Talk:Dean Radin/Archive 3

Reception

Topic has drifted. This is not a forum. Please use this talk page to discuss improvements of Radin's article, not your personal beliefs about parapsychology or skeptics
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A presentational issue. The text says ' According to the psychologists David B. Wilson and William R. Shadish psychokinesis researchers such as Radin 'need to go beyond statistics and explain how the mind might influence a computer ...'. This is a statement of opinion, presented here as if it were pretty well establish fact, which it isn't. To clarify for the reader that it is merely an opinion it is best reworded as 'Pyschologists ... asserted that ...'. The idea that you need to go beyond statistics and postulate a mechanism is far from mandatory as the critics suggest: for example statistics may suggest that exercise has beneficial effects on health and this is accepted as a fact-in-itself -- no-one suggests that the results should be ignored if the investigators can't provide a mechanism. Indeed, what the psychologists suggest is in essence special pleading (and double standards to boot) to support a PoV, and really ought not to be in the article at all. Comments? --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Hi Brian. It's written as an opinion attributed to specific individuals: "According to the psychologists David B. Wilson and William R. Shadish..." which is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia editorial policies. We can't add disputation in Wikipedia's voice because we personally disagree with what sources have published. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC) OK, suppose instead I just include a counter-example, writing e.g. 'However, statistical results are frequently accepted in science even where no mechanism is known', citing the link between aspirin and heart disease, e.g. as per http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/research-confirms-and-points-to-future-aspirin-uses-for-disease-prevention-75958547.html. Any reason why that can't be done? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately your counter-example is WP:SYNTHESIS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Do you deny that the psychologists concerned are applying double standards ("A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations")? They assert a "need to go beyond statistics" that is not applied in similar situations elsewhere, as for example the tests of the medical efficacy of aspirin that I cited, which is by no means untypical. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Brian, I just checked the source document ("From mind to matter: Data analysis challenges psychokinesis" by Bruce Bower. Science News. Volume 170, Issue 4, pages 53–54, 22 July 2006) and it accurately represents both Radin's views and the views of his critics. I'm sure you understand that any counter-rebuttal needs to come from reliable secondary sources rather than editors opinions here on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Err... You didn't answer my question, did you? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) We really can't use the talk page as a forum or soapbox: WP:TALK "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I'll take this continuing to duck my (very relevant) question as meaning you accept my point, but don't want to admit it. It's not a personal view of mine, as anyone with reasonable intelligence looking at the cited quotes can see that double standards are at work; Radin is being unfairly criticised on account of this. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I'd like to comment on GoblinFace's infelicitous removal from the article of the review by John Beloff. First of all, I am reasonably familiar with JSE's procedures, having done occasional refereeing for them, and it seems to me it has high standards. It differs from other journals only in that it has an open attitude to subjects that other journals would reject automatically. Thus many of its articles are on 'fringe' subjects simply because it is one of the few journals that will give them a fair hearing and judge them solely on grounds of merit. Secondly, even Susan Blackmore, a well-known sceptic, wrote very positively about Beloff in her Times obituary, and it is clear that anything he says in a review deserves to be taken seriously, regardless of where published. And if people object to items published in JSE, there's even more reason to object to items published in sceptical sources, as they typically have an agenda, whereas JSE's sole consideration is 'is this of publishable quality?' (and I should say that I do sometimes I recommend that a paper be rejected, as being either wrong or of low quality). But I would never say something should not be included in wikipedia simply because of where it is published; I would look at the item first of all and then decide. I wonder if GF etc. looked at the reviews or did they just delete the references without any proper engagement with the text? If so, is that acceptable behaviour on the part of an editor? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) I've asked two editors here whether there are any reviews of Radin's book in mainstream journals other than Nature, and they've not replied, which I take it means they haven't found any. 1 against, 0 for, is hardly good statistics of course! But that's not surprising: journals get sent many books by publishers, and have to decide which are most relevant to their readers, and it is not surprising if books on parapsychology don't get much of a look in. What's the story regarding Nature, then, as they did publish a view despite this? That's not so hard to suss out. Maddox (and Nature generally) have a record of treating unconventional claims aggressively (the cases of Benveniste and Taleyarkhan come to mind in this regard). Maddox no doubt hoped that Good would be able to find an error in this book that he'd be able to flaunt if there was one. If Good hadn't come up with anything, would a review then have appeared in Nature? I suspect not. It would have been rather embarrassing for Maddox to learn that Good's critique was based on an error, and as noted above Nature resisted allowing this fact to become known for quite a time. It may only have been bad publicity that led to them changing their minds in the end. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Brian, I know you do realize that the scientific community has not accepted (and in some cases has outright rejected) Radin's ideas as set forth in his books. So I'm puzzled why you keep trying to make the article sound like there's more support for him than there really is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Even Skeptic's Dictionary accepts that "55% of our natural scientists believe ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility." (Carroll for some reason fails to back up his claim that ESP is 'palpably untrue', I wonder why?). You are peddling untruths, LuckyLouie! And a look at the list of past Presidents of the Society for Psychical Research reveals at least 6 who have been fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, as well as a Prime Minister; first Principal of Birmingham University; a Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge; a President of the Astronomical Society of France; and a President of Caius College, Cambridge. Are these all easily-deluded people? Are they less intelligent than those who just 'follow the herd'? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Sigh. Please stop with the soapboxing. You have been advised to read the encyclopedia's policies regarding reliable independent sources, fringe, undue weight, etc. umpteen times, so presenting an isolated number from one social opinion poll as (somehow) showing support for Radin is an indication to me that you don't understand, or don't care to understand those policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Stop soapboxing yourself, please. I know that other surveys have similarly shown that many scientists believe in the possibility of ESP, contrary to your position. I just picked the one that came up first in my search, to demonstrate that you were misconceived. It really is soapboxing, making claims that are at variance with the truth and I wish you'd stop doing it. PS: I've noticed that this isn't the first time you've brought up soapboxing in order to duck an awkward question. That really isn't good enough. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC) You're encouraged to use the Talk page to make suggestions about how to improve the article. But if you come here seeking sparring partners to argue with you about psi, esp, psychic phenomena, etc. then you will rightly be ignored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC) He's not "seeking sparring partners" at all. You asked for evidence, he gave it to you, and you accused him of soapboxing when he did so. Please assume good faith here. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) As long as editors don't engage in the unreasonable removal of perfectly reasonable articles by well-accredited people, I'll be happy to leave the issue here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Josephson, we can't use the Journal of Scientific Exploration. It is a fringe pseudoscience journal that has endorsed the loch ness monster, aids denialism, aliens, conspiracy theories, psychic phenomena and UFOs. It is not a reliable source. There are no positive reviews for Radin's books in science journals but there are positive reviews for his books in mainstream magazines (these have been cited). Is that ok? Goblin Face (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Face, you should read what I pointed out above. The credibility of a review depends on the author. It can't depend on where it was published. There are reliable sources attesting to the integrity of John Beloff: John Beloff was ... an academic who did more than anyone to establish the study of paranormal phenomena as a legitimate academic pursuit. Although best known as a parapsychologist, Beloff was also a respected philosopher. All this by a recipient of the CSICOP Distinguished Skeptic Award, whose views you would have enthusiastically supported had they fitted with your PoV. And the other reviews are almost all by biased sources. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) The JSE has contributions from skeptical writers like Ray Hyman (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_hyman.pdf) and Stanley Jeffers (who did the PK study I gave you a while back), and a JSE article criticizing the Mars Effect can be found on the page. Even people like CSICop members aren't afraid to publish in the journal! I don't see why we should include skeptical papers published in the JSE but not supportive ones. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for providing these details, PhiChi. The removal of JSE as a source is a clear case of tendentious editing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

NPR Article

This NPR article from 2009 states that Radin was conducting a Love study that claimed to show a correlation between a husband thinking about a wife and her sensing it within two seconds:

After running 36 couples through this test, the researchers found that when one person focused his thoughts on his partner, the partner's blood flow and perspiration dramatically changed within two seconds. The odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 11,000. Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.

