This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Parapsychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Parapsychology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Why are we not saying “Parapsychology claims…”? I’m confused where the animus comes from based on what I’ve seen that it’s generally not scientific taboo?
I should put out there before anything that I’m formally a physicist and by no means sure of how less rigorous the criterion for “mainstream” social scientific inquiry may be in terms of defining what is or is not a field. I simply wrote what makes sense. There are many of us, especially in the physical sciences, who sit here and look at models and conclusory statements of many a social science in a given respected academic journal and complain profusely about the logical fallacies or likely fundamental errors in rigor, reason, and method. This whole deal with parapsychology is a controversy based on what I’m seeing; and as a controversy or matter of general opinion that has differed significantly from several actual renown authorities on both sides of the subject as a whole, where the majority of academia has no problem discussing or approaching parapsychology on level terms as a social or semi-physical science, in a way reminiscent of the more abstract formats of traditional philosophy or sociology, it is clear that this is the case where two sides are well defined and somewhat ambivalent. Since this ‘pseudoscience’ label is an indubitably controversial classification by apparent authority on both sides, Wikipedia should always be taking a neutral point of view in accordance with encyclopedic tone (See generally, NPOV). This is not a supplication to the rules, it just seems shockingly crass to dismiss the entire section of the Dewey Decimal System dedicated to the field, when the world has been greatly affected by the contents of it, akin to the diminution of science in the face of several religious institutions. I will, honestly, say that I do not agree with the subjects major premise in most circumstances but that is, of course irrelevant to the body of knowledge that can be objectively considered.
The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which is the premiere scientific consortium in the world, recognizes the exploration of parapsychological phenomena as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. “Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, agreed to publish a paper by Targ and Puthoff, which presented results of a series of experiments apparently showing evidence of paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and remote viewing.” Field-defining clinicians and psychologists in academia to include Carl Jung and some heavy hitting notables like Phil Zimbardo, Daryl Bem, and even more media-prone clinicians like Jordan Peterson or Dean Radin (though the latter may be considered “fallen-from-grace” since aiding in the development of the U.S. Government’s Parapsychology program and leaving Princeton’s Parapsych Research Project) have sat and acknowledged the interesting volumes of research of this phenomena while emphasizing that the empirical study of it is unquestionably scientific regardless of if the content of the theory is less sound than the methods of research…. Why is it that even in 2022, we are pretending here on Wikipedia that if it’s not a model theory that is agreeable enough to meet an arbitrary threshold then it must just be all humours and hysteria, instead? THERE IS NO TABOO IN MAINSTREAM PSYCH OVER PARAPSYCHOLOGY. The consensus is (even if that consensus is reflected by the AAAS Membership) that it’s a field of inquiry. That doesn’t mean it’s absolute hocuspocus.
Methodologies and frameworks have been made theories and models have been constructed and experiments are being done to test against those theories and models how is that unscientific or pseudoscience? As a physicist, I love entertaining peoples misconceptions only to dash them at the earliest ambiguity, but this intro downright debases what is repeatedly emphasized as a rather lucrative and well-debated field; simply put the writing of that part of the intro in the article is just so arrogantly conclusory that I was perturbed and I’m not even a proponent of the claims the subject makes. For crying out loud the Dewey Decimal System and LoC separate parapsychology from pseudoscience, fiction, and mythology. It’s about as well regarded as hypnotherapy (which isn’t saying much, but hey, it’s practiced under law so it must be something.)
There is no taboo against the study of parapsychology or the field itself. Can the same be said of some of the theories and models therein? Absolutely not. Insofar as they blame quantum foundations for the phenomena, I regard them as pure fantasy. Others maybe not so, but the study itself is respectable. PsychologyToday’s skeptic piece on it could even acknowledge all of these things, but a neutral encyclopedia article can’t? Seems contrary to NPOV (Original here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201401/is-there-scientific-taboo-against-parapsychology?amp )
“ [Authors] of the opinion piece (Cardeña, 2014) “call for an open, informed study” of the subject. However, they do not explain what specifically prompted such a call at this particular time… The article starts off, apparently quite reasonably, arguing that scientists need to consider all evidence in an open-minded manner and “recognise that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.” This is in contrast to deciding things dogmatically or by appeal to authority figures. No argument from me so far… Skeptics on the other hand argue that they find the evidence unconvincing because attempts to reliably replicate initially successful psi experiments have had a history of repeated failure. This is not to say that no effects have ever been replicated, rather that replication results have been inconsistent and contradictory.
