| Revision as of 02:52, 6 October 2008 editShoemaker's Holiday (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,613 edits →ArbCom Pseudoscience case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:25, 11 September 2024 edit undoRandomstaplers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,092 edits →Change subject to psychic phenomena - LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC): ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (584 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| '''{{Controversial}}'''{{Calm talk}} | |||
| {{Controversial}} | |||
| {{Rational Skepticism|class=Start|importance=top}} | |||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150px" | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| |- | |||
| {{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Low}} | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} | |||
| |- | |||
| }} | |||
| | | |||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == "A psychic is a person..." == | |||
| ==Reliable source== | |||
| This introductory phrase is biased because assumes an individual or solely acting person. | |||
| Is the parapsychology association a reliable enough source for this statement to be in the lead? | |||
| Firstly, 'psychic' is also an adjective that denotes a phenomenon. Secondly, for there to be psychic relies, by definition, on at least two entities, whereby only one of them is visible in the flesh. ] (]) 05:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I think a more glaring mistake is found in the fact that the word, "claim," is being used in the definition. You can't be something by claiming it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| "Some ] have reported evidence of psychic ability of extra-sensory perception and ].<ref>http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#20 FAQ of the Parapsychological Association</ref>" | |||
| :True. I can say I'm a fish. But if you look up fish it doesn't say people who claim they is fish. Nonsense. ] (]) 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I say no. | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022 == | |||
| ] (]) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| :The Parapsychological association is the ultimate reliable source for what parapsychologists think. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Typo in Criticism and Research Section: | |||
| "Investigator Ben Radford stats that..." | |||
| change stats to states. ] (]) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">]</span> ] - 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 == | |||
| ::Why? ] (]) 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| :::That's 100% obvious. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Under 'Fraud', there is some issue with the html | |||
| alling for a psychic scam can result in a loss of one's entire life savings. In an example given in article by Rob Palmer,'''<ref name="Harm">'''Palmer, Rob. "Belief in Psychics: What's the Harm and Who's to Blame?". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 17 November 2022.'''</ref>''' a woman gave a psychic $41,642 over a period of 10 weeks. | |||
| ==Recent edits== | |||
| please fix this :) thanks ] (]) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I have reverted to the longstanding consensus phrasing of the lead/article. There was never any consensus for ScienceApologist's edits. I also removed a source which was used in a way that the source did not intend, after first trying an edit which made the text consistent with what that source was saying. I also re-inserted phrasing which said that the scientific community outside parapsychology does not accept evidence for psychic phenomena. For the status of parapsychology in Misplaced Pages, please refer to this ]. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :actually, sorry, my copy and paste didnt reveal the error | |||
| :The source indeed appears to be problematic. The source is quoting a third party's comment in a public debate, but without adequate context to tell whether it is an expert opinion, a misinterpreted off-the-cuff remark, or something else. | |||
| :it is there in the article ] (]) 04:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> --] (]) 05:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024 == | |||
| :However, it looks like you two are edit warring. Please don't. --] (]) 05:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Would someone please add to the external links or elsewhere if you think it appropriate? | |||
| No, the next step will be tagging and ]. The source has more than the problems you say, because it is making the point that rhetoric was used by a skeptic to skew the debate, whereas here it was used to source something '''"reported"'''. | |||
| Also ? | |||
| == Change subject to psychic phenomena - ] (]) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) == | |||
| {{blockquote|"Just as Victorian anthropologists were apt to think shamans merely crazy, so some psychiatrists and | |||
| clergymen have dramatically or unreflectingly asserted that many mediums are mentally disturbed and | |||
| probably certifiable. Such assertions are as mistaken in the latter case as in the former. (p. 21) | |||
| John Maddox, the editor of Nature, in a debate that took place at the University of Liverpool, argued that | |||
| "psychic impressions are more likely to be hallucinations rather than true accounts of the world and that as such, they | |||
