User talk:PhiChiPsiOmega

PhiChiPsiOmega, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Pseudoscience sanctions
You should be officially aware of the sanctions available to administrators under WP:ARB/PS. Basically, if you misbehave (e.g. WP:POVPUSHING, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT) you are likely to be blocked from editing. You must recognise that the existence of conclusive evidence for parapsychology is very strongly disputed, and the mainstream position which we predominantly reflect is that is a pathological pseudoscience. You might now like this but that's the way it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's very strongly disputed. However, in these cases, one should represent the other side fairly, and acknowledge that they have been actively responding in peer-reviewed form. It's disputed science and perhaps fringe science, but it's not pseudoscience. For example, just because many people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it is. And suppose it was only considered pathological pseudoscience (despite the evidence to the contrary, IMO), just for the moment. At least show that the people who support the "pseudoscience" are doing enough good work to get their replies published in peer reviewed journals! At least quote their replies to the allegations, even if you don't come down on their side. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on exactly how you define these terms, i.e. pseudoscience or pathological science. It's nearly always one or the other.  Also, peer-review is useless unless it is critical peer review.  There's no point is a psi advocate getting his stuff done by another psi advocate.  Anyway, the point is being confrontational, ignoring advice, will probably not get you very far. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be confrontational. The peer-review happened in Psychological Bulletin. I don't think it gets more critical than that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One swallow does not make a summer. Just because a few anomalous results have been published hasn't altered the scientific consensus which is presently that psi doesn't exist.  Acknowledgement of this fact is necessary.  We have to represent this mainstream consensus whether you like it or not.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, no. Very statistically significant results are cause for concern, especially once one considers that the effect size is independent of methodological quality. I agree that you have to represent the mainstream consensus, even when I disagree with it. Please just show that parapsychologists have replied to the criticisms enough to have their replies peer-reviewed. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, actually. If they were significant they would have changed the consensus position.  There's no point in arguing about what the consensus position should be on Wikipedia as we reflect what the consensus is.  Failure to understand this is potentially a problem. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, no. The statistics reported are extremely significant, and said things have been generating lively discussion within the peer-reviewed literature, as even a skeptical blog post realizes: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4348. The Wiki article falls on the side of several skeptics, and doesn't represent the full spectrum of opinions, nor does it give the replies parapsychologists make to the skeptical critiques. I even presented evidence showing that opinions are divided and that the line of demarcation is difficult to draw with parapsychology, if it can be drawn at all. However, as I said before, even if it's the case that it's pseudoscience, you could at least give the parapsychologists' responses to said critiques. If you can cite people like Robert Todd Carroll who aren't peer-reviewed, you can cite Dean Radin and the replies made by parapsychologists in peer-reviewed areas. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above paragraph paraphrased into helpful wiki capitals: WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do hear you. I just think you're wrong. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing! Liz  Read! Talk! 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Er... am I not applying the right amount of skepticism? I think I've been quite fair-minded. Could you point out where I went wrong? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are free to disagree with me. However, you are mainly disagreeing with Wikipedia policies.  As you can see, you're not the only person to disagree with them.   likes to moan about Wikipedia policies.  A lot.  I believe "incessant whinging" is a phrase that might have been used.  The good news for you (and Liz) is that you can change Wikipedia policies - try going to the talk pages of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MAINSTREAM and arguing there that Wikipedia policies should be changed.  May I wish you both good luck with your endeavours, as you'll need it.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, then. Will do, and thank you. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't moan or whine about Wikipedia policies, Barn Barn. I just don't like to see new editors chased off of WP because they choose to edit in certain subject areas that are heavily policed. My comment to PCPO was both a welcome and a warning of the challenges they might face. I wish them good luck, also. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page
Hi PCPO. You recently restored this comment at User talk:Goblin Face after Goblin Face had removed it. Per WP:BLANKING, GF is allowed to remove any other users' comment from his own talk page. You restoring the comment is inappropriate. Please go ahead and self-revert your comment on his talk page.  Ish dar  ian  21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I won't. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Futility
PhiChiPsiOmega, you are doing a good job at upsetting the dominant/skeptical editors but my crystal ball tells me that the end will be simply the addition of your name to my list of recent martyrs. It would be good if there was a way to redirect your attention to more fruitful endeavors. If you are interested, please send me a message with the Contact tool on my website. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If they want to confront me, they can. They're just embarrassing themselves and messing up Wikipedia, and the evidence is just going to pile up in support of the fact that they should stop. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success.


 * After looking over some of your edits, I would recommend that you give up on the usual social norms for what is right and what is wrong. One hard and fast rule in Wikipedia is that, if it is not explicitly described by mainstream science, then it is not real and any claims to the contrary must be pseudoscience. While that is scientism, it is the reality of Wikipedia. This means that peer-reviewed journals such as published by the Parapsychological Association and the Society for Scientific Exploration are considered fringe and are not allowed. Anything written by a parapsychologist must be ignored or at least is trumped by such skeptical luminaries as James Randi and Carl Sagan.


