principles of Psychology that argues in favor of the plausibility of spirit possession. (And if there were, no "balance" or treating both ideas as equally valid would be required) - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, no text accusing Hodgson of "incompetency" is contained in our article, so I honestly don't understand what you're on about. And I don't see anything in Principles of Psychology that argues in favor of the plausibility of spirit possession. (And if there were, no "balance" or treating both ideas as equally valid would be required) - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC

There is no first time for your umpteenth. I never said there was a text accusing Hodgson of "incompetency." What I said, am saying, is that your article contains a very glib criticism of the Watseka incident by a fringe author whose central claim of criticism (witness incompetency), although not mentioned in the article, is offered without any evidence, and is refuted by a highly regarded (highly regarded even in the critic paragraph  of this article), Richard Hodgson. I understand Wikipedia's aversion to psychic phenomena. But they also represent themselves as hosting a process that will ultimately self-correct palpably false or distorted views. Hoffman's undisclosed falsification is just such a distortion, as he is presented as a valid critic. I will seek intervention when I make my next attempt to contrast his criteria for judging this incident with Hodgson's counter evidence. As for the Principles of Psychology, if you read it you you would know that James is not only sympathetic to spirit possession, he devotes several pages to the Watseka Wonder itself. He has no theory for how it could have happened, but he allows the phenomena to be what they are. He detested lazy knee-jerk skepticism about psychic phenomena. 74.108.121.70 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are obviously difficult to decode into suggestions, as Lucky Louie's problems with that task show. Could it be that you want Hoffman removed from the article entirely because you regard him as a "fringe author" on the basis of his saying something you do not agree with?
 * And are you really trying to pull an argumentum ad verecundiam with your passage about James? It sounds like it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think your argumentum ad verecundiam claim is the reverse. It's Hoffman, an "author," whose authority is being claimed in spite of the specious evidence he offers in support. As he does, tho, have some reasonable points to make, I don't believe he is overall specious enough to remove him. I do believe, tho, that his main argument for dismissing the Watseda Wonder (an argument not mentioned in the article) is seriously challenged by Hodgson's testimony, and that needs to come out. Hodgson's testimony, cited by James in one of the best respected textbooks ever written, is, by contrast, the opposite of argumentum ad verecundiam, because it is offering  empirical evidence (Hodgson's firsthand interview of the witnesses) as a challenge to Hoffman's completely unsupported dismissal of them. The authority of James is simply the authority of an honest conveyer of that evidence. But I am aware of how strong the Wiki bias is toward debunking psychical stuff (however well documented and well authorized), and toward propping up skeptical attacks of same (however weak or even fraudulent). That's the game. I'm learning to play it. I'm too busy to thread the needle on this article now, but I will return. Like I said, I'm fine with Hoffman being left in. In fact we need a little more of him--the unsupported accusation that is the main basis of his skepticism. If anyone else wants to to figure out a better way to include James's and Hodgson's assessment of this topic, an assessment that serves the reader notice that it seriously undermines  Hoffman, that would be great. 74.108.121.70 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Psychical stuff" always means: something someone could not explain. It does not matter how eminent that someone is - unless he is a god, he is fallible and thus bound to be unable to explain everything.
 * So, if some things are unexplained, that is normal (and not paranormal). Anybody who concludes that a phenomenon must be supernatural because he cannot understand it, is vastly overestimating himself, whether you think he is an honest conveyor or not.


 * Hoffman is a psychologist and therefore a reliable source. You are playing the game "my expert is more eminent than yours", which is the very antithesis of science. Science is about reasoning, not authority; about facts and logic, not persons. You should not "learn" such games. Learn good reasoning instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised the above IP/s:


 * (if you check the IPs talk-page he was previously blocked)

are the banned user. This user has a history of adding fringe content or pseudoscience onto Wikipedia articles and abusing people on this website. I have requested for this user to be banned as he was already indefinitely blocked. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

James often allowed for the reality of phenomena he couldn't explain. Would that the Wiki-skeptic-squad had the same open mind. Many of the advances in science, such as quantum theory, begin with what cannot be explained (with quantum theory: Robert Kirchhoff's "black-body" radiation). The question is not about whether the Watseka Wonder is natural, supernatural, or a fraud. The question is whether or not relevant information about this admittedly strange event comes to light. Hoffman is not, as you would say, a God. He is--would you not agree?--"fallible." Surely by your own "good reasoning" you would allow that a "reliable source" might not be completely reliable in all details. The question of the reliability of the witnesses is a critical detail. Science is not about hiding relevant details. However good your reasoning may or may not be, it is compromised if you don't allow a full account of what it is reasoning about. Once again, Hoffman's completely unsupported claim that the witnesses were unreliable is contradicted by a skeptical investigator of high integrity who actually interviewed the witnesses. This is a fact. Be faithful to good science and stop trying to exclude it.208.194.97.5 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I had a temporary block years ago because I did not understand the reversion rules. I have never been disrespectful, and many of my edits are still in play. I am, tho, presently working from a public computer, so, perhaps, there is some confusion about someone else. In the future I will be sure to work from my own computer only. Hopefully you, or an arbitrating editor, will see the irony in your attempt to suppress a perfectly reasonable response about biased suppression of relevant detail. Other editors are already, thankfully, starting to arbitrate with a sense of fair play. That is a good sign.208.194.97.5 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not true Jamenta. You were indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for making legal threats, trolling talk-pages with abuse, swearing at other editors, reverting other editors and inserting fringe content in articles despite multiple warnings. You are now causing trouble on Wikipedia again and promoting the same sort of conspiracy theories about skeptics that you have a history of doing on wikipedia. It is quite clear you are not here to build an Encyclopedia. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)