| are probably symptomatic of schizophrenia." Accordingly, he thinks | |||
| that to the extent that many of these phenomena are conceivably and quite probably the reports of people | |||
| suffering from real organic physical diseases of that kind, it is really rather cruel that we should humour | |||
| them by taking their reports seriously when appropriate medication would help them better. (Maddox, | |||
| 1990, p. 22). | |||
| Although there may be important insights to be gained from the relationship between some mental health | |||
| problems and reports of paranormal experiences, a statement of the kind above insinuates that paranormal | |||
| experiences are only legitimate as a symptom of psychosis. The inclusion of paranormal experiences under the | |||
| umbrella of a psychopathology metaphor forces the issue of the irrationality of such experiences. Maddox’s speech | |||
| both intimates sympathy for the sufferer and encourages a view of unusual experiences as indications of pathology. | |||
| Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note that it is the people in power at any given time who reserve the right to create | |||
| the metaphors that people will live by."}} | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| Also, the edit used ] "reported," without even any ]. It was weaseled, making statements for the "scientific community" and had other problems. The dubious tag even acted like parapsychologists aren't a good source for their own opinion. It was just full of problems. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Change short description to: | |||
| Alleged phenomena whereby the mind perceives information beyond the ordinary senses or interacts with the environment in ways that defy conventional understanding | |||
| :I hear you. I agree the source doesn't belong. But don't edit-war anyway. --] (]) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't worry, I agree. Like I said, ] (: ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Change first paragraph of body text to: | |||
| :::I strongly disagree. The source points out that many have accused mediums of having mental illness. This is a fact as illustrated by the quote. This deliberate head-into-sand thrusting by Foo and Martinphi is simply game-playing. It is clear that it is an assertable FACT that those claiming psychic powers have been accused of mental illness. The rest is just gravy.] (]) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Psychic''' (or psi) phenomena refer to alleged human faculties that allow individuals to perceive or interact with the world beyond the normal physical means, supposedly through mental processes. Alleged ] are generally categorised into two types; ] (ESP), which involves accessing information hidden from the ordinary ]s, through means such as ], ], ] or ]; and abilities relating to mental-physical manipulation, such as ] and ]. While the application of psychic phenomena by practitioners (such as mediums, clairvoyants and energy healers) is widely considered to be ], efforts to investigate these claims in controlled conditions are part of the field of ] (or psi research). The , an affiliate of the , is the leading international organization for scientists and scholars exploring psi phenomena. | |||
| ::::Be civil. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==POV war== | |||
| Change - Please create new subsection for ‘Modern day psychic practitioners’ to include the rest of the introductory section focusing on the role of psychic practitioners. ] (]) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The source is hardly the only issue we're dealing with here. Why is parapsychology mentioned at all in the lead of this article? Psychic powers are notable well beyond their treatment with the discredited pseudoscientists of the middle of the last century. What we need to do is describe the fact that psychic powers have certain attributes that believers think they have and that these properties have no scientific evidence in the mean sense. That is what should be in the lead. The sourcing can come later, and in any case, since the lead is supposed to be a summary, sourcing is something that shouldn't be done parochially but instead should be worked out as a secondary matter. ] (]) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> See ] and ]. ⸺(])] 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would appreciate an explanation from @] on reasons for undue. For other user's interest, here are the editorial explanations I included in the submission: | |||
| == Weasels == | |||
| ::Explanation for change in short description: 1 'Psychic' is not defined by its practitioners, but rather by the phenomena under consideration(practitioners simply take the name of the phenomena); 2 psychic covers both perception (ESP) but also allged mind-matter interaction. | |||
| ::Explanation for changes to body text: | |||
| You don't have to be an expert in this area Psychic to see that this paragraph does not comply to WP:NPOV in part because it is loaded with weasel wording. I don't want to get in to the discussion too far here because I'm not an expert, but I think these words/phrases are worth noting. | |||