 * I am actually not being facisious. As they have tried to tell you many times, these rules are spelled out here, here and here. So I will ask again, are you interested in finding a different way? Tom Butler (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm interested. What's your suggestion? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no upside in trying to right this ship. It only further entrenches the skeptical community and teaches them better ways to squash decent. One of the obvious problems is that editors are not held to account for their actions outside of this little world, and there is no real way of knowing if you are dealing with an informed, intelligent person or just a very stubborn idiot; they both can look the same here. A second problem is that half of the discussion is not allowed.


 * Here, I am making a suggestion I believe is constructive for WIkipedia because it might offer us decenters a place to actually do some good and free up the other editors to do their work here. That is, I have opend a paranormal section in Citizendium. That wiki requires real names and encourages subject matter expertise. It is not a place to make unsupported claims ... it is necessary to respect current editors and to properly support statements, but they also allow sources such as the PA, SPR and SSE journals. I am pretty sure they would not allow something from my website, for instance.


 * It would be good to have someone of your understanding participate. Tom Butler (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Accounts
Hey, PhiChiPsiOmega, Just a note because I see you posting both as an IP (logged out) and as your username (logged in). If you are going to do this, you need to create a user page and acknowledge that both accounts are you. If you don't, there can be allegations that you're "socking" (using multiple accounts to mislead other editors) and you don't want to get kicked off Wikipedia for something like that which can be easily addressed. Either log in every time you edit or acknowledge the IP on your user page and I think you should be covered. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry. The 69.14.156.143 account is mine. It's not a sock. I'm just getting used to the Wiki system. This error will go away in the future. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just thought I'd let you know because it can trip you up later if you get involved in a dispute. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Goblin Face (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AE
Arbitration works a little differently than the rest of wikipedia. Cases are structured in a very specific way. If you want to comment there (you're welcome to, of course), you need to create a new section for your comments and place everything there. You can't insert commentary in someone else's section. The easiest way to respond to other editors is to either quote them or just write @whoever in your comments. I reverted your change just because I can't reformulate it for you to be clear who you're addressing, but feel free to put the comments back in the proper way. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you actually did create a section in your first edit. I restored it, and fixed the section title for you. Feel free to add your other comments back to there, however you'd like. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help. Could you also give me a hand with Simonm and Goblin Face? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's really quite a bit of attention aimed at that dispute now, given that it's being hashed out on ANI and AE. I think it's best to just wait it out and see how things turn up. I'd also second the suggestions from others that the best way to get acclimated with WP policy is to spend some time editing non-controversial topics for a little while. I often suggest editing schools you've gone to, towns you've lived in, and so on. There are plenty of other non-controversial areas too, if you don't like those. A mentor might also help, and would probably recommend a similar approach. Anyway, let things cool off for a bit, and then you can decide how to move forward. Good luck.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well OK, Jess, but the article is still completely incorrect, and you seem to be letting Simonm23 and Goblin Face run the whole show. I can't simply look the other way with that in mind, and since I've given replies that show parapsychology to have a methodology and have academic standing (in addition to people on Wiki claiming that the "pseudoscience" line seems hard to draw with parapsychology!), unlike obvious things like ID or astrology or ancient aliens. I also have good replies to the skeptics, who only represent one half of the debate, as my posts are trying to show. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm letting the sources run the show. If you think the sources show that parapsychology has a good "academic standing", as you've said, then you should to go WP:RSN. You'll get a broader consensus there regarding the sources we're using. I stand by my suggestions above, but that's the thing to do if you won't listen to my advice.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And PhiChi - I'm not your enemy. I'm not trying to make life difficult for you or rule the roost, or anything else like that. However you're new here. And the assumption you've been seeming to make is that we haven't ever talked about this before - and we have. At length. That's why I kept asking you for new sources, and again, when you provided a source I'd never heard of before I read it and after I read it I went to Google Scholar and I looked at where it was cited. And I did all that prior to saying "no, this isn't a reliable source." The fact that I disagreed with you regarding A) its reliability and B) what it demonstrated was absolutely nothing personal toward you.