…“This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks” (emphasis added). Lack of funding and professional and personal attacks I can well believe. Funding bodies have limited resources and so may have good reasons for declining to fund a field they consider unpromising. Professional and personal attacks, however regrettable, occur in many fields of endeavour, and are hardly unique to parapsychology. But claiming that there is an actual taboo against investigating the topic is a very puzzling one indeed for which the article offers no evidence.[3] In fact, the article actually cites survey evidence to the effect that only a minority of scientists dismiss parapsychology as pseudoscience or an illegitimate area of study. If this is correct, then how could parapsychology actually be taboo? Does this minority group of parapsychology-deniers have some special veto power that they can impose on the majority?
…A few years after Radin’s lecture, Daryl Bem’s (2011) paper that claimed to provide evidence that people can “feel the future” received an enormous amount of media attention (e.g. in Discover magazine[5]). Perhaps parapsychology is no longer so “taboo” as it was a few years ago? Alternatively, maybe it never was taboo in the first place…
According to Alcock (1987), when parapsychology research began in the 1880’s, a number of prominent psychologists, such as Pierre Janet and William James, along with scientists from other fields, were involved in looking for evidence of paranormal phenomena and psychical research societies were set up in France, America and Britain… many of whom turned out to be frauds. As a result, many psychologists eventually lost interest in the subject.
Parapsychology attracted attention again in the 1930’s with the pioneering experimental research into ESP by JB Rhine at Duke University. A 1938 poll of psychologists found that 89% of them thought that the study of psi was a legitimate scientific exercise (Alcock, 1989). I suppose they were not aware that this was supposed to be a taboo subject…
In 1969, the Parapsychology Association became an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is a well-respected international institution of mainstream science, rather than some fringe organisation. (It is worth noting that a 1982 survey found that only 4% of 339 of “elite” scientists in the AAAS thought that ESP had been scientifically established (Alcock, 1987).) More tellingly, in 1974, Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, agreed to publish a paper by Targ and Puthoff (1974), which presented results of a series of experiments apparently showing evidence of paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and remote viewing. Several of these experiments used the now notorious Uri Geller as their test subject…
A similar incident occurred again in 2011, when Daryl Bem, one of the signatories to the Frontiers article claiming that parapsychology is taboo, published his paper on precognition (Bem, 2011) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This journal is considered the flagship publication in its field, and news of this paper generated an enormous media response, even before it was officially published…
Alcock (1987) also notes that between 1950 and 1987 over 1500 parapsychological papers were abstracted in Psychological Abstracts, which is published by the American Psychological Association. Research on the subject has hardly been suppressed by the mainstream then…
On the contrary, Smith (2011) points out that mainstream science has actually advanced by accepting challenges to its model of the world. He gives the recent example of the discovery of dark energy. Prior to this discovery, the conventional view in cosmology was that the expansion of the universe was slowing down. However, astronomical observations led to the observation that the rate of universal expansion was actually accelerating instead, suggesting the existence of a previously unknown antigravity force. Five years of observation was all that was needed to completely revise our understanding of cosmology and now dark energy is being studied intensively and receives massive funding. Compare this to the over 130 years that parapsychologists have had to establish the existence of psi. It seems to me that if parapsychology has not won widespread acceptance it is because of faults within the subject itself References
Alcock, J. E. (1987). Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 553-643.
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. doi: 10.1037/a0021524
Cardeña, E. (2011). On Wolverines and Epistemological Totalitarianism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25(3), 539–551.
Cardeña, E. (2014). A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness. [Opinion]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017
Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029709
Investigating the paranormal. (1974). Nature, 251(5476), 559-560. doi: 10.1038/251559a0
Judd, C. M., & Gawronski, B. (2011). Editorial Comment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 406.
Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 251, 602-607. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/251602a0
Luxnir ( talk) 07:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Let’s just remove that from the intromakes a suggestion about improving the article, and the answer is no. Per WP:CSECTION, we do not restrict the mainstream viewpoint about something to a small ghetto section. And the image of parapsychology among scientists is a very important aspect of it, so hell no, we won't remove it from the intro.
I included the SPR's psi encyclopedia in the article, but then an editor removed it without providing adequate reason. The encylopedia is a valuable resource with articles by experts on hundreds of topics, and it seems obvious to me that the WP article should include reference to it. Is there any good reason why it should not? Brian Josephson ( talk) 15:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the study of Spirit, monster, Alen are called what Arcologist 157.49.236.143 ( talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)