| ::'''1''' Psychic phenomena need to be defined before their practitioners. '''2''' examples should prioritize phenomena most under active research, such as precognition, in favor of those that have not been actively studied such as teleportation. '''3''' the applied practice of psychic phenomena, e.g. chakras, mediumship, can be considered pseudoscience due to lack of scientific method and rigour (I don't think anyone would debate this). '''4''' the scientific enquiry and debate into psi phenomena as a whole cannot be considered pseudoscience, as this would imply that both critics and proponents are unscientific and not open to debate and improving studies, and that there is therefore no scientific field of study for investigating the purported phenomena despite them being widely believed by the general public; That some scientists have characterised an entire field of study as pseudoscience does not justify such a claim in a wiki page; methodological flaws, mistakes and incorrect conclusions can be seen in all fields of study (e.g. quantum physics), but this does not make those entire fields of study pseudoscience, as this would create closed-mindedness to further research and strongly discourage scientific enquiry. The AAAS recognised parapsychology as a legitimate science due to consistent use of scientific methods. '''5''' concluding with a link to the mainstream organisation that debates and discusses the issues of psi research will be useful for interested readers. ] (]) 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] You're making a substantial change to the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. This means you'll have to (effectively) change the '''entire''' article. And you're going to have to find references that prove, specifically, that psychic phenomena are effective (and not just from an advocate's homepage). | |||
| The existence of psychic abilities is disputed '''by the scientific community,''' and have attributed demonstrations of psychic occurrences to be intentional trickery or self delusion. '''Some''' parapsychologists have reported that their experiments to test for extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis have yielded evidence of psychic ability. '''The scientific community''' outside parapsychology does not accept these experiments as sufficient evidence for psychic functioning partly due to the intrinsic unlikelihood of psychic phenomena. | |||
| :::By the way, I did not revert your other edit I warned you about. You'll have to talk to that other editor.⸺(])] 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''Note:''' The whole, entire scientific community? .... that's pretty far fetched unless someone is polling all of the scientists in the world ... this is a huge generalization, which is what weasel wording creates. The syntax of this sentence also implies that this so-called entire scientific community thinks these powers to be "intentional trickery or self delusion", another gross generalization. | |||
| The paragraph as a whole contributes to a definite POV sense in that it appears to debunk any psychic abilities. Whether such abilities exist cannot and should not be an issue here at this point in the article, but the neutral reporting of information is. Later in the article information on the "debunking" side of the information is presented. The paragraph is heavily, non-neutral in tone and that is definitely non=compliant.(] (]) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :The fact is, psychic abilities have no scientific mechanism so their existence is not acknowledged by those who study related phenomena. The generalization makes sense if we are going to be taking seriously the fact that there is no scientific acknowledgment that "psychic powers" exist. Rewording may be possible, but certainly this is no weasel word situation. ] (]) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Technically as per Misplaced Pages this is weasel wording. I still don't think that the existence of psychic abilities is the issue, and whether they have a scientific mechanism seems a bit of a blanket statement since for starters there is a fairly wide filed considered to be psychic, and debate on what the term "psychic" actually includes. For example there may be certain so called abilities that in the past were considered psychic but which now given the technologies in brain/body "scanning" are now commonplace ideas. Unless those parameters, that is, what constitutes psychic are established, and at this point in time they aren't, "no scientific mechanisms" is quite a general statement. For those reasons, complete neutrality here would seem to be key, and that, in this part of the lede there is no sense of POV. That said, I would think there are ways to reword this as you say, so the weasely words/phrases are removed and the paragraph reads as neutral. Just a thought, or two, or three.