I've spent a lot of my time on Wikipedia on WP:RS/N and on WP:FRINGE and I've looked at a lot of sources; and I've come down on both sides on issues that have come across these spaces at various times. You encountered me on one article and frankly we discussed one reference so I'll extend this olive branch. Like Jess what matters to me is the reliability of the sources we use. And yes, I'm stubborn and if I disagree with a source I'll argue against that source. But if I'm overruled by consensus in an article I'll also let it go. If you want to try and shift the consensus regarding parapsychology do so - by providing novel and reliable sources. Review WP:RS and its associated policies carefully and work within those boundaries. And if you do that - and if you manage to build consensus that language needs to be changed - I might protest (I can be contentious at times) but I won't take it personally. And I'd ask that you do the same. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you're not my enemy. That's fine. I just think you're wrong. I'm trying to present some kind of a case, and I'm not getting through. Why didn't you include the other ones I sent you? If you had seen the Storm et al. reply to Hyman, why didn't you include or at least mention it in the articles? Also, it wasn't even part of my main case. My point is that when the skeptics say "the scientific community says X about psi", they're usually referring to themselves (case in point: all of the sources Goblin Face cites are admitted uber-skeptics in the James Randi vein). Not very many academics are interested in this topic and thus probably don't have an opinion, which means that the skeptic opinion is just amplified. Also, I think JSE and the Journal of Parapsychology are reliable sources, albeit fringe ones. Their peer-review is good, and they include skeptical articles in their publications, in addition to rejecting pseudoscientific papers that support parapsychology. There was even a 50-page consortium that failed to replicate the effect, and even Stanley Jeffers, a skeptic, will not have a huge problem publishing in a journal like that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, but please don't give me critiques like the ones I've replied to already (i.e. "It was just one guy", even though his effect was statistically significant and not a fluke). If you just read the literature, you'll see replies to most of them, but I guess that's a conversation for another time, and I don't want to be counted as an internet troll here on my first week. I'll prepare my case for the administrators nevertheless. I just need to get my bearings. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, regarding your last sentence, admins on wikipedia can't do anything about content disputes. Editors are the ones who decide content. Of course, admins can also act as editors, when they're not using any of their administrative tools, but everyone who discusses and decides on content is an editor, just like the two of us. When I said you should go to RSN, I wasn't suggesting you seek the approval of an admin. RSN is a place to discuss the reliability of sources with the broader wikipedia community (other editors) who may not frequent the parapsychology page. Does that all make sense? Also, I moved your comment down from above, because it broke Simon's comment into two. It's best not to reply right in the middle of someone else's comment, for a bunch of reasons; doing so falls into refactoring, and leaves part of their comment without a signature for attribution. No big deal, but I just wanted to let you know.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to make a fool of myself any longer. I'll learn some smaller things about WP, collect the sources I'm looking for, and get back. In the meantime, thank you for both your help and (most of all) your patience. Regards - PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology Sanctions Notification
Please note that any edits you make to parapsychology related articles are subject to this sanction.

jps (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I know. I'm trying to deal with the committee right now... PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note that these discretionary sanctions apply to everyone who edits articles in the area of pseudoscience, not just to some editors. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha... PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement filing
Your edits are currently being discussed on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, God. I'm really not ready for this. Please just drop it. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Dean Radin
Your personal comments about Skeptics, Stanley Jeffers, Mars Effect, CSICop members or Ray Hyman in the Journal of Scientific Exploration have nothing to do with Radin's Wikipedia article. Please keep on topic. Wikipedia talk pages should not be used as a forum. Goblin Face (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm repeating myself, and I shouldn't. Talking about whether or not we should include something from the JSE is very relevant to a discussion about how to improve Radin's article (namely, how he's been received by the scientific community). And part of talking about that involves seeing the merit in including something from the JSE. Presenting an argument as to why we can include it is not the same as promoting my personal views. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And moreover, please assume good faith in discussions like this. Declaring that someone is "just turning the talk page into a soapbox or forum for their personal views" rather than presenting an objective argument, with little to no argument as to why this is the case, goes against the spirit of what Wikipedia stands for. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody has any problem with any editor mentioning Radin's book review in the JSE on the talk page of the article, this was entirely on topic and not soapboxing. I was the first person to find this review and send it to Brian Josephson. It is not a reliable source but it is not off-topic to discuss it. If you want to discuss that specific review of Radin's book on the talk-page then go ahead. The problem is the discussion drifted to various topics - Susan Blackmore, John Beloff's credentials or discussion about biased sources, skeptics POV (as Josephson calls it etc) and then you come in discussing other JSE papers, Skeptics, Stanley Jeffers, Mars Effect, CSICop members and Ray Hyman. All that is irrelevant to Radin's Wikipedia article. As has been pointed out many times, there are no positive reviews for Radin's books in science journals. You do not need to be psychic to know why :) The reception section should be sourced to reliable sources, not fringe pseudoscience journals like the JSE. Goblin Face (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For some reason (I can't imagine why), this thought has just come into my head: 'gaming the system and bigotry are a powerful combnation. Nothing to do with any of the above, of course! --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is not a reliable source" ... Again, this is exactly what Josephson and I were disputing. And again, this is why we brought up those topics in the first place, unless he and I were talking about different things, and I doubt we were. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how I.J. Good's one review can represent the entire scientific consensus on Radin's 1997 book. It just represents one educated man's views on the book. Again, as Josephson pointed out, one bad review =/= scientific consensus. And actually, I.J. Good's review concluded that despite Radin's supposed issues in dealing with counterarguments, that "Nevertheless, Radin's book is well written and provides a good summary of the arguments supporting the existence of ESP, with about 600 references." You should probably include that part too if you want to be objective. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "You do not need to be a psychic to know why :)" Erm... apparently I do. From what I've checked, Radin knows his statistics, as his associates and co-workers include Jessica Utts, an excellent statistics professor at UofC Irvine. [Slight humorous aside: Oh wait. She supports parapsychology, and that's bad because parapsychology is only supported by fringe academics, and these people are fringe academics because they support parapsychology. lol] PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes Good represented the scientific community, just as all the other scientists who have criticized Radin's magical psychic beliefs as on his article - Victor Stenger, David B. Wilson, William R. Shadish, Chris French, Ray Hyman, Robert L. Park, Steven Novella, Jonathon C. Smith etc. As for Radin's statistics they are faulted with errors, see "When Big Evidence Isn’t: The Statistical Pitfalls of Dean Radin’s Supernormal" . Radin claims yogis can levitate (fly?), disappear (invisibility!?) and predict the future (precognition) - you believe all that as well? As Jonathon C. Smith wrote in his book Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit Radin and his followers need a reality check. I will leave you to your levitations though. Good day :) Goblin Face (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Badge-wearing skeptics like the ones you just listed don't represent the scientific community either, but nice try. There are two halves to the debate: skeptics and proponents. Both sides are biased and have their agendas, and simply using one as a representation of the scientific community is not good for an argument. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't speculate about my views, and please try to assume good faith here. I'm not some deluded gullible fool, and don't say I am because I support parapsychology. I've read SUPERNORMAL. The siddhis are mentioned in the introductory chapters, and, IMO, are just presented to ask the question, "Is there any truth to legends and anecdotal tales about psychokinesis?" That's all. And no, I don't totally believe it. There's not enough data to suggest something like that can or could actually occur. In my opinion, psychokinesis exists, but it remains to be seen that it can go that far. And approaching it as Radin does falls within the realm of the scientific method. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not play whack-a-mole with all the "debunking" books and "Skeptical Enquirer" articles you can throw at me, but here goes: The bitching over Radin's tone is ironic, considering the acerbic nature of many of the authors you mention in their own books of similar topics. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Right out of the gate, he produces a study that supposedly demonstrates the existence of psi effects with odds against chance of ten million billion billion (10^15) to one! Except it’s not a study, it’s a meta-analysis ... " Radin explicitly says when introducing it that it's a meta-analysis on p. 134. He must have missed that part. "The fact that Radin decided not to report it, but rather to report the .02 result from the extremely heterogeneous data, is troubling." This was the main result of their article. The rest of the paper was supposed to show that the small but statistically significant result practically didn't go away under further scrutiny. He talks about this study in THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE, saying, "In meta-analyses it is not expected that the effects observed in different studies will be homogeneous until the "outliers" are trimmed away." Also -- what a coincidence -- he mentions the outliers Mr. DeBakcsy brings up, saying that, when trimmed, they still resulted in "odds against chance of a billion to one" (p. 121). This seems to be a layman objection. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the remote viewing part, the viewer at Jahn's lab still got a significant feature correct -- the rough shape of the building. This is quite a significant detail even if they didn't get the telescope. The article's author seems to have a rather arbitrary notion of what counts as a "significant result". The dome-shape is significant enough, as it is a unique, specific feature that allows us to pinpoint the target, and is indicative of something more than a random guess. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even with the scattered significance levels on the Ganzfeld, they're still obtaining statistically significant results. It will take more studies to narrow down what types of individuals will give more significant hitrates. All the data shows is that there's a significant result that's probably due to psi. The specific features will be ironed out in further investigation. His citation of Ray Hyman is from an article from 1996, and it's a standard criticism: the selection criteria are arbitrary and according to the person's bias. They're not. There are stringent, highly specified guidelines that go into every Ganzfeld meta-analysis, and any quick look at any of the papers will show that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That final sentence of the article made me smile, though. In fact, it gets funnier when you take into account the errors above. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not get into a debate with you after this mess of an article. I'd suggest you actually get peer-reviewed psychologists on this topic, since laymen like us can only scratch the surface of the issues here. Regardless, even a layman can recognize that the evidence is 50-50 and that there are biases everywhere. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And you think Radin needs a "reality check"? Really? Assuming I (most likely) fit the bill of "Radin follower", how dare you give me that guff. I don't deserve that, and I find it strange that you can complain about my "using my own personal viewpoint" when I didn't, and yet use what is a highly personal statement (specifically, a highly articulate form of saying "You're dumb") on my talk page. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Psychokinesis is real? Then demonstrate it for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge :) Goblin Face (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the offer, but I'd rather talk with scientists, philosophers, and academics than a magician who, IMO, grandstands and pretends to be one. Can we get back on topic, please? Like talking about whether the JSE review is good to include? I think Josephson and I have pretty well shown that you can include it just fine, despite the accusation of "promoting personal viewpoints." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the JSE is not a reliable source. I can't be bothered to look through all the archives right now but there was a big discussion a while back about that fringe journal and it was removed from many Wikipedia articles. It is a pseudoscience journal. You need to cite reliable (non-fringe) journals if you are going to cite a journal on Wikipedia. It doesn't necessarily have to be a science journal, there are some mainstream history and philosophy journals that have reviewed parapsychology books as well. Yes many are negative but that have been some positive reviews. If you look on JSTOR you can find some of these in reliable journals. They do not exist for Radin but they exist for other parapsychologists and contrary to what Brian Josephson has written nobody is "suppressing" these sources. They are always found by me and I have cited them when I come across them. I recommend staying away from fringe sources if you want to make any kind of case. Look for reliable sources in philosophy or science journals, not parapsychology ones. Goblin Face (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you actually respond to the case Josephson and I made? The fact that some reviews "don't exist for Radin" doesn't tell me anything, and I highly doubt that one (apparently misguided) review by IJ Good = consensus. The founders of the Society for Scientific Exploration included the late Marcello Truzzi and other serious academics. Some held fringe beliefs, and some were skeptics, but they were all serious people who want to hold these topics under scientific scrutiny. Seriously, all you have to do is look up the founders to see that most of these people helped found or edit other societies like CSICop: https://web.archive.org/web/20061229151714/http://www.scientificexploration.org/founding-members.html. [And no, I'm not "setting up a promotional piece." I'm just telling you what the journal really is.] The society's journal discusses fringe topics and thus will have little impact factor, but it does have a peer-review process and skeptics aren't afraid to publish in it. It should have some amount of merit if this is the case. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just checked back at the Dean Radin talk page. You still deleted my section and accused me of "promoting my personal views" even after I denied it and showed why it was not the case. I'll say this once again, because I don't know if I'm making myself clear: I am not promoting my views; I am merely arguing why I think you're wrong. That's what the talk page is for How could you possibly not understand this? I think I'm being really clear. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is another case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You have been told what Wikipedia policy is on fringe sources like the JSE many time already. I am not interested in the history of the JSE or discussing the JSE with you - they publish crack pottery on the loch ness monster, bigfoot, aliens and ESP. As the Journal of Scientific Exploration article itself reads the journal is a "publisher of pseudoscience, with the journal serving as a "major outlet for UFOology, paranormal activity, extrasensory powers, alien abductions etc". In short science does not take it seriously. But if you want to raise this subject about the status of the JSE then go over to WP:ANI and WP:AE. But be warned that this has been discussed before and they would tell you the same thing I am telling you - it is a fringe journal. The User Barney the barney barney (above on this page) had a similar discussion about this with you a few months ago, he was telling you what Wikipedia policy was on fringe sources but every time you responded "I just think you're wrong". Nobody is interested if you think Wikipedia policy is wrong. You are honestly wasting time trying to defend fringe sources that will never be used on Wikipedia, you could be doing productive things instead like finding reliable sources and creating Wikipedia pages for parapsychologists who do not have articles. Goblin Face (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, the "publisher of pseudoscience" thing in the article is a quotation from someone else, so I don't see why you're using it. Second, just because they publish stuff on the fringe like Loch Ness and Henry Bauer's work (which, TBH, I find crazy) doesn't make it pseudoscience or crackpottery. Third, I don't just say "I think you're wrong." I say why I think that or why I suspect you're misrepresenting the rule. I've been making a case that JSE is reliable in their way of handling fringe topics, and you haven't responded to that. You just misrepresent my views ("have fun levitating") and hand-wave. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for creating pages on parapsychologists, I'm mostly focusing on editing right now and my interests are mostly in history and mythology, making this a side thing. I will in the future though. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (comment here previously deleted — I'll replace it in due course by more thoughtful comment on my own talk page) --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this entire thing was a waste of my time. Thank you, Goblin Face. I really needed all of this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I think it's safe to include the JSE article under the blanket statement "The book was well-received by psi proponents." You can then put, say, a review by a CSICop member (I know you've got plenty of those) under the banner "On the other hand, skeptics of parapsychology have criticized it." After this, you can point to the I.J. Good review and the correspondences that followed, since Good would count as a "neutral" source. I would think this is reasonable, and I really don't want to take you through the reasons why CSICop is the last journal to look to with regards to "Scientific Consensus". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good way to deal with this issue – the reception section seems extraordinarily biased at present, in a way that hardly accords with wikipedia policies even for allegedly 'fringe' topics. Don't editors read the guidelines before they get out their blue pencils/red pens of doom?  I'm not sure that Good is very neutral however. 'fraid I haven't had time to write my spiel on 'gaming the system' yet. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good may not be, but his work still counts as neutral, even if he's mistaken in the end. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see from the history that around Jul 23-24 Goblin Face reintroduced serious bias. I'll check out the guidelines and see which one he is infringing by doing this. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep — it's this one (third paragraph), it seems to me. Do you agree? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I think it's OK to use that. What's especially interesting is that parapsychology is nowhere NEAR that level of "fringe"... PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for Scientific Exploration Defense
I have tried defending an indefensible journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and was clearly mistaken for doing so. I apologize to all whose time I've wasted in doing this particular thing. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked you a question in this regard on the talk:Radin page and would be interested to know the answer, since we need to know the actual text that was accepted for publication before rushing to judgement on the journal. Most of Bauer's writings seem to be commentary on the way people who challenge the orthodoxy are treated, rather than the rights and wrongs of the science, though he does draw attention to errors in the science on occasion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but he mostly does that because he feels his own idea (HIV/AIDS denialism) is being unjustly ignored. To me and to many scientists (not being arrogant here, just saying), this is evidence of conspiracy-thinking, which is just not good. While it's true that the HIV-AIDS connection is probably, but the majority of evidence is against him. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you don't mind my asking, sir, why do you gravitate towards all of these weird groups? Parapsychology is controversial, but it does get peer-review. Intelligent design (which is even criticized on the pages of the JSE!!!) and HIV/AIDS denialism do not fulfill this requirement, while cold fusion is criticized by the most fair-minded of scientists. This is hardly analogous to parapsychology. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm all for criticizing undue skepticism, but not obvious bad reasoning. I don't see why so many popular parapsychologists gravitate towards these ideas. Maybe it's because you think "Well, if parapsychology can yield convincing results, what about all this other stuff?" As a person with interests in Philosophy of Science, I think the biggest problem with parapsychological research is the tendency for some rather vocal researchers (no offense meant) to support legitimately wrong ideas. I've been talking with one of my professors on this topic, and he seems to agree that this is a problem. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear me, a whole lot of issues you've raised there! I'll try to address myself to some of them but can't be comprehensive. But can I ask you again which article by Bauer you are talking about. As a JSE reviewer I have access to search facilities and abstracts etc. and it's not very clear which paper you are referring to, and one of the things I have observed in my research career is that people do tend to jump to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence.


 * It's anything related to HIV/AIDS. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be specific, and provide the details of just one of these. Otherwise we are simply talking in a vacuum, which gets us nowhere. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I should say that I have done a search for articles in JSE with AIDS in the title. There is just one, a book review by Bauer, whom I assume was asked by the journal, knowing that he had studied the subject, if he would like to review the book.  I only have access to the abstract, which reads thus:"The official position, the mainstream consensus, is that HIV causes AIDS and that anti-HIV drugs are beneficial. Both are denied by many people: Some of them are eminently qualified to critique the technicalities, others are persuaded by personal experience or that of friends of being 'HIV-positive' but healthy, and others again have analyzed the cases presented pro and con by the believers and the disbelievers. To my knowledge, there exists no disinterested analysis of the opposing cases, and books and book reviews tend to be highly polarized. For the present book, fulsome praise has come from those who share Nattrass's belief that HIV causes AIDS; the opposite comes from those who disagree with her. This reviewer disagrees with Nattrass (Bauer 2007a, 2009a), and the reader is thereby warned to be on the alert for bias in this review even as its author strives to focus on verifiable points."What should we make of that?  Clearly there is a strong PoV there, but that is what happens with reviews — take for example that review by Good in Nature.  But is there anything actually incorrect there that would justify the journal rejecting the review? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr. Josephson, it's not just that; it's also this series here, not to mention all the other reviews by Bauer on this page, which you can find if you hit F3: AIDS. The HIV-AIDS connection is established by the evidence, with more harm than good done to people who don't believe it, health-wise. This consensus isn't just Nattrass. It's a consensus for the majority of the scientific establishment, i.e. by neutral-minded people (and former skeptics of the theory!) who have examined the evidence and found the opposite trend. It's not like parapsychology where the only "scientific consensus" is in the minds of badge-wearing skeptics who are proudly anti-paranormal. Bauer has a lack of experience in the fields that this stuff touches on, and I think the people who peer-reviewed it (if it wasn't just Bauer himself!) didn't know either. It's garbage. It would be better if he just said "HIV isn't the ONLY cause of AIDS" (duh), like this reviewer does, but Bauer goes full tilt in spite of ALL the evidence. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not a fringe promoter, and I REALLY don't want to come across as such. It's not because I'm "worried how people will perceive me." It's because I try to follow the arguments and evidence wherever they lead, no matter what my bias, and they ain't leading where you seem to think they go. I advise you to read the comments on this page here to see what other psi-supporters think of these associations. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Next let me say that it is some 45 years since my introduction to parapsychology by my colleague, mathematical geneticist Dr. George Owen, so I have had plenty of time to observe the behaviour of my fellow scientists and come to some conclusions in that regard. Next for your enlightenment I'd like to recommend to you my lecture to a student group earlier this year. Here is the abstract:"Discussions with colleagues at my college, Trinity, brought me in touch with ideas considered out of place by the majority in academia. Since that first contact I have had an interest in a number of such heresies, and in the factors causing such subjects to remain heresies for a very long period of time despite much evidence to the contrary. In two cases (the Intelligent Design hypothesis; the claim that water can have a memory) hostile reactions are so intense that rational discussion seems impossible. After a discussion of the various factors involved in the barring from proper discussion of ideas considered heretical I conclude gloomily that perhaps in many cases only the passage of time can provide a remedy."That to some extent explains my background, but I will go into more details.  I should first make the point that I don't accept things uncritically.  I always listen, whatever someone is claiming, and ask myself 'can this possibly be true', 'is there anything definitely wrong with the argument'.  On the basis of this I decide whether it is worth looking further. Now you refer to 'weird groups'.  If you can elaborate on that I'll respond, but it seems to me to be a very subjective judgement (I will however admit to belonging to one weird group, namely that of Cambridge academics). --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's an interesting lecture, and I wish you luck defending your views (I think you'll need it!), but I can't defend journals for fringe views as 100% reliable. By definition, they aren't, and won't all be reliable. It's a touch-and-go situation, just like "consensus" on parapsychology: not always clear. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for belatedly supplying links. My comment is this.  Censorship is supposed to be no part of science.  If someone considers the consensus is wrong, there should be a way for the arguments to be put forward.  There may be something wrong with them, but there is a need for the arguments to be made public so the matter can be properly debated and if appropriate put to rest (note that in cases such as psi and cold fusion the arguments against have proved flawed, though sceptics refuse to accept this as they are sure they are right, and we don't get a proper debate).  I suspect Bauer's view is wrong, but the issue needs to be sorted out.  If all journals refuse to allow publication then the issues never get sorted out.  By having a policy, as JSE does, of allowing alternative viewpoints to get a hearing, it provides a valuable service.  What has happened in this case?  Has anyone found what is wrong with Bauer's arguments? Now I can't see that providing this service implies that the journal was not responsible or unreliable, if there was no very clear refutation of his arguments that would support refusal to publish.  Just saying we know HIV is the cause of AIDS doesn't help: Bauer's counterarguments need to be addressed.  And in the case of the review of Radin's book they did choose someone (John Beloff) who could be relied on to take the task responsibly. You should however feel free to regard JSE as a questionable source, but that does not justify, in my opinion, saying we must not quote from John Beloff's review in that journal. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, granted, censorship is terrible, but there's a difference between preventing someone from making an argument and said person being so invincibly ignorant that they won't listen to reason. Scientific journals have a way of separating the two. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, there's allowing alternative viewpoints and allowing objectively wrong stuff. The refutations of Bauer seem all over the place, not just in places like debunkingdenialism, but also in the mainstream literature that he, for some reason, avoids. Again, at least parapsychology can make it into peer-review! PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, can you give a reference? But I don't really have time to read the details to find out if they are sound objections. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, unlike with parapsychology, the Wiki page HIV/AIDS Denialism actually has a decent sample of the peer-reviewed lit. ;) PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Given Bauer's position, I think the crucial question to ask is this.  It seems pretty likely that HIV can lead to AIDS, but this leaves open the possibility that sometimes AIDS has a different cause.  The test for this would be whether HIV is always found in AIDS patients.  Has this been investigated? (there would always be the question of whether the test used was really detecting HIV: could there be false positives?). --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really up for this right now. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then, in any case this is taking up rather too much time. But here are some comments.


 * I have word from an editor that "Henry's papers on the subject were given competent peer review".
 * On the basis of cases where I am better qualified to comment than the AIDS issue, it would be quite plausible to me for the consensus view to be based on confused or fallacious arguments (on one occasion I was attacked by our HoD who claimed that a certain measurements showed memory of water could not happen. The head of our theory group later confirmed when I brought up the issue with him that the HoD's argument was erroneous).  I have given above reasons why there may be something to Bauer's position, even if he has got some things wrong.