It would be nice to have cites to the claimed 3 dozen double blind randomized studies with similar results and to know whether there were more studies with null results that perhaps were not published. Has there been any scientific criticism of this study and the supposed similar ones? I think it would help the article be more objective if this issue could be fleshed out in more detail. WilliamKF (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If the reference had criticised the experiments, you can be sure that that the cabal would have added it to the article in a flash. But since it takes a positive approach, it would be instantly removed if it were to be added, as not being a reliable source. As Merleau-Ponty put it in a different context: "This is the way things are and nobody can do anything about it". --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I understand your concern, but feel it is better to try and remain objective and avoid debates and focus on citable facts from reliable sources. One way to do so would be if anyone can address my request. Does anyone have sources to back up the claim of the NPR article, it would be nice to have this if anyone can locate some of the claimed 3 dozen corroborating studies. I believe finding some of these would bring more balance to the article and help reduce conflict. I tried to find some but was unsuccessful, perhaps others would have better skills in finding these than I? Thanks! WilliamKF (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

William, I've written to Dean enquiring about sources. However, rather perversely, the NPR article would, by w'pedia standards, be considered more reliable than the journal where the research was published, as it would count as a secondary source (secondary sources good, primary sources bad!). At least it would other things being equal but, as we know, in w'pedia some things are more equal than others. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is true: in Wikipedia, scientific facts are considered much more "equal" than the unverifiable conjectures of parapsychology, for example. Hence WP:FRINGE, which applies here. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: did you get any response from Dean? WilliamKF (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

He did cite two references, but I didn't report these as I wasn't sure this was what you were looking for. Anyway, for what it's worth here they are: and You'd probably throw out the latter as not being published in a RS, but the first is a meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychology so that should count for something. Radin was not involved with either paper himself. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That first paper is notable but it does not mention Radin, the second paper is from a fringe journal on alternative medicine, again it does not mention Radin in the text. So their useless for Radin's Wikipedia article. Goblin Face (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: does that mean Dean is stating that the NPR claim of 3 dozen corroborating studies is false? WilliamKF (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to help me there, as I can't follow your reasoning. The BJP article refers in its abstract to 36 studies on direct mental interaction, and presumably that is what is being referred to in the NPR article. I can't see how you infer from this that Radin is asserting that the NPR claim is false. Furthermore, you are misrepresenting what was being said when you talk of 3 dozen corroborating studies, which wording would imply that each study showed an effect. That is not the claim; it is the statistical analysis of the complete set that provides the clear statistical evidence (it is possible, though, that with some individuals there is a strong effect, and perhaps that was the case with the TV demo). Am I missing something, or are you? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to get back to the point with which you started the discussion, the article makes it clear that Radin is just commenting on a colleague's experiment. It does not say that he is 'conducting' it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I see nothing of interest in the NPR article for this article on Dean Radin. If there isn't any usable content, a discussion of this article shouldn't be happening here (it should be used for discussing changes or whatever to this article), Second Quantization (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be that some people are just a little bit too fussy? Had WilliamKF not misread the article and what he thought had been correct, the article would have been relevant. And again had Radin been directly involved in the work he cited they also would have been relevant. And in any case I think the discussion was just winding down, with consensus that none of this was relevant. Your complaint is unreasonable, IMHO. --Brian Josephson (talk)

I've added a cite to the NPR article because it supports the claim that "Radin has appealed to quantum mechanics as a mechanism." I apologize if my comments and questions are not being created carefully enough to avoid misunderstanding and confusion. Getting back to the beginning of this thread, NPR article states: "Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results." So is the consensus that this is referring to the 36 studies mentioned in BJP? Do we have a list of those studies and does that list include the two institutions mentioned? I think this is on topic for Radin because if his research results are being corroborated by others, I believe it leads to his research being more accepted as valid due to its reproducibility by independent researchers. My only concern would be whether there were say 1000 studies attempted and 964 found no effect and did not publish, but 36 did find an effect and did publish. WilliamKF (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As Radin is hardly the first to suggest QM can provide a mechanism, the fact that he said this in the NPR programme is hardly noteworthy. And I agree with Goblin Face that since Radin was not involved with the 'love' study except to talk about it in the media, that isn't noteworthy either. On the hand, his book "Entangled Minds" is focussed on the QM mechanism, so something about this being its focus would be in order. The subtitle 'Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality' and the publisher's blurb are sources that confirm his assertion of the quantum connection. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

muddled text

The text "... but that it is also, as paraphrased by sociologist Erich Goode, "elusive, subtle and complex" while "our understanding of it is incomplete" and "difficult to replicate".[8]:157" doesn't make sense and needs rewording (understanding can't be 'difficult to replicate'). And the page number needs fixing, as it currently shows as a superscript. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the page number being a superscript is intentional. WilliamKF (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the test edit I've just made? If you are going to refer to two different pages in a reference and using rp to put in the page number in the text, it is best not to put one of the page numbers in the reference list as well. I've therefore removed the |page=... leaving the rp to tell the whole story. This might need to be done in more than one place. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and was thinking the same thing and am glad you followed through on your thought to do something about it! ;-) Another approach (more consistent with what I've seen elsewhere) would be to break up the cite into two entries or do what this page does with references giving page numbers of cited sources. Alternatively, the cite could list all page numbers. WilliamKF (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

However, if you do that, there is no linkage between the text and the page that corresponds. It is important that the link be maintained in some way. In regular journals you do sometimes do it with one reference referring to another and giving the page, but this is problematic with wikipedia because (as happened with me) a person may delete a reference in ignorance of the cross-reference. The example you linked to is different as it involves two articles by the same author, not two pages within the same article.--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

But there are examples on that page of two refs to same article but different page numbers. For example, see refs #1 and #3, which are Osterbrock 1996, pp. 208–9 and Osterbrock 1996, pp. 205–8 respectively. In such case the text does have linkage to the exact page number supporting the article section being cited. Regardless, I'm happy to keep it as you are proceeding, I was only wanting to point out the alternatives for full consideration. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see, I'd been looking at a different section. That's a rather unusual way to do things, but it looks like it works well. Everyone would have to conform to that scheme of course, or it would get messy (unless the whole page has been configured so it all works out automatically). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, within any one article, all must conform to the same standard or things will quickly get messy. WilliamKF (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Guideline re sources