(] (]) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :::No, I think you're getting confused here. You seem to think that "psychic abilities" are acknowledged to exist simply because people believe in them. Then you say because some people confused ] with psychic abilities that this is somehow a tacit acknowledgment that psychic abilities exist. In fact, the scientific community evinces a disinterested skepticism with regards to psychic abilities in much the same way it evinces a disinterested skepticism with regards to the existence of ghosts, angels, or ]s. The difference is that a "psychic ability" is claimed by the people advocating the existence of such, to have direct observational consequences which receive no legitimacy in the mainstream. This point must be made abundantly clear if we are going to do any service to the reader. Do not confuse "neutrality" with "balance". You may feel that your opinion about the existence of psychic abilities is somehow being marginalized by stating the facts that there isn't scientific evidence or, indeed, any acknowledgment within the scientific community of those psychic abilities, but the fact that this happens must be communicated to our readers if we are to maintain proper neutrality. ] (]) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Science doesn't just study ''correlations'' between purported causes and effects. It also studies the ''mechanisms'' by which a specific cause leads to an effect. For instance, in medical science, it isn't enough to just say that the use of a particular drug ''correlates'' with relief from a disease; one has to also describe the ''mechanism'' by which the drug works. For instance, beta blockers reduce blood pressure; but why? Because they block the action of epinephrine on particular receptors. | |||
| Historically, it hasn't always been immediately possible to understand the mechanism by which a particular phenomenon works. For a long time, physicists (such as Isaac Newton) studied the behavior of light without knowing about photons or the quantum physics that explain certain behaviors of light. But they worked with some idea of the mechanism: even ], although it turned out to be wrong, explained certain aspects of light. | |||
| Likewise, it's a common misconception about evolutionary biology, prevalent among creationists, to think that biologists are engaged in attempting to prove the ''existence'' of evolution. They aren't. That happened long ago. Today's evolutionary biologists study the ''mechanisms'' of evolution: the processes by which it takes place. We already know ''that'' evolution happens; the interesting part for the past century has been ''by what means'' it happens. | |||
| Similarly, a scientific study of claims to psychic phenomena would not content itself to merely look for correlations that suggest the existence of psychic abilities. It would have to also look for the mechanisms by which these abilities would work. It wouldn't focus solely on the question, "Do psychic abilities exist?" any more than physicists stop with, "Does light exist?" or biologists stop with, "Does evolution exist?" -- it would go on to ask, "''By what mechanism'' do psychic abilities work?" --] (]) 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with this and also that science is not some frozen environment but is rather, organic.(And I 'm not talking about vegetables here :o) ), Science in its most overarching would seem to be about the processes, the mechanisms, not whether there are black holes but what that black hole is, does, functions, was formed, and its implications . In fact SA, I was actually not judging this paragraph in any way from my own experience or belief in the psychic, which might be described as a healthy, but also thoughtful skepticism . I've seen some pretty interesting, inexplainable things, but I've also seen hysteria, suggestibility, and straight out lies. My concern is that the paragraph creates a sense of the skeptical in the lede of an article so that neutrality in terms of POV is lost.I wasn't confusing balance with neutrality or using neutrality in the sense of the material in the paragraph, but rather that the quality of the wording creates a non-neutral sense, and immediately would serve to prejudice the reader. I think that by simply focusing on rewriting, so that generalizations are removed, and they are weak in any kind of writing, the whole paragraph would swing to a more neutral sensibility. I think its appropriate to have something in the lede about the skeptical view its just about how much, its sources, and the language used to describe it.(] (]) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| Yes, no one knows any theory which would explain/give a mechanism for psi. ]. Science is half observation and half theory. But just because there isn't a theory doesn't mean science isn't being done, nor does it mean that nothing has been observed. There is some knowledge of mechanism, in that they are said to come about through mental faculties. Some parapsychologists believe that they have some idea of a theory, but personally I don't' think they are there yet. However, I should say that parapsychologists have within the last few years stopped focusing on "proof" studies and started trying to find out mechanism- it's as major trend. Like the article says, the consensus is that some forms of psi exist. But, as the quackwatch source says, because there is not real theory, it isn't accepted. However we can't say it is rejected, either. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You say that parapsychologists have "stopped focusing on 'proof' studies and started trying to find out mechanism". Who? Where? What are the major hypotheses? The best way to demonstrate that this is science is to demonstrate that there is a productive research program underway, producing testable hypotheses and reproducible evidence for them. | |||
| :I assume that we are in the early days of parapsychological research, so there should be some analogy to the early days of scientific physics or biology. In the early days of scientific optics, there was ''testable speculation'' as to the mechanisms by which light worked. The original speculative hypothesis (luminiferous aether) was tested and debunked; other ideas followed, leading to the modern understanding of light as elementary quantum particles (photons). | |||