 * So I think we have to declare the case against JSE 'not proven'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found the full stop in your section heading irritated my eyes and deleted it—hope you don't mind! I happened to have one of the Bauer papers visible on my computer and noticed some interesting things.  First of all, the abstract refers to something I mentioned above, whether HIV testing is really detecting HIV: "HIV tests are supposed to detect the human immunodeficiency virus, but the accumulated results of 2 decades of HIV tests in the United States are not consonant with that supposition".  Then, in the text, it looks as if his analysis has some official support: "Unwilling to believe that an STI could show such demographic uniformity and constancy, I consulted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They responded, ‘Your data regularities appear to be true, and we agree that they are not artifacts'".  These regularities are among other things what he uses to support his conclusion. I get the impression that he is really doing valid research, and the question is whether these analyses that JSE has published have in fact been refuted, or instead have been the subject of a little WP:SYNTHESIS or other dodgy argumentation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One question: Was he on the peer-review group for his own paper? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Authors never act as referees for their own papers. But as long as the referees don't recommend total rejection the authors are sent the reports and can respond or make changes as appropriate, and it then goes back to the referees for further examination.  Ultimately the editor has to decide, but on some occasions will call in a third referee if the reports that come in are inconsistent. In this context a further point is worth making.  JSE has an agenda, implicit in its name, of promoting exploration of novel approaches or ideas, ones that might be automatically rejected by more conventional journals.  This is why its content is very different, but this does not in any way imply lower standards (maybe higher standards in some respects, as Nature is interested in making money, and so tends to favour papers that will attract readers).  So the attitude that w'pedia takes, of not regarding it as a reliable source, is out of place in the context of this guideline:"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."I suppose at a stretch JSE might be characterised as expressing extreme views, but it does have editorial oversight, is not promotional in nature, and does not rely on rumors or (in view of its vetting processes) rely on personal opinions.  Overall, it cannot be considered questionable (bearing in mind especially RedPen's comment in Talk:Parapsychology 'we are SUPPOSED to interpret how the general policies fit together for any particular circumstance'). --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your apology is admirable. And there is much you can learn from Dr. Josephson ... as an example of how badly one can go astray. He says that he asks himself 'can this possibly be true' ... but of course that's the wrong question for a scientist to ask, as you surely recognize as a philosopher of science. As for "censorship" of discussion about such things as ID, water memory, whether AIDS has causes other than HIV ... there is none; much has been written on these topics. But scientific journals have every right to maintain standards and basic requirements of credibility and method, and to reject poorly supported claims that have already been refuted in depth. The charge that "hostile reactions are so intense that rational discussion seems impossible" is nonsense ... there has been plenty of rational discussion of ID and water memory ... and the rational conclusion of that rational discussion is that these are not empirically tenable, regardless of whether they "can possibly be true". The insistence that these ideas must be accepted as valid or that they must be treated as being still open questions is not rational. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The JSE apparently started off as very interesting and well-intentioned (the founders included Marcello Truzzi) but it's drifted into woo ever since. I personally defend parapsychology, since I think it has a lot of interesting things to offer, though not as bombastically as I used to. It mostly is left in the realm of uber-skeptics and uber-defenders to discuss, leaving an objective examination of the evidence lost in the shuffle. But that's my opinion for now. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Josephson is a nice guy, but I disagree vehemently with him and Radin on a lot of issues. Though I can't confirm this, I think what happened is that they saw some things that made them change their mind about parapsychology, and then they carried that skepticism about scientific consensus to the extreme. But there's a difference between the two, in my opinion: The scientific 'rejection' of parapsychology is mostly due to a priori issues regarding the paranormal (and thus what counts as something that isn't worth one's time), whereas the rejection of AIDS denialism is based on rational discussion and criticism based on the evidence. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting off my soapbox now, lol. Again, thanks for your kind words. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

L'Ancelot
Hello Phi- What are you referring to with "the manuscript evidence of L'Ancelot" in the Lancelot article? That sentence reads like it is recalling something already mentioned or commonly known, but I don't see any occurrence of the term or mention of a manuscript elsewhere in the article. Eric talk 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Eric: That was already there; I just put it earlier in the section, but I do see the issue. I have Flint Johnson's Origins of Arthurian Romances on hand, and it might help. On page 35 (Kindle edition), he cites Viscount Hersant de la Villemarque as remarking that most French manuscripts read "L'Ancelot". His citation for this is the Viscount's Les Romans de la Table Ronde et les Contes des anciens Bretons (Paris, 1842), p. 50. He also states that it formed the cornerstone of JMS Tatlock's theory that Lancelot is based off Anguselaus (Anguselaus -> Ancelot -> L'Ancelot -> Lancelot). Does that help? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why I've taken a hiatus from articles on parapsychology...
While I still stand by some of the statements about parapsychology that I made earlier (I still think some psychic phenomena are real but nevertheless exploited by charlatans), I feel I'm not prepared to adequately defend them in front of people on Wikipedia. When I did, I not only betrayed an ignorance of certain Wikipedia policies (though not all), I came across people who seemed willing to believe anything, and those who were willing to believe nothing. Both made claims I disagreed with, but didn't have the resources to argue against. The defense of something as controversial as parapsychology is simply beyond my ability. I am only a student, not a scientist or psychologist. I was carried away by the ideas of various parapsychologists that I found intellectually stimulating. I will keep acting as a Wikipedia editor, but I will not try to defend things that are simply beyond my scope of knowledge.

On that note, happy editing. Phi (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abraham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)