This guideline is saying, in effect, it may not be possible to find a source supporting the fringe position in a regular journal. In such a case, it is permissible to make use of ones that are 'alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia'. Editors who have removed sources supporting Radin's position on the grounds of them not being RS have not been acting in accord with the spirit of this guideline. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes but cherry picking one line out of that is taking it out of context. The end paragraph that you link to for example states "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative" So the mainstream sources on the article from scientists and skeptics that have been cited in reliable books, journals, websites etc is entirely within Wikipedia policy and it has been written in relative perspective to the fringe field of parapsychology. There are many of these and only a handful (two) positive reviews for Radin in a psychic journal. That journal is not reliable. You do not need to be a genius to weigh it up or see the math. They were deleted because the overall view is that Radin is doing pseudoscience. If there are sixty reliable references criticizing Radin's books we don't go citing a single fringe review in defense of Radin. Citing a handful of parapsychologists in favor of Radin is indeed biased and unrepresentative of the scientific consensus on this subject. Look at undue weight, WP:UNDUE. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The sources that you are citing are fringe parapsychological sources that represent an extreme minority view, they do not represent widely held views on this topic and there is no reason to mention them. If you had reliable sources then you could make a case, but you do not... so nice try, but no :) Goblin Face (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As proposed by User PhiChiPsiOmega, the article can say something like : "The book was well-received by psi proponents.", which is a verfiable statement, as well as being fairly notable, and this can be followed by the usual critical stuff. It has one very strong point in its favour: at present the review gives the false impression that no reviews have come out in favour. Are you happy, Goblin Face, to appear to the world as someone who likes articles to give a false impression, or will you permit an addition to the text such as that proposed by PhiChi? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that Radin's books were-received by psi proponents? None. So there is no reason to put that statement on Radin's article. We can't insert original research but if you must know there are at least two psi proponents who have criticized Radin's books - Douglas Stokes and J. E. Kennedy. Their criticism of Radin was published in fringe journals so they won't be used on the article though. What is on the article right now is all sourced to reliable references, so there is no false impression. Goblin Face (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to mention psi-proponents, that was not my own choice of wording. We can simply quote positive reviews that have been published (some of which were already referenced in the article before you illegitimately chose to remove them), taking note of the fact that if there appear not to be any such in the usual 'reliable' sources then the guidelines permit the use of alternatives. I accept that we don't have to give equal weight to these, but not to mention any positive reviews at all when there quite a number of them is to mislead the reader. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do see what you are saying but adding the JSE fringe journal is problematic for a number of reasons. Just accept defeat on this issue and leave it. At the end of the day Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and there are not many of those for Radin that say positive things about his psychic work. Nobody is opposed to John Beloff being mentioned on Wikipedia articles. Beloff was a notable academic with a number of scientific publications. If you look at the Carl Sargent article which I recently updated, Beloff wrote a positive review in the New Scientist for Sargent's book which I cited. You see if Beloff had done that for Radin in the New Scientist there would be no dispute but he did not. Instead we have a review in an unreliable fringe journal. My advice is just look for reliable sources and forget the fringe stuff. We don't need to waste time discussing this anymore. Goblin Face (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Just accept defeat"??? Now THAT is immature. Goblin Face, this isn't a competition! You should include the JSE review for the sake of balance. Josephson and I have told you why JSE isn't totally unreliable as you say that it (I've presented my case here, and you've repeatedly ignored it). Also, Skeptical Enquirer is a "skeptic" journal, so it has its own biases, whether you like it or not. And even if it is fringe, you should still cite it per this rule. It's a fringe topic, so you can at least cite people on his side just the same way you can cite the positive Christian reviews of Expelled. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, on my talk page, I refuted the entire review of SUPERNORMAL from the Enquirer, but you posted it anyway. It's not reliable - I literally showed you why, and you never argued against my reasoning (likely you'll just say "You're going against consensus" when I refuted that too) - and it just shows what kind of bias you have on this topic. You are aware that WP isn't about shoving your opinions down everyone's throats, right? No, I'm not trying to shove my opinions down your throat here. I'm just telling you things as they are. Why don't YOU "accept defeat" and admit that you're totally one-sided? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"We don't need to waste time discussing this anymore." Part of me doesn't want to waste time making myself clear either, but I'm afraid you're not getting this, and it's important that you do. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And no, Goblin Face, he's not cherry-picking. EVEN IF the consensus is against Radin, you STILL need to give the review written by Radin's supporters in the fringe JSE. This is very clear from that section whether you like it or not. Also, I advise you to read that second part: "limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative." Yeah, you're not doing that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being harsh with you, but I think by now I need to make myself clear like this. J.E. Kennedy and Douglas Stokes are somewhat odd in their views of parapsychology (some strange fideism), but you can still cite them, just as you can cite the several other parapsychologists who side with Radin. Journal of Parapsychology is reliable. Skeptics cite it and publish in it, and it has a good relationship with the American Psychological Association. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the JSE is widely regarded [1] as a fringe journal where topics that depart significantly from the scientific mainstream (Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, PSI, etc.) are routinely endorsed, so we really do avoid citing anything to it. I think GoblinFace will agree, there's no problem with having the article say that Radin's work has garnered support from fringe science proponents, we just need a reliable and independent source to cite it to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd like GF to cite the JSE article as a positive review from the parapsychology community, but it seems he doesn't want to cite it at all, which I find more than a little strange. If a person can cite creationist reviews of their own literature, why not parapsychologist reviews, especially when parapsychology at least gets peer-review and has reasonable people backing it up? It seems like a double-standard, no? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase my point about the JSE: It is regarded as a fringe journal (I don't recall arguing against it - if I worded it that way I'm sorry I misled you), but I doubt that makes it unreliable. I've expressed these doubts in the past, and GF hasn't answered them for me. Skeptics like Hyman and Jeffers have published in it, so it can't be too much of a disgrace. Judging from the founding members of the Society, it was designed as a place where skeptics and proponents of fringe claims could gather said ideas under one roof: https://web.archive.org/web/20061229151714/http://www.scientificexploration.org/founding-members.html. It doesn't really seem to have a promotional bias, except maybe for giving people with fringe views the opportunity to make a case. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There's another point also, that for book reviews the credibility of the reviewer is more relevant than where the review is published. I've raised this for discussion on the Verifiability talk page (see sections Clarification needed on "Questionable sources" and Relevance of type of work). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, there isn't a consensus on this, as I've said, but even if there were, one just has to look at this statement: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." That doesn't mean no credit to the sources whatsoever. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include the JSE then get some consensus on this from other users, not just me. I have told you what I think but you and Josephson disagree. I do not own Radin's Wikipedia article nor any other article and I rarely revert people on Wikipedia. If you want to add that fringe review in then do it, I won't revert you but I have given reasons why it is not a reliable source. I am busy on other articles and have no time for Radin's article right now. Instead of all this ranting on talk-pages, have a look at WP:SOFIXIT. I don't actually know what your suggestions for improving Radin's Wikipedia article are, you have given a few hints below but it seems mostly complaints, maybe if you did some edits users can see what you have in mind for actually improving the article. Goblin Face (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I've been addressing you is because you seem to contribute most of the edits to parapsychology-related articles. And again, I know you've told us what you think; it's just that we'd rather you reply to our points instead of dismissing them. This is the source of my frustration. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We are told that Goblin Face rarely reverts. Perhaps then someone else was busy removing stuff using his account on July 23rd. 24th and 26th. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A few points.