| :Likewise, in the early days of evolutionary biology, Darwin and other biologists created testable hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution. Lacking knowledge of genetics, they came up with hypotheses like ] that (just like luminiferous aether) had to be tested, debunked, and improved upon before evolutionary biology could make much progress. This is part of the scientific process. What are the analogous hypotheses in parapsychology? --] (]) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know I'm not an expert in parapsychology, and this is beyond my ability to answer well. If you like I can email someone who could answer your question. But just here and now, I'm not trying to prove parapsychology is science- I can't do that to the satisfaction of people here. I could say that the major skeptics, even James Randi, call it a science. Also, it gets into the question of "what is science." So are you really interested, and should I get someone to answer? ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, sure, I think it would make a good contribution to the ] article, and to the "Research" section of this article, to know what the current research program is. Rather than argue over whether it is "a science", or whether some expert or another claims that it is, we could present the evidence and let the reader decide for themselves. --] (]) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, there is all ''sorts'' of information about the field which is just not being put in because it is under attack, every word. It's just too much hassle to put it in. I could put in loads of good information, but do not do it because it's just to difficult. Case in point in the last few edits by Shoemaker. BTW accurately summarized the thesis of the article, giving both sides of the equation . All you have to do is read the summary at the top to see that the logic is "yes, they have evidence which would normally be good enough, but it isn't good enough because the intrinsic unlikelihood of psychic phenomena." The quote says in part "Skeptics mostly still feel that the intrinsic implausibility is so great that nothing short of airtight and well-repeated research would be sufficient to support ESP. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical." ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Like it or lump it, the fact that people think that psychic abilities exist and that there is "evidence" for it is derided by the people who get to decide what is and isn't interesting about the observable universe. To try to "balance" this away from NPOV or ascribe it to a "skeptical POV" is like trying to ascribe someone who is writing about circumnavigation of the world matter-of-factually as having a "skeptical POV" because they don't accommodate the yo-yos who believe in a flat earth. It's the same ball of wax, it's the same bollocks being promoted by the crowd crowing about their personal interactions with "some pretty interesting, inexplainable things". ] (]) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, gee SA. Nice, friendly, thoughtful, civil comment to someone who is attempting to indicate there is no POV here for me. I could care less about this article 's topic, although I did care about the non-compliant quality. Dealing with my comments this way does not deflect away from my points, and unfortunately your treatment of someone who would really like to collaborate with you, indicates bias and POV that seems lacking in depth and thought. I am not promoting anything, but obviously you are. You have very little idea what I think, and your ignorance in thinking you do and in wording it as you do above is unfortunate and sad. (] (]) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :I've posted my response to SA ], since it has less relevance to this article and more to the relation between skepticism and parapsychology, and the need for skeptics to address the issues rather than be dismissive and insulting. --] (]) 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify. There seems to be some mistaken notion that someone who comes onto a page like this and attempts to deal with POV is a parapsychologist. I'm afraid it would be an insult to the parapsychologists to have me thrown into their ranks. I know almost nothing about it, but I do know POV when I see it. That was my concern.(] (]) 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :::I agree, it's an unfortunate ''if you're not with us you're against us'' attitude... --] 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == rephrasing? == | |||
| this sentance: ''"Early examples of psychics include the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi who, according to Greek mythology, provided prophecies from Apollo himself, or Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future."'' while I don't object to it content-wise, I do have to point out that it's a bit misleading. the Oracle of Delphi and Nostradamus are ''not'' examples of psychics per se (since the concept wasn't even invented in their day), but rather individuals who are pointed to because they did things that we might ''in our day'' consider to be psychic. not making that distinction misconstrues their place in the discussion. how can we fix that? --] 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, who according to Greek mythology, was thought to be the mouthpiece of Apollo himself, and Nostradamus a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future." are examples of early prophecy. | |||
| ::I'm not convinced there isn't a little OR here...At any rate another way to word it.(] (]) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :::oh I think there's more than a little OR - I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. your approach isnt bad, but it needs to be tied in to Psychic, somehow. maybe: ''"Researchers into psychic phenomena point to historical figures - such as the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, who according to Greek mythology,was thought to be the mouthpiece of Apollo himself, or Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is said to have had the ability to predict the future." - to suggest that this is not a new idea."''? --] 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Better . I was aware I wasn't connecting to Psychic but wasn't sure how to do it unless there is a source that says this. The problem may be do, "Researchers into psychic phenomena point to historical figures..." Is there a source? At any rate, I like your version(] (]) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| I'm pretty fine with phrasing,s, so long as the skeptical view isn't lef tout too much. Saying they definitely, unambiguously did predict the future - bad. Saying that people believed they predicted the future - fine. ] (]) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I cannot live with "skeptics." Therefore, based on Ludwig's known interpretation of ] that only one person has to complain, and that defeats the consensus, I'm complaining. Skeptic is a term used by anti-science types to imply that scientists ignore know facts like magical paranormal behavior. Since Psychics deny science, then let's be fair and call this whole article scientific denialism. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ludwigs, you are a complete and utter disruptive editor. How dare you make another revision without have the maturity to discuss it here. You deserve to be permanently blocked from ever editing this article. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OrangeMarlin - as I said in the edit summary, 'skeptics believe' is undeniably true, but 'scientists state' requires a stronger level of proof. I'm more than willing to use your phrasing, but I need some kind of source that indicates that all scientists say this, unambiguously. can you provide the source, so we can include it? | |||
| ::::Shoemaker - that sounds good to me. I didn't put this reference in, though - I was just trying to preserve what was already in the document - so I'm not quite sure how to work the skeptic POV in more. let me read through the sources carefully and see what I can figure out. --] 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OrangeMarlin, stop being uncivil. And no, you can't find a source that says what all scientists believe. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: For best results, let's please keep discussions focused on the article, and not on the editors, thanks. --]]] 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Martin, because every scientist knows "psychic" is anti-science and can't be tested, they don't all jump on board. You can't prove a negative, precisely because no one spends time disproving it. Not every scientist studies fossils, yet 99.4% of scientists accept evolution as a fact. Same here. How about you find one source that shows a single reasonable scientist thinks this field actually exists. By your and Ludwig's logic, any unsourced statement can be put into any article as long as there's no negative proof. Doesn't work. Oh, I'm about as civil as a multi-blocked editor deserves. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| "Freeman Dyson, one of the most respected scientists of our day, recently wrote in the New York Review of Books that he was open to the possibility of psychic powers that might lie beyond the realm of scientific investigation.” (] (]) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :I have revised the section on The Delphic Oracle to include a little more information as was there originally. Since the Delphic Oracle was not one person but many over time I thought to remove people and to add priestesses by way of explanation. I have also added a source that notes the Oracle and its connection to "psychic". Although, I think citing Broad's book ''The Oracle'' (Penguin Press) noted in the article would be stronger, I don't have the book, and haven't read it so include this article. I believe the addition is neutral in terms of tone. That's the extent of my knowledge in this article (Greece), so good luck with the rest.(] (]) 01:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :... and this revision is based mostly on the suggestions of other editors above.(] (]) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::looks good to me. {{=)}} --] 01:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I edited just now to make sure that it's clear that the term "psychic" refers to either stage magic or ESP, and removed qualifiers which are completely unnecessary if this is the definition. Also removed the incorrect ''dubious'' tag, as the statement concerns what parapsychologists say. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::SH why would you revert something that is historical in Nature and cite ]. You reverted a reference as well as the whole thing and didn't even comment.(] (]) 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::I apologise, but that's a pretty minor source at best. Does an obscure weekly internet newspaper actually reach the standards necessary for reliable sources? ] (]) 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom Pseudoscience case== | |||