1. Brian, on your original post: no it does not say that. What it is saying is that in some circumstances verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal (that's a quote) and that Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subject. You still need to show that a specific fringe view is relevant with secondary non-fringe sourcing.
2. Notability isn't important inside wikipedia articles (statements like "... is a verfiable statement, as well as being fairly notable" are nonsensical).
3. "You should include the JSE review for the sake of balance" That's false balance. Wikipedia doesn't aim for balance, it aims for due weight. Only in one circumstance does wikipedia provide balance, and that's when the sources are equally divided (see WP:BALANCE).
4. JSE isn't a reliable source.
5. Second Quantization (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be in different universes. I've done a search and it looks as if it was other people that talked about 'balance'. And I don't why you're bringing up articles on mainstream subjects as you seem to consider this article is not on a mainstream subject. Please make your meaning clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Josephson (talk • contribs)

On the first point you made; all of my points are not aimed at you. The point of this article is that it's a WP:BLP, it's about Dean Radin. It is not about the general topic area of the other fringe protagonists. If you want to bring them in, you need to show how they are directly discussed as relevant by independent secondary sources. Second Quantization (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So then your objection isn't in regard to reviews of Radin's books, which clearly are relevant to an article about him? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"What it is saying is that in some circumstances verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal (that's a quote) and that Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subject." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Quantization: It also says, "Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. ... The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field." This is precisely what we are trying to do. We can cite the JSE article as representative of the views of parapsychologists. We can also cite the Skeptical Inquirer article, but citing it is irrelevant to the overall point we're trying to make. The point we're trying to make is that there is no consensus on whether or not parapsychology or Radin's work is scientifically proven, and SI is no indicator of scientific consensus (it is, after all, an opinion magazine). A magazine that touts itself as scientifically accurate isn't always scientifically accurate. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening Section...

This part needs work: "Mainstream scientists have given Radin's books negative reviews, charging that he has ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest rewording this to something along the lines of "While parapsychology proponents have been favorable towards Radin's work [insert, e.g., the JSE review and other things], skeptics of the field have been quite critical towards it [insert links to Victor Stenger et al.]. In addition, the mathematician I.J. Good has charged that Radin's work ignores the known hoaxes in the field, contains statistical errors, and ignores plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data, leading to a debate with Radin and Brian Josephson [insert link to NATURE reviews]." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Mainstream scientists" connotes consensus, which one review in NATURE and the rest in "Skeptic" journals and writings most certainly do not connote. Also, Good is criticizing Radin's work, not Radin himself, hence the rewording of the "he ignored" part. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

To Goblin Face: I'm really not looking for confrontation here. It's reasonable to say that the above is much more accurate and far less biased than what's there right now. And this is just the opening section, BTW. There are many other things to correct, like the inclusion of detailed entries on Radin's books that only exist to refute his work, not outline it or the criticisms. That, and the fact that a minor review in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER isn't worth summarizing on the page. You can cite it, but the summary just takes up space and again strikes of bias. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the review by Dale DeBakcsy this was expanded by the user Second Quantization. I have no problem with his edits, I think he did well there at summarizing the review and it is an important review which should be cited on the article. I don't agree with your suggestions but I am very bored of this, you have not listened to a word I have said. I suggest getting some other users on this talk-page and see what they think. Goblin Face (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You think you're bored? Wow, that's bloody fantastic. I've been replying to you every step of the way, quoting your words as I go. Refuting your bad arguments isn't the same as "not listening," and I have told you on my talk page. You, on the other hand, have ignored everything I've said, as the conversation on my talk page demonstrates. Ignoring what I'M saying, as you've been doing, as opposed to the constant replies I make to your arguments, is by definition, NOT LISTENING. I told you why the DeBakcsy article is stupid. It isn't important, and it's published by the Skeptical Inquirer - hardly a "major scientific publication". Please get this through your head. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And what's REALLY strange is that your edits tend to occur immediately after I've refuted your points. If you don't think I've refuted you, why don't you tell me why instead of hand-waving and dumping your material on the article anyway? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I am LITERALLY losing my patience with you. It's difficult to maintain respect for you when you fail to even address my points, especially since talking about why something should be included is exactly what the talk page is for!PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Debakscy's only qualification seems to be that of being a calculus teacher. This hardly compares favourably with John Beloff's qualifications (see link). And it does indeed rather look to me as if Goblin Face doesn't take much notice of what anyone else has to say in regard to his comments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi you have caused trouble in the past on parapsychology talk-pages by insulting people and disruptive fringe pushing and you nearly got banned for this... I think you are heading towards this again. I am not responding to abuse or your parapsychology fringe pushing. Nothing you say so far has been constructive about improving Radin's article. I don't think it will be long until you are brought up at the Arbitration Committee again, is that what you want? I don't think it is productive that you keep ranting on this talk-page with your rants about skeptics and the way you type to me and others is not pleasant. You seem to use this website as just a place to vent out on people. I will not be posting on this talk-page for a while. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I'm surprised you are making an appeal to credentials but it's irrelvant. It's Debackscy publishing in the reliable sources, not Beloff (also I've never heard of the free library so I don't know how reliable that is). If someone chooses to publish their material in unreliable sources, that makes it unusable since it can't be relied on, Second Quantization (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• PhiChiPsiOmega you appear to be setting your own idea of what neutral means for this article. We look to the independent secondary sources to see what they say, not our feelings about what is neutral. Second Quantization (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: ???? I'm not a fringe-pusher. Please don't misrepresent me like this or appeal to my initial unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedure. I'm hardly causing too much trouble for you, and I think the arbitration committee would agree with me. Also, please stop dismissing what I'm saying as a rant, something I can very well do with you. I only wish that you address what I'm saying instead of ignoring it. I'd rather not take this to the arbitration committee, as they have more worthwhile things to attend to than our squabble on the talk page of some parapsychologist like Radin. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Quantization: He's appealing to credentials because this is not in DeBakcsy's field, whereas it was perfectly in the realm of someone like Beloff (if you can get past the patronizing tone of this obituary, even Susan Blackmore respected him: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/beloff%20obit.htm). Also, Beloff published in NewScientist, which is far more neutral than the Skeptical Inquirer. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment does not make sense. Sources are not judged to be "neutral" or not, sources are judged by reliability. Skeptical inquirer is more reliable than new scientist (which has published some real garbage), Second Quantization (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Erm... neutrality is important here, since there are two major perspectives on parapsychology. Granted, NewScientist has published some garbage (and, for that matter, so has JSE) but I don't see why that makes them unreliable, nor do I see any reason why Skeptical Inquirer is considered more reliable than they are or why they haven't published any garbage of their own. It's very one-sided with regards to certain topics, and that's why I brought up neutrality in the first place. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not "appealing to feelings." I've explicitly said that JSE can very well represent the side of "parapsychology proponents," just as CSICop represents the side of "parapsychology skeptics." CSICop and related works don't represent the scientific consensus on this topic. It just represents one side of the debate. The NATURE review, however, is something that is very clearly a neutral source, as much as I'm sure everyone on this page holds. It's not consensus opinion either, but it's still neutral and worth citing. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be making up arbitrary requirements on sources that do not exist. The skeptical inquirer is a reliable source because of its reliability. JSE is not reliable because it prints garbage in with whatever is good. Trying to frame one as "proponents of X" and one as "skeptics of X" is besides the point. Second Quantization (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that first sentence means. Again, see above. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be simply presuming garbage, without properly looking into the matter. You can't judge research by its subject. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Who said I'm judging it by its subject? As I literally mentioned in the same sentence, the skeptical inquirer covers the exact same subjects too but I never said it was garbage. In fact I said I thought it was generally reliable, Second Quantization (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're not simply presuming garbage, then tell us why you said that JSE prints garbage. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The JSE allows people who believe in fringe ideas to make a case, though I don't see why that makes it unreliable. Also, Skeptical Inquirer might get things on creation science and Erich von Daniken right, but those people and views are easily seen as wrong. Other topics such as parapsychology are things reasonable people disagree on. Just because SI gets the obvious stuff right doesn't mean they'll do very well on everything else. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"The JSE allows people who believe in fringe ideas to make a case, though I don't see why that makes it unreliable" I'm not sure how you can say that sentence with a straight face. It allows fringe proponents to posit speculative theories: Of course it's unreliable as a result, you can't rely on speculative proposals for reliable information! Second Quantization (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If someone posits something that is considered fringe, but still obeys good scientific reasoning, it's OK to publish. Allowing a forum where fringe ideas can be presented doesn't equal unreliability. The fringe ideas could be correct, for one, which is why the SSE was founded in the first place. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"The fringe ideas could be correct, for one" Could be? ... Seriously, read our guidelines. Fringe views historically rarely pan out, if we based all our articles on fringe theories, they'd mostly be full of nonsense (starting with claims that astrology works at a level greater than chance from JSE). Second Quantization (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

JSE also published an article arguing against Gauquelin's Mars Effect (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_kurtz.pdf), but it was taken down from the Wiki page. It's also published stuff by skeptics like Stanley Jeffers and Ray Hyman, who obviously aren't ashamed of publishing in it. I never said you needed to fill all your pages with fringe views, nor that you should give it undue weight. However, just because something is out of the mainstream, doesn't mean it's wrong. Moreover, for topics like fringe material, it would behoove you to also cite proponents of said fringe view if you want to maintain consistency. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I will say, however, that my head started to turn when I saw that Henry Bauer was allowed to publish his BS over HIV-AIDS in the journal - the evidence is blatantly counter to his idea that HIV isn't a cause of AIDS at all. I emailed a certain researcher who publishes for the JSE about it, but since he hasn't studied the issue, he seemed to chalk it up to human error or misinformation. I would suppose that the JSE is reliable on certain topics and not others, but I don't know if I can say that for certain. Regardless, even if I'm wrong about the reliability of the JSE, the Skeptical Inquirer isn't a super-reliable source either, since it has bias that can make it unreliable on certain topics too. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you give details of what it is you are referring to as 'his BS' (e.g. the JSE journal reference, title, and whether it was a paper or a book review)? I'd like to know more. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"I will say, however, that my head started to turn when I saw that Henry Bauer was allowed to publish his BS over HIV-AIDS in the journal" This is just what they do. They publish speculative material. " the Skeptical Inquirer isn't a super-reliable source either, since it has bias that can make it unreliable on certain topics too" Example? Second Quantization (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Their approach is to take things that are fringe and still hold them up to scientific scrutiny. Several people publish for the journal, including renowned skeptics like Ray Hyman. I don't think the Henry Bauer incident is due to this, but that's not the point. With regards to SI, they often adhere to one viewpoint and one viewpoint only, as the criticisms page for the Committee makes clear. For some examples, take Alcock's reply to Daryl Bem. He says that Bem just keeps appealing to authority when Bem is actually appealing to the fact that the authorities judging his paper are experienced and would not have accepted his paper if Alcock's criticisms had any weight. Likewise, DeBakcsy's [forgive me if I'm spelling that wrong] review of SUPERNORMAL has a lot of misconceptions about parapsychology (remote viewing isn't about what's not seen, it's about what IS seen) which I've addressed on my talk page in reply to Goblin Face. It doesn't take much to realize that CSI does has an anti-psi bent to it. It's in the name, after all. If this isn't an indication of bias, and thus probable unreliability, I don't know what is. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And as an aside (not entirely relevant to the article), not all psi proponents are pro-astrology or other pseudosciences. This is a comment section on a blog post, but it does illustrate a view among several believers: http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2011/09/book-review-free-radicals-by-michael-brooks.html?cid=6a00d8341c6d8553ef014e8b62188a970d#comment-6a00d8341c6d8553ef014e8b62188a970d. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've taken my opinion back on the JSE. After careful reflection on my suspicions, I realize that it is not a reliable source of facts, due to the nature of the material that is published. I know that it was founded by skeptics, but the Henry Bauer publications marked what seems to be a changing point in its overall views. I regret wasting your time defending the journal, as I was mistaken, and I am sorry to disagree with you, Dr. Brian Josephson, but here we will have to part ways. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In case people have not noticed, the discussion of JSE moved over to Phi...'s talk page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

However, everything else I have said I still stand by. You can cite the JSE in order to show that parapsychologists think that something is the case, but you cannot cite it as fact. As such, citing it under the heading "Radin's work has received great support from parapsychologists" is perfectly appropriate. Meanwhile, you cannot use CSI and its related publications as representative of a scientific consensus against Radin. The Inquirer and related authors (Victor Stenger, etc.) are not reliable as academic sources on this topic except if there is consensus from elsewhere. The problem is that there isn't any consensus whatsoever, and showing I.J. Good's review, despite being published in NATURE, is not going to change that. Even if he's right (and I doubt he is, personally), it's still just his opinion, no matter how informed he is. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know how representative a view is in JSE. This is why we generally defer to reliable secondary sources to make determinations like that. If Radin is supported by most parapsychologists (which the sentence implies) we couldn't rely on JSE. I'll give a slight tangent to show what I mean. In the case of astrologers, some astrologers will assert that it is a science, and that any that assert it's a religion are arguing against a straw man. Then there is another group of astrologers, they assert it is a religion and that any that assert its a science are arguing against a straw man. Fringe groups aren't necessarily consistent.

I know they're not. It's still a valid inference to say that most parapsychologists support Radin. He's worked with and cited Bem, Tressoldi, Utts, etc., i.e. the most renowned parapsychologists on the planet. If they have raised complaints, you'd think they'd show up sooner or later. But they haven't. As a result, the default is to assume that Radin has the support of most parapsychologists, with a few dissidents (JE Kennedy and Douglas Stokes, but they've always had a fideist streak). With the JSE, we have two reviews in support of Radin's work, so by all means, use them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, on "Meanwhile, you cannot use CSI and its related publications as representative of a scientific consensus against Radin". But they are representative, most scientists do not waste their time addressing Psi in the literature, it is left to publications like the Skeptical Inquirer to address it (WP:PARITY). Second Quantization (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"most scientists do not waste their time addressing Psi" I know what parity is, but this assertion is not supported by the evidence in the slightest. You need to show that this is the scientific opinion. How do you know that the scientific evidence is "against psi"? The evidence usually used to support this claim is anti-paranormal skeptical material or peer-reviewed material that argues against the existence of psi. However, the other half to this is the peer-reviewed literature that IS in support of psi, and the pro-paranormal material that parapsychologists write to a popular audience. To take the first half of the entire database as representative of scientific consensus is wildly dishonest. It's like filling the "Existence of God" page with a bunch of atheist sources. It's ridiculous. Likewise, saying that the scientific consensus is against psi and citing people who write books devoted to an anti-paranormal slant to support this is just bad research. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I drifted from the main topic, and I apologize. I just wanted to be thorough in answering peoples' objections, and I am not here to turn this into a forum to promote my views. I just want to improve the article. Back to the issue: How about something like this, building off what Goblin Face recently put up? "Scientists skeptical of parapsychology have given Radin's books negative reviews ... Renowned mathematician I.J. Good gave The Conscious Universe a bad review in the journal Nature ... " PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reference to Good's review, as long as it is in the same place made absolutely clear that Good's main criticism in that review was based on a misunderstanding of Radin's text. Are you happy with that? It would be highly unethical to omit that crucial fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any indication that 10^-2000 was the actual p-value, i.e. anything outside of Radin's reply to Good? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I guess the thing to do is to look in the book and see if any source is given. But for now I guess his letter to Nature will do as a source. And I doubt if any backup is really needed as he presumably knew the actual figure when he wrote 'more than ...' in the book (which he said he did to avoid baffling people unfamiliar with the notation). --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I Want to Avoid an Edit-War...

... so, LuckyLouie, please state your complaints here. I think I gave a fair presentation of Radin's views and the replies of his critics. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to avoid an edit war, why are you inserting fringe supporting non consensus text? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I've literally been arguing against the fact that it's "just fringe". Very few academics - skeptics and believers - have any interest in psi, and most academics, as Ray Hyman notes in THE ELUSIVE QUARRY, "often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. ... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing." In other words, it's left for the badge-wearing proponents and skeptics to hammer it out. As a result, I can hardly call this an informed scientific consensus (unlike the evidence presented against HIV/AIDS denialists, astrologers, creationists, and "intelligent design advocates"), and when you take into account that there are reasonable academics on both sides of this debate, parapsychology gains much more integrity than even more fringe views, like cryptozoology or Ufology. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Second, I've just been stating what the sources give me. Most of the writers on the page have an anti-paranormal streak to them, which is why I gave the name "skeptics". After all, that's what they call themselves. There's one (just one) review by an unbiased scientist, renowned mathematician I.J. Good, and that one guy hardly connotes the broad heading "scientists and skeptics". Also, I clarified Radin's views as to why he appeals to quantum mechanics, and I did it without stating that why he does it is correct or incorrect - I'm just giving his opinion. Moreover, the review of SUPERNORMAL in the Skeptical Inquirer says what I say it says: "The subject’s response, then, is a mixture of plainly wrong positive statements, an absence of the most significant feature of the observatory (namely, its telescope), and a somewhat correct statement about the rough shape of the building (it isn’t technically a hemisphere, but we can let that go)." Hardly fringe-pushing. Sure, I disagree with DeBakcsy's interpretations, but that in no way biased my summary of the review. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Third, I'm not a fringe-pusher. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology has absolutely no more academic credence than any of the other fringe subjects you posted above. They all have an equal amount of documented evidence published in anything close to a reputable source, which is none. Consequently you're not going to find many rebuttles either but that doesn't indicate acceptance, just indifference to the preposterousness of it. Capeo (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not so. The Parapsychology Association is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which would not have accepted it if it had no academic credence. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you, me and a few other people can become an affiliate of the AAAS without a whole lot of effort. It's a meaningless appellation. We're talking science here. Repeatable, experimental published evidence. Something I'm sure I need not explain to someone of your emininence in the field of science. Not one-off papers with questionable controls and experimental bias. If any paranormal claim were to be true it would be as simple to prove, and as repeatable, as any claim if performed under truly blind experimental conditions. Yet that has never come close to happening. Capeo (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Capeo, I really don't want to get into an argument with you here, as you apparently are unfamiliar with the literature aside from the Skeptic material, but here goes: There are a lot of parapsychology articles published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals like Psychological Bulletin, a journal with an impact factor of 15. [ These] [ include] [ Ganzfeld] [ studies] and a [ psychokinesis paper] that's featured on the parapsychology page already, with another [ two] [ papers] on psychokinesis now in the more minor Physics Essays. [Yes, these are from Dean Radin's archive page, but they're papers, not his opinions.] Other papers are currently being published in journals like Frontiers in Psychology. Some are skeptical, some are pro-psi. Granted, these papers may not have the same impact factor as Psychological Bulletin, but they are credible. Most everyone here knows that, but they just try to downplay the significance. I have no idea what you mean by "one-off" papers. The stuff that parapsychologists hypothesize about is testable (even the [ experimenter effect] is considered testable) and the Ganzfeld material has been replicated in the papers I gave you above. Even Daryl Bem's data looks like it's been replicated several times (currently under peer-review): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your AAAS comment, no. Just no. We're not talking about whether "you, me and a few other people" can get into it. We get in if we conduct our work in a sound, scientific manner. I very much doubt that it admits pseudoscientific organizations in. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me amplify that. The PA knockers have clearly not been doing their homework (whatever happened to verifiability?), and appear to be confusing membership of the AAAS, which for some classes requires only payment of the subscription, with affiliation of organisations, which requires satisfying a set of criteria, the first of these being its aims are clearly directed toward, or consistent with, the objectives of the Association. Affiliation is not a matter of blind acceptance, and the recommendation was in fact hotly debated at the time, but the outcome was that the PA was deemed acceptable as an affiliate. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And another thing: Here, Wikipedia isn't in the business of doing research, and neither are its editors. We can find various sources of opinion on a specific topic, but little else. We're not going to get into any in-depth discussion of the psi experiments that have been conducted. Most parapsychologists are credible researchers, like Daryl Bem, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and several others. Moreover, if most scientists haven't checked the data to arrive at a valid conclusion (like, say, AIDS denial or ID), leaving it mostly to skeptics and believers, you can expect that both sides should be given equal footing. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Consequently you're not going to find many rebuttles either but that doesn't indicate acceptance, just indifference to the preposterousness of it." Once again, I didn't say "acceptance". Go back and find where I've said it's been accepted. Most people are indifferent, but this means they haven't made an evaluation of the data that hard-working academics have spent much of their time collecting. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Something else from Radin's page, but nevertheless relevant: Here are the conditions for becoming an elected affiliate for the AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/page/criteria-affiliation-organizations-aaas. The Parapsychological Association is one of these: http://www.aaas.org/aaas-affiliates#p. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Take a breath. Your incessant posting just made me lose my original response. Not that it matters, this getting too close to forum for my comfort anyway. Though it's funny you post the current AAAS Criteria as opposed to that in 69 when all this psi stuff was the rage. You do realize there's been plenty of calls to revoke said affilliation since right? But nobody bothers because nobody takes it seriously. Much like the papers you posted above. Nothing beyond standard deviation and horrible expiremental controls mixed with bad meta-analysis. It's odd that you think the most monumental discovery in all of science somehow escaped the entire scientific community. Especially given that it would quite easily provable if any of these phenomena exist. Point being your papers are neither a good indication of anything existing and, more importantly in the scope of writing an article, not any indication of scientific acceptance of the idea. Capeo (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to be thorough, and I'm not "turning the talk-page into a forum to promote my personal views." Even if the AAAS has changed protocol, you'd think they'd exclude groups that were pseudoscientific, and would revoke membership if they had good reason to. There have been calls from people like JA Wheeler, but they've failed. The excuse that "they just don't care" doesn't work because there's no indication of this. You're really misunderstanding the way scientists work (since the AAAS is responsible, they probably would have gotten rid of it) and making inferences that aren't driven by any evidence whatsoever. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing beyond standard deviation and horrible expiremental [sic] controls mixed with bad meta-analysis." No. What's been demonstrated are statistically significant effects that, due to experimental protocols, provide evidence for the psi hypothesis. They are conducted with the same scientific scrutiny as other research in other fields, and the meta-analytical procedures have tightly-specified criteria (i.e. are good). You'd think the working scientists who reviewed it would have said something if it was as bad as you thought. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Especially given that it would quite easily provable if any of these phenomena exist." No. Just from quick reflection, there are all sorts of controls you'd have to take into account when trying to nail down these effects - human bias, experimenter effects, weeding out probable non-psi explanations in the experiment design, finding something that humans respond to best psychologically (psi being measured in humans after all), etc. It's not going to be easy at all. I don't even know why you say this. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"It's odd that you think the most monumental discovery in all of science somehow escaped the entire scientific community." I never said anything that deserved this reply. As I said, most scientists haven't looked, leaving almost everything to a bunch of skeptics and believers, both of whom, though each side has their leanings, include respected academics. Once again, I never said anything about scientific acceptance. I just said it's neither properly rejected nor considered a pseudoscience. It is, at best, a highly controversial science for which both sides should be represented fairly. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article due to edit warring on a BLP. Please work it out an the talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 14:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The protection is not to endorse any view, but meant to stop the edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I know. I didn't want to promote edit-warring, so I'm glad you did it. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Few comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think collaborative editing was actually going very well, but I'll put in a few comments here:

1. The "mainstream" scientific view of paranormal stuff is that it doesn't exist. I could stop there, but I'll give a broad overview for why this is. For starters, there is a lack of consistent data to that effect that paranormal activity exists outside of the laboratories of paranormal believers. Now, one might argue that various results of parapsychologists are convincing, but the thing that most scientists will counter with is, "where is the evidence that can convince the skeptic? Where is the repeatable and measurable phenomenon?" We routinely demonstrate through repeated observations acknowledged phenomena that everyone knows exist from quantum mechanical effects to the expanding universe. So, why is that not possible with paranormal activity? I routinely include a paranormal lab in my physics sections as a demonstration of what null results look like -- and they are always rediscovered. If there were paranormal activity in the world, why doesn't it fuck with our observations/experiments? Parapsychologists do not have an answer for why paranormal activity is only seen in their laboratories and in the anecdotes of the credulous and nowhere else (though some have proposed that skeptics give off energy that prevents paranormal activity from occurring). The second big problem is that paranormal activity has no plausible mechanism. If they had empirical data that they could hang their hat on, this would be less damning, but when marginal results are combined with a completely anemic theoretical explanation, the result is one of disconfirmation and, at this point, a plain ignoring of the subject.
2. Parapsychology is a science only inasmuch as it engages in scientific investigation. It attracts paranormal believers which is not a prerequisite for parapsychological research. This is Richard Wiseman's point and why he doesn't want to see the PA kicked out of the AAAS (in spite of many paranormal true believer statements that the organization continues to stand behind), for example. Incidentally, the sole reason why the PA is a member of AAAS was as a favor to Margaret Mead back in the 1970s. It is rather interesting that the PA does not show its face at AAAS meetings. Science has not published any PA-affiliated work.
3. Radin works outside of the mainstream academic environment -- even the academic work that is being done in "parapsychology's name". He has to. At this point, parapsychology as famously presented in Ghostbusters, for example, has been systematically eliminated and programs have been shut down at most major research institutions. The remaining US parapsychology research programs that investigate claims that can be related to psi are at the University of Arizona and at the University of Virginia. There are a few programs in the UK and Europe, but they're fast shutting down or being rerouted toward other kinds of investigations. I know a woman who received a PhD in Parapsychology from Edinburgh. Her research was on documenting the beliefs of devotees of Hindu Temples. This is hardly a study into psi and she acknowledges as much (basically the program was used as a way to fund religious studies). Wiseman also eats up parapsychology grant money much to the chagrin of more than a few paranormal believers. So, should we say that parapsychology is pseudoscience? In part, it is, but only in the sense in which Radin practices it.
4. Finally, it is simply fact that parapsychology has not won over any incredulous. This is a rather remarkable record. The people who believe in psi tend to also believe in lots of other nonsense.

jps (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do a point-by-point response, but I'd rather not take up too much more space on this talk-page:

1. Erm... OK. I know what the scientific community is looking for. I'm into philosophy of science (as I say on my page) and I'm well-aware that predictive capability and falsification are the hallmarks of a sound scientific theory. In fact, my claims above were trying to show that parapsychologists do have repeatable observations that are increasingly well-controlled for fraud and have testable hypotheses. I've even shown from Ray Hyman that most scientists don't even look at the data, probably to even arrive at the opinions that they hold. Moreover, there are well-controlled tests, like the Ganzfeld material I gave above, that do show significant results and bits of data that do "fuck with our observations/experiments". As for the idea that they're "only seen in their laboratories and in the anecdotes of the credulous and nowhere else," you're a bit mistaken. Anecdotes tell us what claims to test for under controlled conditions. This allows us to put anecdotal paranormal claims (which are widespread) "under the microscope", so to speak. I cited a study above that tries testing the experimenter effect, much to great success. You need to keep in mind that certain phenomena are subjugated to various human issues -- What is the subject's mental state at the time? Is the subject focused on the task at hand? Is the subject getting tired and losing focus? Are they being intimidated somehow? etc. Given that we're looking for parapsychology in humans, we need to be sensitive to this. Besides, even if they are seen in "only their laboratories," if the experiments are conducted with methodological rigour and have reproducible effects, the results would still be pretty convincing. Also, that's probably one of the few places where experiments are being done, due to what I've indicated elsewhere on this page! I don't think that's going to change interest in many scientists, but it's not really a question of evidence. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

2. "paranormal true believer statements"? I'm afraid I don't see this. Moreover, I don't see how it was just a "favor" to Margaret Mead. Could you please cite a source for this? I'd think that if the AAAS considered something that they were responsible for as a hindrance, they would have gotten rid of it. One of the commenters above stated that it was because the AAAS "just didn't care," though this is more of an inference, and a fallacious one at that, more than anything else. I don't think parapsychological articles not being published in the journal Science is indicative of a strained relationship, nor is it a sign that parapsychology is pseudoscientific. It makes it a minority pursuit among academics, but we lack the resources to say whether or not it's outright pseudoscience. I don't see how an affiliate not showing its face is a problem either. Are they required to? I don't think I've ever denied that it's a minority position. I've just said it's a minority position that's not like creationism, HIV-AIDS denial, or legitimately pseudoscientific pursuits. Also, what to you counts as "scientific investigation"? This term connotes sound experiments, credible researchers, and honest data collection. Would pseudoscientific groups that deny AIDS or try to prove that a 6-day creation is true count as "doing scientific research"? If parapsychology was as pseudoscientific as many skeptics claim, why are they considered to be doing "scientific investigation" enough to be included? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

3. He mostly publishes in fringe and parapsychology-related journals, yes, but I don't think it's because he's been refused publication in higher journals. Again, this is mostly a sign of where the more technical elements of parapsychology lie. If his credibility were totally in question, I doubt he'd be able to publish for non-parapsychology-focused journals like Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, or Physics Essays ... or even speak at AIP conferences on Quantum Retrocausation. Again, I don't see how this makes his work pseudoscientific. There may be something in appearance, but not enough to make a rigid designation. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

4. I do think one of the biggest problems with parapsychology is the associations many supporters seem to have, i.e. "If psi is real, what about all other sorts of spooky stuff?" But associations like this are quite superficial. The fact that it hasn't won over many skeptics or scientists doesn't tell me anything either. Very few scientists are interested in parapsychology (and will actually look at what's being written) aside from a handful of skeptics and believers, both of whom are credible, both of whom do get good peer-review in high-impact factor journals (though the number of publications is admittedly tied with the number of people interested in the field -- i.e. not much -- in the first place, but see above), and both of whom are invested in scrutinizing the subject inside and out. Moreover, Radin and Chris Carter have apparently included surveys in their books showing that 55% of scientists in anonymous polls think psi is real (I'll try to find it later), while Daryl Bem (2011) states that psychologists in the late '70s were the most skeptical of parapsychology. But again, not many of either of these groups (in informal opinion surveys) are interested in looking at the evidence to judge it, so I don't see how this should affect our conclusions either. It's neither here nor there. That's why I tried saying it was a "controversial science", not a pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the exchange a little too, but I don't want to make this into a forum. If you'd like to take this over to my talk-page, we can. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond in brief. The argument you level in point 1) was anticipated: the only "evidence" is from parapsychologists. If the effect exists, it should show up in other contexts. This has never been observed in spite of the carefulness of data collection in other contexts. 2) I think you may want to read the notes of the AAAS meetings that occurred... especially the ones around the time the PA was accepted and when Wheeler objected. 3) The physics journals you seem to think Radin should be proud of (Foundations of Physics, or Physics Essays) are both fringe journals of the worst sort. Let him publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS. 4) There is a persistent problem that parapsychology is a branch of psychology -- a field, which Wiseman points out, has a worse reputation for rigor than does parapsychology.

That's all for now.

jps (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of paranormal things happening in an non-parapsychological context: see the Pauli effect article. There are many instances in ordinary life. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pauli Effect is not real. It's anecdotal nonsense from someone who wanted to believe in psi and hence made his experiences fit his beliefs rather than the opposite. Jps already summed up what I was saying above in a more complete manner than I did. There's absolutely no hard evidence for any paranormal anything and all purported evidence comes from advocates in a field that's a sub-field of a notoriously unreliable field that many argue shouldn't even been called science to begin with.Capeo (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's something similar to the pauli effect: Aaron_Ramsey#The_.27Ramsey_Curse.27 Logos (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Jokes are not data. jps (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't joke then. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If parapsychology is not pseudoscience why has it not moved further?? Why are we still hearing the same old claims over and over again? The same old stories? Over more then 100 years of its existence it has made no progress at all. I know that experiments are done in the field but they are done over and over by the same people like Dean Radin and his followers or Noetic Science and when some skeptic wants to try these experiments PSI disappears. Parapsychology to this day has not even proved PSI but has not even showed any real theory to work with or how does PSI work and I think that is a major problem because if it was not pseudoscience then it would have at least some progress. NRichter18 (talk)7:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too difficult to answer these comments:

• How far a subject progresses depends to quite a degree on how much funding is available.
• Hearing the same claims made repeatedly in normal circumstances means the claims are confirmed. Good!
• No progress over more than 100 years? The fact that this statement is frequently made doesn't prove it is correct. To me, this statement is a kind of "sceptics' mantra" (like the one about the Randi prize, one of the nice rules of which is that Randi's people are allowed to declare a proposal inadmissible if they don't like it).
• A number of former sceptics have been surprised to find that they get a positive result, and as a result they are no longer sceptics.

One might very well remark, why do sceptics keep making the same tired old comments, following each other like sheep?

--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Which former skeptics are these? jps (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Bob Jahn was one but I cannot confirm this definitely. The story I recall anyway was that a student wanted to do a psi project and the person concerned agreed to let him try, and was surprised to find that an effect appeared in the expt. This led him on his subsequent path of research into psi.
As I said, I'm not certain of the details there, but I put the question to a discussion group and got this response back immediately:

I would define myself as such; although I don't think I was ever publicly on record as being a skeptic (I guess sceptic is the UK spelling). I believe that my conversion occurred over a period of years, while I was a student, prior to any formal publications.

Re 'conversion over a number of years', the evidence for psi was not as clearcut when I got involved first as it is nowadays, owing to improvements in the experimental designs that have considerably reduced the possibility of error. I don't find it at all unreasonable that people who look at the evidence carefully and are prepared to put their preconceptions aside conclude that there is a high probability that psi is real. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that Jahn may very well be the only example of such a conversion (though I can name quite a few parapsychologist-boosters who either quietly or noisily moved in the other direction). He was the only one I could think of too, and having read some of his work and analysis, I think "conversion" really does best describe what happened. jps (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made enquiries about this and the outcome is that there are many -- see the section devoted to this in Talk:Parapsychology. I suggest you contact Schwartz yourself if you want to know more. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"If parapsychology is not pseudoscience why has it not moved further??"

"Parapsychology to this day has not even proved PSI but has not even showed any real theory to work with or how does PSI work"

May be it is related to why researches/studies on the mechanism of gravity, on the dark matter and on the dark energy have not revealed anything yet. Logos (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And it took 40 years before there was any explanation of superconductivity. Some problems just happen to be difficult. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference being, of course, there is no there there for psi. We have empirical phenomena we need to explain with superconductivity, gravity, dark matter, dark energy. For psi, we've got people reporting that their dogs know when they're coming home and sifting through the noise of random number generators, etc. jps (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it intriguing that user jps finds sifting through the noise of random event generators unscientific. Presumably he doesn't approve of what goes on at CERN either, as that is exactly what those people do with their time.
And before I forget, let me just throw in a comment that use of the word 'woo' contravenes the third of the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette. It is offensive language. Will people please desist from using it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Some other differences being, of course, rarity and discontinuity. In order to test the psi efficiently, one needs a gifted subject who would volunteer, which is quite rare. And that gifted subject can turn their psi power on and off at will, while gravity is always on -which means gravity has no motivation issue- and is not rare. Logos (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Let my final comment to this thread be a hint to the future psi researchers: though not scientific, some channeled info points a 18 day sinusodial cycle as the reason for psi power fluctuation. Logos (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The anecdotes concerning dogs were tested using well-established scientific methods and found to accord with reality; it is not just anecdote (yes, I know that Wiseman disagrees. The difference lies in the fact that Sheldrake knows how to apply statistical and blinding methods properly). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too difficult to answer these:

Yeah the problem is funding. It does not matter that IANDS(International Association for Near-Death Studies) wants millions for woo stuff. Give me a break IANDS has so many fund raising actions that it makes me laugh. Just check their websites. What is confirmed? In parapsychology everyone makes the same mistakes over and over. Nothing is confirmed. Every time when someone who does not believes it and tries to replicate it, he gets a failure but the religious crowd still believes it. To you it can be everything. Using a user name for a professor who is FOR parapsychology shows your bias and that you strongly believe that PSI is there. Please tell me about those former "skeptics" because it is very often used as a ploy. All people who had a NDE claim they were atheists like Eben Alexander but after reading his book, he was no skeptic at all and he was no atheist at all. Just to make his arguments more selling and to make his story more believable he claimed this. Another things there were other people who were parapsychologists and when they could not find PSI became skeptics of it like Susan Blackmore. Skeptics make the same old comments? Wow you did not looked into the skeptic world long enough did you?? There are quite new things going on there..

As for the gravity gambit. This is really old and there is progress in dark matter and dark energy also like in gravity just see some articles on science daily but I cannot claim the same for parapsychology.NRichter18 (talk)7:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to know what the sceptics have come up with. Can you summarise?
Re Using a user name for a professor who is FOR parapsychology: curious comment! Like many other editors, I am using my own name, I am not stealing someone else's. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You better bluff in poker table, not in wikipedia. Everybody here (including jps) knows very well that, the mechanism of gravity has not been discovered yet. When it is discovered, you can be sure that it will be the breaking news of that day; so no need to check your sciencedaily bulletin daily. The same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Logos (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos is right: there are a number of competing theories of gravity, the implication of which is that we don't really know. Contrast the situation with superconductivity, where it is acknowledged that we have a good theory of ordinary superconductivity (the BCS theory), whereas with high temperature superconductivity there is again uncertainty, as you will see from the article. Gravity resembles hi-Tc superconductivity in this respect. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The article might well refer to this paper published in Foundations of Physics and cited by 119: Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality. The paper shows that hidden variable models of QM are consistent with psi, the mechanism being David Bohm's nonlocal quantum potential. -Brian Josephson (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion redirected

Re the above, the appropriate discussion page would appear to be Talk:Parapsychology, and I've added some information on 'scientists who changed their minds about psi' to that page, including a suggestion that this issue be covered in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)