| As a reminder, this article now falls within the scope of the "Pseudoscience" case that was heard by the ]. As such, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place discretionary sanctions as needed, to ensure the smooth running of the project. See ]: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| What does this mean for most of the editors here? Hopefully, nothing. :) For those editors who are participating in a ] way, ], trying to build ], and doing their best to ensure that additions to the article properly reflect what is in ] and do not give ] to minority viewpoints, there's nothing to worry about. Any editors who do not comply with these Misplaced Pages best practices, may receive warnings on their talkpages, which may escalate to a ban on editing this article (or in the worst cases, bans on editing in the topic area, or possibly having their entire account access blocked). But that's several steps down the line, and there would be clear warnings before something like that would happen. So in the meantime, please carry on with editing as normal. If anyone has any questions though, please feel free to ask! --]]] 00:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The POV pushing is getting pretty fierce, Elonka. There was a longstanding consensus that the term ''psychic'' is defined as both ESP and stage magic, and can be used without qualifiers. Not to mention that we went through an ArbCom on the same subject which says "A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist" . There is POV pushing to say "scientists say," as opposed to scientists outside the field of parapsychology have not accepted. There is extreme incivility. There is edit warring. There is re-insertion of the dubious tag on a statement which merely repeats what some have said . These are precisely and exactly the same issues which we argued over before that ArbCom. They are not new issues, in any way whatsoever. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per ], "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." - This is what I'm attempting to uphold. By giving more weight to the fringe field of Parapsychology than to science as a whole, the changes made caused the article to promote a fringe point of view, in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. We should certainly include the parapsychological view, but we have to do so proportionately, and not treat it as more important than mainstream science. Substantially weakening the mainstream view, while adding strong statements from fringe publications and the like emphasising the fringe views is not compatible with this, nor is treating what is at best a tiny minority in the scientific community, and at worse outside the scientific community (parapsychologists, a term which encompasses both fringe scientists and people outside of science) as having views equal in importance to the mainstream views, and hence insisting that they be given equal weight with the mainstream scientific view. ] (]) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks for the information, it helps to get a more well-rounded view of the issues here. Which steps in ] has this article undergone so far? Any RfCs, noticeboard threads, or attempts at mediation? --]]] 02:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict) Shoemaker -It may be worth clarifying, but my sense is that the passage you cited refers to references to pseudoscience within the context of mainstream articles, not within articles ''about'' pseudoscientific topics. sure, psychic phenomena should not be treated as equivalent to other ideas on a page that talks about communication media, but that doesn't suggest that scientific viewpoints should be the predominant voices on a page about psychic phenomena, since science really doesn't have a whole lot to say about the issue. or am I misunderstanding your point? --] 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Per ]: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I don't think there's really any room for argument from a policy level here. ] (]) 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Shoemaker, I have explained before that this deals with the presentation of pseudo'''science''' within articles on mainstream scientific topics. Please don't mis-apply it. I prefer to deal with Psychic more as a social phenomenon, which presents all viewpoints in a cool manner, and does not try to decide the issues. We need to present the viewpoints, not take sides. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sorry, Martin, but that's ridiculous. You can't claim parapsychologuy is science with one breath, then say that the rules for a fringe field of science don't apply to you, because it's not science.] (]) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Elonka, this article has undergone ''everything'' in the past, on the same issues, including an ArbCom. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:25, 11 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. |
"A psychic is a person..."
This introductory phrase is biased because assumes an individual or solely acting person. Firstly, 'psychic' is also an adjective that denotes a phenomenon. Secondly, for there to be psychic relies, by definition, on at least two entities, whereby only one of them is visible in the flesh. Stjohn1970 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think a more glaring mistake is found in the fact that the word, "claim," is being used in the definition. You can't be something by claiming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:268:9650:13E4:BC76:420C:687C:DA5A (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- True. I can say I'm a fish. But if you look up fish it doesn't say people who claim they is fish. Nonsense. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in Criticism and Research Section: "Investigator Ben Radford stats that..." change stats to states. 140.109.103.218 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Done 💜 melecie talk - 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Fraud', there is some issue with the html
alling for a psychic scam can result in a loss of one's entire life savings. In an example given in article by Rob Palmer, a woman gave a psychic $41,642 over a period of 10 weeks.
please fix this :) thanks Jarviscockerslongthumbnail (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- actually, sorry, my copy and paste didnt reveal the error
- it is there in the article Jarviscockerslongthumbnail (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Palmer, Rob. "Belief in Psychics: What's the Harm and Who's to Blame?". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024
Would someone please add this book to the external links or elsewhere if you think it appropriate? Also this book?
Change subject to psychic phenomena - LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change short description to:
Alleged phenomena whereby the mind perceives information beyond the ordinary senses or interacts with the environment in ways that defy conventional understanding
Change first paragraph of body text to:
Psychic (or psi) phenomena refer to alleged human faculties that allow individuals to perceive or interact with the world beyond the normal physical means, supposedly through mental processes. Alleged psychic abilities are generally categorised into two types; extrasensory perception (ESP), which involves accessing information hidden from the ordinary senses, through means such as telepathy, remote viewing, precognition or clairvoyance; and abilities relating to mental-physical manipulation, such as psychokinesis and energy medicine. While the application of psychic phenomena by practitioners (such as mediums, clairvoyants and energy healers) is widely considered to be pseudoscience, efforts to investigate these claims in controlled conditions are part of the field of parapsychology (or psi research). The Parapsychological Association, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is the leading international organization for scientists and scholars exploring psi phenomena.
Change - Please create new subsection for ‘Modern day psychic practitioners’ to include the rest of the introductory section focusing on the role of psychic practitioners. LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: See WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would appreciate an explanation from @Randomstaplers on reasons for undue. For other user's interest, here are the editorial explanations I included in the submission:
- Explanation for change in short description: 1 'Psychic' is not defined by its practitioners, but rather by the phenomena under consideration(practitioners simply take the name of the phenomena); 2 psychic covers both perception (ESP) but also allged mind-matter interaction.
- Explanation for changes to body text:
- 1 Psychic phenomena need to be defined before their practitioners. 2 examples should prioritize phenomena most under active research, such as precognition, in favor of those that have not been actively studied such as teleportation. 3 the applied practice of psychic phenomena, e.g. chakras, mediumship, can be considered pseudoscience due to lack of scientific method and rigour (I don't think anyone would debate this). 4 the scientific enquiry and debate into psi phenomena as a whole cannot be considered pseudoscience, as this would imply that both critics and proponents are unscientific and not open to debate and improving studies, and that there is therefore no scientific field of study for investigating the purported phenomena despite them being widely believed by the general public; That some scientists have characterised an entire field of study as pseudoscience does not justify such a claim in a wiki page; methodological flaws, mistakes and incorrect conclusions can be seen in all fields of study (e.g. quantum physics), but this does not make those entire fields of study pseudoscience, as this would create closed-mindedness to further research and strongly discourage scientific enquiry. The AAAS recognised parapsychology as a legitimate science due to consistent use of scientific methods. 5 concluding with a link to the mainstream organisation that debates and discusses the issues of psi research will be useful for interested readers. LetoDidac (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @LetoDidac You're making a substantial change to the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. This means you'll have to (effectively) change the entire article. And you're going to have to find references that prove, specifically, that psychic phenomena are effective (and not just from an advocate's homepage).
- By the way, I did not revert your other edit I warned you about. You'll have to talk to that other editor.⸺(Random)staplers 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Low-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles