Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 3 March 2010

	Ghost is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 5, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Literature Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horror This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Dec 2005 - Jul 2006 Jul 2006 - Aug 2007 Sep 2007 - Oct 2008 Nov 2008 - Feb 2009 Mar 2009 - Sep 2009

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2009-01-26 Article needs to contain a summarised version of Apparitional experience as a subsection and a link to that article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hi, i'm not a real "editer" of wikipedia but do we really think that it is fair to use shakespere as the main picture 1) shakesphere wasn't the first person to describe ghosts 2) it doesn't fit my normal conception of ghosts and when I first saw it I though either KKK or I had the wrong article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.59.2 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Explaination

The scientific explaination section of this article is quite biased. I am not a ghost expert by any means, but I feel like there should be some mention of the "science" behind ghost hunting, and perhaps state what method these ghost hunters use to track spirits, and why or why not these methods are credible. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does link to the article on Ghost Hunting, where their "scientific" methods and equipment are discussed. I'm not sure we want to get into the debate over whether this is scientific, or not, on the "Ghost" page. That's my two cents on ghost hunting. As for scientific explanations regarding what ghosts are, or appear to be, or why people see them or believe in them, I think that is OK for this article, as long as they are properly referenced "real" science, and not fringe pseudo-science. Eastcote (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the supposed "scientific" stuff in this section is the product and propaganda of a self-styled "rationalistic" pressure group called "The Committee for Skeptical Enquiry" headed, not by a scientist, but a "ghost-busting" magician called Randy. It has been well documented that this group has a vested interest and prejudice in favour of skepticism as a philosophical position rather than unbiased scientific research. The magician Harry Houdini was a similar ghost buster of his day. Giving oneself the airs of a scientist does not make you one...Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it needs some scientific ideas for the acutal exsistence of ghosts, not just aganist it, such as the (limited and few) scientific theorys of why an afterlife MIGHT exist. isen't the

Deletion of unsourced material.

I deleted the following, which has been tagged for quite some time as unsourced. If someone can find a reference to support it, please feel free to add it back in.

The fetch is "a notion widespread in shamanistic cultures."

Eastcote (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldview tag

This article could use some re-org. Its "By Culture" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ghost#By_culture

should really organize the entire structure of the article. As it stands, the viewpoint of the article is heavily based upon European and Western beliefs. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, this article - Reincarnation - offers a better organizational structure. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you about the article being heavy on Western European belief...but this is English language Misplaced Pages. Language, by its nature, has a cultural bias that is hard to get away from, and I'm OK with that. I think it is sufficient to mention other cultural concepts without having to give full and equal weight to all cultures. Eastcote (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastcote says it well. This is the English Misplaced Pages. Western European belief is the cultural normal on here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Article: "A ghost has been defined as the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person, although in popular usage the term refers only to the apparition of such a person."

Popular usage?

Oxford Dictionary of English:

--- start quote ---

ghost
noun
an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image: the building is haunted by the ghost of a monk | the Flying Dutchman is the most famous ghost ship.

a slight trace or vestige of something: she gave the ghost of a smile.

a faint secondary image produced by a fault in an optical system or on a cathode ray screen, e. g. by faulty television reception or internal reflection in a mirror or camera.

verb

1 act as ghostwriter of (a work): his memoirs were smoothly ghosted by a journalist. 2 glide smoothly and effortlessly: they ghosted up the river.

PHRASES the ghost in the machine Philosophy the mind viewed as distinct from the body (usually used in a derogatory fashion by critics of dualism).

give up the ghost die. (of a machine) stop working.

look as if one has seen a ghost look very pale and shocked. not stand the ghost of a chance have no chance at all.

DERIVATIVES ghostlike adjective.

ORIGIN Old English gst (in the sense 'spirit, soul'), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch geest and German Geist. The gh- spelling occurs first in Caxton, probably influenced by Flemish gheest.

--- end quote --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.201.9 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ghost ship links

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change Legends of ]s have existed since to Legends of ]s have existed since - Ghost ship is a dab page, see also Talk:List of ghost ships#Article organisation.

Please also change and ] have also to and ] have also - for accuracy/consistency. Phantom Ship & The Phantom Ship articles are about an island and a novel. Thanks. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to link to List of ghost ships twice, so I just removed the link to Ghost ship and kept it bare. When the article says "phantom ships" it isn't using capitals, hence it isn't referring to the island or novel but rather just trying to use another word instead of "ghost." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note 68

Note 68 doesn't seem to lead anywhere. A ghost link in fact....Can someone here fix it, as I'm not sure it backs up the text, as the person referred to in the body of article is not the same as the presumed author of the article, unless the latter is referring to the opinions of the former.... Colin4C (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

confused by a revert

I'm confused by this revert. If in fact the authors in question self-admitedly do not engage in scientific analysis, than either that fact needs to be included, of the reference to the National Science Foundation endorsement needs to be removed. Otherwise the article is giving the impression that the opinion is in fact a scientific position when it is demonstrably not. how do we balance that properly? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit has nothing to do with this article, hence removed. Verbal chat 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

then you won't mind my balancing the paragraph so that it doesn't seem like a scientific position is being offered? --Ludwigs2 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please propose your edit for discussion, with WP:RS. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, that's simple enough. how about "Ghosts, hauntings, and related paranormal concepts have been characterized as pseudoscientific by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an advocacy group founded by scientists under the auspices of the National Science Foundation" using the same source. Please note that the link you provided has little to do with science or scientific investigation directly: it is a section of a chapter about public attitudes towards science dealing with media stereotypes and public beliefs, in a government-mandated publication whose aim is to provide "a broad base of quantitative information about U.S. science, engineering, and technology for use by public and private policymakers." As such it is clearly advocating for political action, and shouldn't be confused with an unbiased source on the material. The NSF has not endorsed the CSI or its message in this section in any scientific way, it has offered the CSI as one means of solving a social problem. --Ludwigs2 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by POV pushing revert also. Just to add that the stalwarts of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are mostly not scientists. Their main man Randi, is a magician with no scientific training. Mr Nickell is a part time magician also, though he has a doctorate...in folklore...By contrast the passage which was deleted was by written by a scientist. Misplaced Pages says that we shall be NPOV and we shall obey them. Colin4C (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that ghosts and haunted houses actually exist are WP:FRINGE fringe concepts that the article need not be "neutral" about. WP:WEIGHT needs to be given to the mainstream view, for which the NSF reports are an excellent source to identify what scientists consider to be pseudoscientific concepts. I don't see any reliable evidence that either CSI or NSF are unqualified, irrelevant, or politically-motivated groups, but you may want to take that issue to WP:RSN, WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN for a broader airing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Louie, you've the point entirely. no one is trying to question the true nature of ghosts, here; we are debating a prima facia misrepresentation of the CSI as being far more scientific than it actually is. Please read the actual change I suggested, so that you can see how off-topic your comments above actually are. --Ludwigs2 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The CSI involves scientists and there is no misrepresentation of CSI here (apart from the attacks by Colin above). The text colin is adding is an offtopic attack on the CSI - which is not for this page. Colin's accusation of POV pushing is also a personal attack, especially when it is he pushing for fringe edits. CSI and NSF are both RS for fringe topics. I would also add that a doctorate in folklaw is perfect for "ghosts", and Randi has been employed by Nature in the past to help with it's scientific investigations and is a world-renowned expert on pseudoscience and "supernatural"/"preternatural" phenomena. Colin, please note WP:BLP applies to talk page comments. Per WP:COATRACK, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, Colin's addition is unacceptable. The misrepresentation comes from minimising the CSI and the scientific mainstream consensus. Verbal chat 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

None of that has any bearing on the change I suggested above. I think I'll go and edit it in just to break the mood here and refocus the conversation. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on topic, it is a response to Colin's edits, accusations, and comments. If you wan to make a subsection on your proposal feel free. Please be WP:CIVIL. Verbal chat 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been being civil, I have made a suggestion on this point, and I'd really prefer not to see any further inflammatory remarks by anyone involved. I am not going to create a separate section just so that people can use this section to continue throwing spitballs at each other. let's refocus on the actual content and drop the scattergun approach, please. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please desist. Thank you. Verbal chat 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I will take that non-responsive answer as a sign that you have no objections to the change I proposed. would anyone else care to comment? --Ludwigs2 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I support your edit, apart from the bit which says that the CSI was "founded by scientists", which is not true, it was founded by a positivist philosopher called Paul Kurtz. I am not going to be drawn into the mudwrestling. More generally the section needs a bit of logic. It is ambiguous whether the denial of ghosts by the skeptics is a denial of the ontological status of ghosts (spirits of the dead? a stone tape?) or a denial that lots of people throughout history have seen strange apparitions. Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

well, the proper skeptic perspective is usually pretty straight-forward - e.g. there is no theory accounting for the existence of ghosts that has any properly scientific evidence supporting it, and thus no credible reason to believe in the existence of ghosts. I don't disagree with that perspective, and I suspect that most scientists wouldn't either; I just get tired of people trying to milk it for more than its worth. As far as I can tell, the CSI is an advocacy group for proper scientific understanding, which is a good thing. but trying to elevate them to spokespeople for the entire realm of science is a bit absurd, in a peculiarly 'holier-than-thou' way. science speaks well enough for itself, IMO. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The philosophical issues are extremely complex and disputed, which is why I wanted to get down to brass tacks by stating things which can be proved to be true. I.e. whether the CSI conduct scientific experiments (no) or whether they were founded by scientists (no). Give the facts then the readers of the wikipedia can make up their own minds what to believe. Colin4C (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Verbal and Louie I urge them to follow this wikipedia policy: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view which states that "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Colin4C (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate place for your edit, if editors there agree, is the CSI article and not this one. Please stop trying to insert your biased text that is irrelevant to this article. Verbal chat 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the insertion is to insinuate that the CSI is not representative of scientific opinion. In fact, it represents the views of most scientists quite well. Very few scientists consider paranormal topics still worth investigating. The fact that the organisation is run by administrators and science writers rather than working scientists is unsurprising, and the idea that this renders it illegitimate is silly. For this reason the insertion is misleading. Xanthoxyl 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

where exactly are you getting that? I'm not trying to 'insinuate' anything, and certainly not trying to suggest that CSI doesn't represent the views of scientist. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the "endorsed by the National Science Foundation" edit. My use of the word "endorsed" was to indicate that the reference itself was from the NSF using CSI research to show the prevalence of "pseudoscientific" belief. If they use it, goes the logic, they endorse it. The NSF certainly shares the position that such beliefs are pseudoscientific. However, Ludwigs proposed edit, "Ghosts, hauntings, and related paranormal concepts have been characterized as pseudoscientific by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an advocacy group founded by scientists under the auspices of the National Science Foundation", looks OK to me. It is perhaps better than my original wording, if CSI was in fact founded under the auspices of the NSF. I believe the "founded by scientists" part to be accurate. All of the founders were not scientists, but scientists were well-represented among the founders. However, having said that, my other two cents is that this is not a forum to discuss CSI. They and the NSF are sufficiently credible to be quoted here. Whether or not they have an agenda, are legitimate, or are themselves "fringe" should be discussed on the CSI talk page. Eastcote (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My remarks were about the new paragraph which Colin4C has tried several times to add, and the subsequent edit war which prompted the page protection. Xanthoxyl 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on public record that CSI was founded by a positivist philospher called Paul Kurtz. He was not and is not a scientist. That is a fact. Positivism is an old 19th century philosophy, which went into steep decline in the early years of the 20th century, when scientists like Mach put forward a more sophisticated theory of reality and you had the rise of quantum theory. Some people like Kurtz still believe in the old positivist stuff. Good luck to him, but it is not the mainstream endorsed philosophy of science. Most scientists avoid such philosophising, and those that don't, do not all endorse one particular strand of philosophy. Colin4C (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

After Kurtz founded CSI he was joined by Martin Gardner (mathemetician), Ray Hyman (psychologist), James Randi (magician), and Marcello Truzzi (sociologist). Truzzi, however, was later purged from the CSI, for not toeing the party the line. Truzzi dubbed his former colleagues' position as Pseudoskepticism. These are all facts on historical record. Colin4C (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The list of CSI fellows includes many working scientists (including Nobel laureates). Kurtz is a naturalist philosopher, and the scientific skepticism which he espouses is widely shared by scientists. You are citing facts selectively in order to imply that the CSI's views are unrepresentative. If you believe that the CSI is not a reliable source, then please find a reliable source which will inform the reader of the undeniable fact that the majority of the scientific community does not consider reports of ghosts and hauntings to be plausible enough to be worth serious investigation, and has held this view for centuries. Xanthoxyl 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Colin: without explicitly disagreeing with the facts you present (and don't even get me started on Martin Gardner, who is the only person in the world I feel I can reasonably call a 'meddlesome mathematician'), please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Skepticism is actually a decent philosophy, done well, and the issue of whether the CSI had some sketchy founders is largely irrelevant to their current purpose and mission. To my mind, the problem lies where people (be they wikipedia editors or real-world scholars) step over the line from declaiming a lack of evidence to proclaiming a lack of existence. So, a proper skeptical perspective says "there is no scientific theory or evidence to suggest that ghosts are anything more than a cultural construct of some sort" and asks people who believe in ghosts to consider the matter form a rational, scientific perspective. An improper skeptical perspective says "There are no such things as ghosts; science has proved it" and tells people that they are stupid for believing such nonsense. When you start taking poorly-aimed potshots at skepticism as a whole, you'll hit the first version as often as you hit the second, and you'll put off reasonable, clear-thinking people who might otherwise agree with you. You'll do a lot better (here and everywhere) to acknowledge reasonableness where you find it, and to avoid reaching for political ad hominems as a form of argument. just my 2¢, of course, and I don't want to rain on your picnic, but consider it please. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have considered it, which is why I tried to restrict myself to the facts about who and what the CSI is. That matter is capable of investigation. Ghosts are a more difficult area of investigation, and, as you suggest, I don't think the matter should be dismissed in a glib one-liner. Anyway, I hope we can discuss all this without rancour. Colin4C (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original revert. This is the Ghost article. If people want to discuss the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in any detail, let them do that at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry article.

That said, the entire "scientific explanations" section remains deeply flawed, and probably belongs compressed into a very brief paragraph under #Modern_period. This section has been tagged for cleanup for ages, and if it isn't going to make any progress soon, drastic measures will be called for, as we cannot have the article held hostage by such a marginal item. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the page to get unlocked so that I can begin some largish revisions. Is there a normal practice for requesting unprotection, or do we just wait until it happens? --Ludwigs2 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you can be fairly certain that those revisions will be contested, it would be best to propose them here first and let them get discussed and hammered into a consensus version. We don't need anymore edit wars. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

eh, no. You will learn to respect me as an editor or you won't, but I'm not about to start acting as though I need your approval to edit wikipedia. If you feel the need to revert me, so be it, but I trust that you will be thinking about what's correct for the encyclopedia, and not migrating your personal dispute with me across a range of pages. --Ludwigs2 06:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. What I wrote applies to anyone. Potentially controversial edits should be attempted on the talk page first. Of course, if you will respect the BRD cycle this time, then go ahead and be BOLD. If someone Reverts you, then you will have to Discuss, without editing the article at the same time. We have seen you do that before, and it didn't give you any good result. Instead it created a huge edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

guys, if you can agree to respect WP:BRD and don't act as it it's "either my version or your version" (it is actually a matter of combining the best from either proposal into an ever more refined revision), I can unprotect this immediately. The current "scientific" section is so bad that there is no need to "protect" it from anything. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

note that if one editor starts making unilateral changes, we let them run into WP:3RR. If an edit war between two or more editor resumes, the page will need to be re-protected. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to abide by BRD, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. Ludwigs2 has a history of not respecting it and recently engaged in a protracted edit war with a number of editors at the Alternative medicine article. It all ended up here. (I still haven't gotten any indication of any kind that they understand or respect that BRD means one doesn't edit at the same time.) I wish to prevent that, so, considering Ludwigs2's history, the option of 3RR is unacceptable. I think that their history would dictate that they should abide by BRD. If they didn't have such a history, the normal 3RR would apply, but that's not a good option in this case. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on Brangifer's page about his personal attacks against me. I suggest we ignore it and move on with the discussion; if he continues and it becomes disruptive, I'll take it up with the admins. --Ludwigs2 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have replied. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be back on track. The section is fair enough for what it is, but I am unhappy with it in this article. The problem is, we have a rather nice article on ghosts in anthropology, folklore, history, art, and then we conclude with a section on childish "paranormal" pseudoscience. It destroys the flow. I think this material is misplaced here, it should either grow into a standalone article, or be merged Paranormal#Ghosts_and_other_spiritual_entities. People who think ghosts are "paranormal" and should be explained by magnetism and what have you have not understood the concept, and they would do well to read the remainder of the article attentively.

This is just my opinion. The "paranormal" material is a burden on an otherwise nice article, and it needs to be constrained to a minimum. --dab (𒁳) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'm willing to take a stab at revising it. I've been hesitating because I don't want to stir up controversy (which I suspect will happen if I touch that section), but I guess there's no way of knowing until I try. give me a bit. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, there is no deadline. The article can stand as is for a while, the pseudoscience stuff is not the only thing on the to do list, see the other cleanup templates. Now might be a good time to check how other tertiary sources treat the topic.

What we definitely need is more coverage on serious psychological research. Unlike the "paranormal" stuff, these have actual explanatory power and can be respectable.

I am not sure about the "globalize" tag. The "by culture" section already tries too hard to be "global", and adding further bits and pieces on tribal mythologies from Africa, Central Asia, South America, etc. will just lead to an unstructured heap of trivia. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

The following section is currently tagged and needs improvement:

• Scientific explanations

I would like to make the following changes:

1. It covers different subjects which are blended and therefore needs to be divided. I'd like to place a section heading in the middle of it as shown below in bold caps.

2. The "new" second section needs more sourcing with accompanied tweaks.

3. The Weinstein, Todd, and Nickell quotes will be moved to the first section, thus gathering like with like.

4. The LEAD will need to mention these sections in an appropriate manner, and the word "pseudoscience" should be used. I'll let others propose such wordings.

I will identify my additions in bold italics.

Please do NOT edit this. There is a section for comments go to the workpage linked below. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Ghost/Workpage for the revision under development.

Introduction

The long-standing lead-section introduction was "A ghost has been defined as the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person, although in popular usage the term refers only to the apparition of such a person". This is clearly less than elegant. Currently, we seem to be trying out "In $FIELD, a ghost is the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person that can reveal itself in a number of different ways to the living." But just what is this "field"? Mythology? Folklore? Folk religion? "Traditional belief"? Popular culture? Art and Drama? The fact is that all of the above apply. The level of existence of the idea of ghosts is much deeper, at what you might call the proto-Sapiens subconscious, and hence it is reflected into all aspects of human culture. Thus, we might as well say, "in human culture", or better yet, "in the human condition". This is silly, of course, and I would suggest to drop the "in $FIELD" part altogether. A ghost is the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person that can reveal itself to the living. Whether and in way such a thing exists, and what is its ontological status is another question, but that's what a ghost is.

OED:

"he soul of a deceased person, spoken of as appearing in a visible form, or otherwise manifesting its presence, to the living."

EB:

" soul or spectre of a dead person, usually believed to inhabit the netherworld and to be capable of returning in some form to the world of the living."

combining these two remarkably parallel encyclopedic definitions, "a ghost is the soul or spectre of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

--dab (𒁳) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

well, the $FIELD variable is misnamed, it should be $CONTEXT; this isn't about academic descriptions. 'Mythology' worked for me, 'popular culture' might be better, but I'm open to rewording suggestions. The main problem here is pragmatic, having to do with misleading constructions. For example, the statement "The ravenous bug-bladder beast is the stupidest animal in the known universe" is factually true within the context of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but factually unsupportable as a plain statement. Most people with common sense can make that distinction on their own, of course, but wikipedia doesn't generally cater to the 'common sense' crowd. You could try removing the qualifying phrase entirely (I won't object, but I think it will cause strife), or we could go for something like "Ghosts are entities of myth and legend that...'. what would you prefer? --Ludwigs2 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

fine, $CONTEXT. The point is that a ghost is a ghost in all sorts of contexts, including but not limited to mythology and popular culture. Unlike the ravenous bug-bladder beast, which must indeed be discussed in context, "ghost" is a common English word with definitions in each English dictionary and applicable in all contexts.

yes, strictly speaking the English noun ghost has even wider application, OED counts 13 entries. But this is about item 8, "now the prevailing sense" of the word.

because I have just cited one notable dictionary definition and one notable encyclopedia entry which can both do without the "in $CONTEXT", I submit that Misplaced Pages can do the same. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled upon some impressive revising of this article. However, I have just one quibble at the moment: I would not equate "ghost" to "soul". As explained throughout Soul#Philosophical views, ever since Socrates, soul has had strong connections, not so much to apparitions of the dead, but rather to the living psyche ("psukhē" is often translated as "soul"). Soul therefore is, by definition, a psychological entity which is (to a debatable extent) undermined by the death of a psychologically coherent being. "Spirit" most definitely would be a better choice; it is, in fact, used interchangeably with the word "ghost" to denote an apparitional entity. I would go a step further and call a ghost a "disembodied spirit", because even though living, corporeal people are said to have "spiritual" experiences, they are not said to possess "ghosts" which benefit from such experiences. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. the argument I'd make in favor of some reference to soul is that there is a distinct (if backhanded) relationship in Christian theosophy: as mentioned, ghosts are often thought of as damned souls. however, I'll be satisfied so long as some reference to it is left - feel free to revise it as you see fit. --Ludwigs2 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand you mean theology, not actual theosophy? It is true that "soul" is much more of a culturally coloured concept than the generic "ghost", and it is unsatisfactory to define the later in terms of the former. This is, I imagine, why EB says "soul or spectre", but then we have no spectre article to link to, and "a ghost is a spectre" is somewhat tautological.

Fwiiw, the OED has as the meaning of "soul":

"The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical. ... Freq. in connexion with, or in contrast to, body."

this is what we intend here. The spiritual part of man, or principle of thought or action, as opposed to the body. Christian theology has nothing to do with that. I suggest we say "soul or spirit". --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did mean theosophy, but I was using it in a more general sense; not a big issue. I'm ok with whatever you guys do on this - the point doesn't need much in the way of arguing.

"Soul or spirit" sounds decently complementary to me. On further thought, I agree that something would indeed be missing if "ghost" were equated to "spirit" alone (e.g., physical haunting doesn't quite smack of "spiritual" transcendence). I'll go ahead and make the change. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"soul": "The principle of thought and action in man". "spirit": "The animating or vital principle in man". Doesn't sound all that complementary to me, although I can see the focus is slightly different. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about the word 'opaque' - is that really what we're after? I'd have chosen something like 'substantial' instead, I think. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

that part is the remaining least elegant of the lead. Opacity (optics) is intended, but it should be put in other terms. "Substantial" doesn't do it because the idea isn't that you can touch the apparition, just that it looks (optically) exactly like the real thing. Not sure this belongs in the intro in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How about something like, "and to figures that seem sufficiently formed to be mistaken for the living"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this would need to be discussed (and referenced) under Ghost#Common_attributes. But we will also need to rethink the current toc. The article isn't bad at all, but it is by no means finished. I think we need to look at its overall structure and possible sub-articles at this point. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

giving this more thought, I believe the way forward is to divide the article along the lines of folklore and mythology, magic and religion, art and popular culture, anthropology and psychology, spiritism and pseudoscience. Giving perhaps five h2 sections, as follows,

• folklore and mythology, with subsections on both historical civilizations (Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, etc. as well as cultures the world over, Chinese, Aztec, Japanese, Central Asian, African, etc.)
• magic and religion, should address theological points as held by major religions, and scientific approaches to necromancy as current in both Late Antiquity and the Renaissance. These topics are closely related, as Christian theology reacts to the practices of necromancy and vice versa
• art and popular culture, ordered historically as in the current revision
• anthropology and psychology, covering scholarship on the human ethological and/or subconscious mechanisms associated with the topic
• spiritism and pseudoscience, attempts of the 19th and 20th century to cast the topic of ghosts in terms of the scientific method, includes ectoplasm, spirit photography, geomagnetism, infrasound, etc.

--dab (𒁳) 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Skepticism" now under "history"

LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) moved the paragraph. While this may be a way forward, the current arrangement is still very awkward. We now have "History -> Modern period", and under "Modern period" first "Spiritism" and then "Skepticism". What is even worse is that the "pseudoscience" part is now represented upside down. A ghost story or belief in ghosts is not "pseudoscience", it is a story, or a belief. The actual pseudoscience (geomagnetism, infrasound, etc.) is now presented as if it was part of the rational skepticism out to debunk pseudoscience. This needs to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the Spiritism section, with its claims of pseudoscientific investigation of ectoplasm and spirit mediums, is the natural place to follow up with the majority view on those subjects. The infrasound stuff is admittedly up for grabs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ectoplasm and spirit mediums doesn't need to be "followed up" by criticism, this should be stated in the same paragraph. This is very difficult to get right. We should perhaps begin by fixing Spiritism and Spiritualism, currently two articles which both say they are identical in scope, but Spiritualism is labelled as a religion while Spiritism is cast in terms of the "study of phenomena". A religion cannot be pseudoscience because it doesn't pretend to be science. This means that mediumship, if taken as a belief, is not pseudoscience. Proposed mechanisms such as ectoplasm are clearly pseudoscience. The magnetism/infrasound stuff is in the same category as ectoplasm, i.e. the attempt to reduce ghost sightings, by definition non-corporeal, to a material explanation.

I think we will need to lose the National Science Foundation quote, as what the NSF terms "beliefs in pseudoscience" does not concern pseudoscience at all. They correctly define pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility", but then they go on to include clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Why these items should be presented as "scientific" and by whom is not made clear. I would argue that clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling, as long as they are not bolstered by pseudoscience of the ectoplasm/geomagnetism sort are not pseudoscience at all but items of folk religion, and the NSF could just as easily have gone on to include belief in angels, or God, the only thing that stopped them was their cultural bias, knowing that they wouldn't get away with labelling theism as pseudoscience in a majority theistic society. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, deconstructing the concept of pseudoscience isn't that helpful, but I respect your desire to get this article right. My view is that the article, especially the Spiritist section, touches on claims sourced to people like David Fontana and the Society for Psychical Research, and the opinions of the NSF per those subjects is very relevant. I've long been a fan of your work here and believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, but I respectfully submit that it sounds like you are dreaming of an article entitled "Ghost (belief)" or "Ghost (legend)" rather than Ghost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I say, I think this is rather difficult, and I am trying to find the best solution by discussion, I do not have a fixed idea in mind. What I do have in mind is "Ghost (belief, legend, tradition, archetype)", a.k.a. "Ghost". The Society for Psychical Research is obviously of historical interest, and I really fail to see why the NSF in particular should be relevant to that. For some reason, it appears, people feel they need to counter-punch against spiritism much more than against, say, classical mythology. We don't need a dedicated section explaining that there isn't really a physical river known as Styx where the dead are ferried across, and that the NSF has denounced belief in classical mythology in stern words. So why should we need dedicated sections to "debunk" 19th century spiritualist movements? And if "debunking" is felt to be necessary, why in a separate "skepticism" section and not worked into the relevant portion of the article? If you feel Fontana or other works cited are less than encyclopedic, feel free to either tag them with {{verify credibility}} or just remove them. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

looking into the background of David Fontana, I expect he is going to be one of the more quotable paranormal researchers. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

well, if you ask me, we could probably dispense with the headings in the 'Modern Period' section and wrap the skepticism into the other material. essentially, we'd talk about all the funky things people have done in the 19th & 20th centuries to try to 'prove' that ghosts exist, close with a couple of sentences which say that all of that boils down to misconstructed pseudoscience, and drop the remaining material as superfluous. that is, unless you want to move the geomagnetic stuff up as a kind of ultra-modern form of pseudoscience... --Ludwigs2 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good in principle. I tend to favor integration rather than relegating the scientific skepticism to a "criticism ghetto". Also, if memory serves, the geo and infrasound stuff sources back to the Society for Psychical Research, so it could possibly be moved to parapsychology, ghost hunting, paranormal, or some other relevant article. As far as the NSF not being relevant, I don't agree, but some wider opinion on that matter would be useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think the NSF is 'not relevant' - I rather like the NSF (and not just because they've given me money - lol). I do think they just get misused a bit by WP editors. Would scientists as a rule generally hold that ghosts don't exist? probably yes. would the NSF say that there's no empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts? almost certainly, though I don't know if they 'have said that explicitly. would the NSF decry the belief in ghosts as pseudoscientific claptrap? doubtful - the NSF isn't given to indulging in speculation or social judgements of that nature. The NSF is going to very carefully distinguish pseudoscience as 'research modalities that fail to meet rigorous scientific standards', and isn't going to extend the scientific criticism to the related non-scientific belief structures. Ectoplasometry (assuming there is such a thing) is pseudoscience; seances and ouija boards aren't (unless someone tries to elevate them to the status of scientific proof). let me try a revision in a bit, and feel free to revise or revert if you dislike it. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NSF issues aside for the moment, I found the Persinger infasound/geomagnetic stuff actually sources to the BBC here and here, so it may have relevance to this article after all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Language and linguistics Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

1. Please weigh in on whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Also please discuss whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is a continuation of discussions above....

Just to make sure we know what is being referred to by the NSF statement.... Here is the actual sentence they use before their reference 29:

• "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001)."

Then comes our statement, based on that and their ref 29:

• The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be "pseudoscientific beliefs".

Have I summarized that source wrongly? If not, then what's the problem? I consider the NSF to be a more reliable source than an editor's opinion. I see their statement as a pretty good summation of items that can be termed pseudoscientific beliefs. Any belief, including religious ones, that make falsifiable statements, are potentially pseudoscientific beliefs. Even if we could philosophically pick their opinion apart, they are a reliable source that should still be cited, and our disagreements with them would just be uncitable OR that shouldn't influence how we construct the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this is a question of whether you've summarized the source incorrectly. I do think you are giving too much emphasis to what strikes me as a casual use of the word 'pseudoscience'. strictly speaking, 'pseudoscientific belief' could only mean a belief derived from improper scientific claims: a belief in Deadly Orgone Radiation, for instance, would be pseudoscientific, because the scientific claims and research that look for orgone are clearly pseudoscience. However, it is not at all clear to me that most people's conceptions of ghosts owes anything to the pseudoscientific attempts to identify ghosts. Your analysis is far to broad - for instance, it would cast any belief in God as pseudoscientific, as well as any belief in life, or social structures, or identities. is that what you meant to do? --Ludwigs2 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just quoting from the NSF's yearly document about pseudoscience, and that's a pretty notable source. What I mean about it is rather irrelevant. I must bow to the source. I suspect they understand the matter better than any of us. We just need to avoid OR in this matter, and using such a RS is a good way. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OR is a tricky thing: you know that as well as I do. My concern here is that this quote is being used out of proportion to support a position that the NSF would not itself support, and one that is not explicitly outlined in this document. please note that this is not a 'yearly document about pseudoscience' but a yearly document about 'public attitudes and understanding about Science and Technology' - it is concerned with media and education, not with scientific standards, and doesn't try to outline standards for or definitions of pseudoscience. I don't doubt that the NSF would consider the idea of ghosts 'flawed' at best, and would consider most research into the topic pseudoscientific, but I doubt they would go so far as to condemn the very idea (given the utter lack of evidence surrounding the issue), and they certainly wouldn't support language that outright refutes conventional religious and personal beliefs. I don't dispute the quote, I'm just leery of over-reading it, if you see what I mean. --Ludwigs2 08:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "... hold at least one pseudoscientific belief..." is pretty clear language. Otherwise you're correct that it isn't the document, but the section Belief in Pseudoscience which they include each year. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And Einstein once said that 'God does not play dice with the universe', which does not make him an opponent of legalized gambling. I hope you're not suggesting that we take a fundamentalist interpretation of NSF texts?

Look, if you really want to make this case, then I would expect to see some secondary sources which suggest that the NSF is actively engaged in researching and refuting paranormal beliefs. what you have here is a single primary source, and there are limits to how far that can be stretched. Clearly there's evidence that the NSF and scientists in general don't take it as far as you're suggesting they do: even with the uber-case of creationism, scientists were (for the most part) careful to distinguish creationism as a pseudoscientific theory from Christian religious beliefs more broadly put, despite the fact that they could have debunked the entire faith using the kind of logic you've used above. right? --Ludwigs2 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2 above, this is a very casual usage of the term "pseudoscience". The NSF is a United States government agency and was doing a survey of US demographics. This is notable exclusively in the context of "belief in ghosts in the USA", and of very limited relevance to the topic of "ghosts" in general. We already have a statement that "about 32% of Americans 'believe in the existence of ghosts'." If people insist, we can put the reference to the NFS next to that, and mention that the NFS lists this item in the class of "pseudoscientific beliefs". What we cannot do is use this survey in an argument on the nature of pseudoscience.

The reference cited does not, as claimed above, invoke any "scientific consensus" against "the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead". I do not believe there can be any "scientific consensus against the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead" any more that there can be a "scientific consensus against the claimed ability of people to communicate with God". There can only be a scientific consensus against specific proposals of underlying mechanisms that allow such communication. There is a world of difference between the two. The word "consensus" doesn't even occur in the source, so this is a clear case of misattribution. The only thing the source can be used for is the inclusion of "communication with the dead" under the class of "paranormal phenomena" (while, for some reason, nobody seems to be inclined to include prayer under 'paranormal phenomena'). I am not objecting to the NFS source for what it is, I am objecting to the misguided and tendentious use it is being made of in this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann. In a nutshell, a sentence fragment, such as "pseudoscientific beliefs such as X", is not equivalent to the proposition, "all instances of X are pseudoscientific." For instance, suppose that the NSF had said the following: "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans own at least one farm animal; e.g., they have a goose." This statement does not mean that all geese live on farms; it simply demonstrates the use of a descriptor ("farm") to indicate a degree of semantic coherency among the items it describes. Presumably, the NSF somehow, and to some degree, associates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific methods. But they probably do not mean that all believers are by definition pseudoscientists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The NSF is clearly a reliable source for such claims, and their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus unless a significant number of other scientific organisations disagree. Verbal chat 17:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Coming here from RSN. Verbal states it perfectly, and all I can do is repeat: The NSF is clearly a reliable source for such claims, and their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus unless a significant number of other scientific organisations disagree. THF (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the NSF is a reliable source on this. The distinction between pseudoscientific beliefs and mystical beliefs is not hard and fast--a belief in the supernatural, in the absence of a scientific framework and standards to weigh evidence, is both. Ghosts are just one example. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll stick my oar in here to say I'm not convinced by arguments above that equate belief in ghosts to belief in God as a black and white proposition. Admittedly, it could be argued (by us) that a belief can't be a science, and therefore can't be a psuedoscience, yet the NSF report very clearly characterizes belief in ghosts and haunted houses as "pseudoscientific" so that's what I feel the article should reflect. I also think the NSF report is a very reliable source for scientific consensus as it applies to pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the NSF is a reliable source regarding concepts presented as science, in terms of whether they actually represent science or pseudoscience. While the sentence quoted above, taken out of context, raises questions about whether the present issue (of ghosts as psuedoscience) is being given undue weight for that source, a more complete reading of the cited text and the prior versions (e.g. 2002) make it clear that each of the claims (including belief in haunted houses and ghosts) is considered pseudoscientific. The text repeatedly refers to these claims as pseudoscientific. -- Scray (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The text of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3 is quite clear that it considers belief in ghosts to be one of the ten definitive pseudoscientific beliefs, and the NSF is a reliable source for this purpose (identifying what is a pseudoscience).

• To answer Cosmic Latte's goose argument, the equivalent statement would not mean that all geese live on farms, but it would mean that a goose is a farm animal, even if one happened to be in a zoo, the same way that man is a two legged animal, even if some men happen to have lost one or both of their legs. That does not make someone who believes in ghosts a pseudoscientist, but that's just because people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs are no more pseudoscientists than people who hold scientific beliefs are necessarily scientists; they can be astronauts or hairdressers. But a belief in ghosts is clearly considered a pseudoscientific belief.
• In response to DBachmann's comment about ability versus mechanisms, that is also not correct. There can absolutely be a scientific consensus that some things are not achievable by any mechanisms, for example travel faster than the speed of light. Communication with the dead seems to be one of these.
• Finally, in response to Lugwigs2, please note that belief in God is not mentioned in that document, so bringing it up is an irrelevant distraction to this specific question. The concept of God is much more complex than belief in ghosts; for one thing, most religious systems claim to be beyond not only measurement but even logic, so it's not clear that it's theoretically falsifiable. --GRuban (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• To that last point (about God) I think it's important to note that NSF specifically addresses beliefs presented as science. Any source presenting evidence for God as science would fall within the domain of the NSF and other reputable scientific bodies. -- Scray (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. That's why normal religious and metaphysical beliefs don't qualify for inclusion in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but some of their applications do. For example, the subsection about Religious and spiritual beliefs includes Scientology's Dianetics, and Fundamentalist Christianity's Flood geology, and should also include Christian Science. Other beliefs that are included elsewhere in the List are Vitalism, chiropractic's Vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, and Applied kinesiology, as well as TCM's Meridian (Chinese medicine) and acupuncture points. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The NSF report is unequivocally reliable for stating that belief in ghosts falls under the rubric of pseudoscience. Likewise, absent any report of similar reliability, this conclusion should be presented as scientific consensus; period; full stop. At the risk of furthering the very digression I would like to avoid - Brangifer, part of the above is quite a bit off topic, and even as an atheist I feel the urge to argue it (not strongly enough to actually do so, mind you, just the urge). - 2/0 (cont.) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I put a hat on it. ;-) If you want to discuss it, you're welcome on my talk page. It's an interesting subject. I know several scientists of that type. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• .... and have removed it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• no it isn't? A discussion isn't just about repeating your point as if it somehow became better the more you repeated it. It is also about trying to grasp what the other side is saying. The entire point is that ghosts by definition are not part of "the physical, testable universe" as Brangifer puts it. I would really deplore it if this now degenerated into your average online debate on naive concepts of atheism vs theism. As Scray acutely observes, the NFS specifically addresses "beliefs presented as science". When they say "belief in ghosts" under a heading of "pseudoscience", they implicitly mean "belief in ghosts presented as science". The NFS is not to blame if some people attach too much weight on a literal exegesis of their report. Belief in ghosts presented as science is pseudoscience (that's what the NFS states as a matter of course, and what I propose is a very obvious and undisputed point). Belief in ghosts as long as it is not presented as science cannot be pseudoscience, as the NFS is very well aware, does imply in its definition of pseudoscience, and expects its readers to realize as a matter of course.

if people insist on constructing a definition of "pseudoscience" based on the casual wording on the NFS report that flies in the face of the very definition of pseudoscience presented in the same report, this is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and will require excellent, published, peer-reviewed references addressing the definition of pseudoscience directly. So much time can be wasted on Misplaced Pages because some editors think they can present an isolated soundbite and then play at WP:IDHT. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, dab. We're not allowed to do our own analysis of sources and decide they're self-contradictory. That's called Misplaced Pages:Original research. We have to wait for another reliable source to say that. By the way, the NSF report is an excellent, etc., reference addressing the definition of pseudoscience directly; that's exactly what we've all been asked here to weigh in on.--GRuban (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by dab's invocation of WP:REDFLAG. My reading of that guideline suggests that fringe theories require exceptional evidence. Refutation of pseudoscience by the NSF is certainly not a fringe theory; on the other hand, the existence of ghosts is. Thus, I'm not sure whether this guideline is being used to support the NSF's characterization (which would be appropriate) or to refute it. Similarly, the invocation of WP:IDHT seems to be a non-sequitur, since I see no evidence for a consensus against the point 2/0 is making. -- Scray (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, pardon my jumping in, but if we're going to analyze the sources, it's better (I would think) that we do it on the talk page than that we do it in the article. The article seems to want to assume something like the following: A) The NSF includes a belief in ghosts in a list of surveyed beliefs. B) The NSF, in passing, refers to this list as a group of "pseudoscientific beliefs". C) The NSF may be taken as a valid representative of scientific consensus. Therefore, D) The scientific consensus is that a belief in ghosts is pseudoscientific. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that A, B, C, and even D are true. The problem is that, by the time we come to D, we've done too much work. More precisely, we have made "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source", and we therefore have have violated a key part of WP:PSTS. Of course the NSF is a reliable source. We should be able to hold it in high enough esteem to suppose that, if the NSF wanted to say, "The scientific consensus is that a belief in ghosts is pseudoscientific", then the NSF would come right out and say this. But that's not what they said in the source provided. What they "said" about ghosts is fragmentary: Ghosts show up in a list, and the list shows up in discussion. If dab's argument is "original research", it is because he has taken the extra effort to show that the article's own original research--in addition merely to being original research--is flawed, insofar as the article has put together a dubious semantic puzzle from the pieces it has cut out of the NSF source. The dubiousness, he says, is in inferring that the NSF intended a simple equation--an axiomatic subject complement--of ghost-belief to pseudoscience. My A-D-C-D argument about WP:PSTS acquires the phrase, "in passing" from the arguments that dab and Ludwigs2 have set forth. But whether or not that phrase is warranted, the basic PSTS problem remains. If the scientific consensus is indeed that any belief--even a religiously based belief or a private conviction following some personal experience--in ghosts is pseudoscience, then surely somebody would have said so in a reliable, secondary source. As it stands, even the primary source doesn't explicitly go this far (i.e., as far as A, B, C, therefore D). Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The splitting into parts A-D is a straw man. That the NSF is a reliable source is a criterion for using the source, not part of the analysis of the source. It is clear from that source that the NSF includes beliefs in ghosts/haunting as pseudoscientific. This is not WP:OR. -- Scray (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• That the NSF is a reliable source is implicit in its mere inclusion in the article. The OR (subtle as it may be) lies in the article's invocation of "scientific consensus". While there may be nothing wrong with the facts of this invocation, there is something disproportionate in the emphasis. The source, while incidentally reflective of scientific consensus, is not directly about that consensus--it's about popular beliefs, which (according to the source) contrast with other popular beliefs (i.e., popular respect for science contrasts with popular acceptance of pseudoscience). The NSF is not trying to set forth its own view (i.e., the scientific consensus) about what qualifies as pseudoscience; it's suggesting that the public has views that contrast with the public's other views. Speaking of contrast, if we interpret the source as making a blanket classification of ghost-belief as pseudoscience, then we force the source to contradict itself. The source states, "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". The source also refers to "pseudoscientific beliefs" held by the public. However, if we read "pseudoscientific beliefs" as having the same definitional force as the quote in the preceding sentence, then we pit one definition against another. The average believer in ghosts does not present his beliefs as science (does he?). A child who is afraid of ghosts does not attempt to justify his fear by scientific methods that he has yet to learn about! The source defines pseudoscience, and then refers to "pseudoscientific beliefs" that do not meet their own definition of pseudoscience, because these beliefs are not presented as science. I can think of only one reasonable explanation for the paradox: The NSF means different things by "pseudoscience" and "pseudoscientific beliefs". By the former, it means "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility". The latter, however, has to be shorthand for something like, "beliefs in claims that have been presented so that that they appear to be scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility". The article is putting into scientists' mouths some fairly bold words that not only treat this shorthand as though it were longhand for something else, but which also contradict the longhand definition that the scientists already provide. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest something like the following as a sort of compromise, though:

• Current version: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers beliefs in an ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as in ghosts and spirits more generally, to be pseudoscientific."

• Suggested alternative: "The National Science Foundation considers beliefs in an ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as in ghosts and spirits more generally, to be consistent with pseudoscientific conclusions, and to contrast with the public's respect for scientific methods."

How about something like that? Besides, it might even allow a scientific method wikilink to sneak itself in. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The current version is far superior from an encyclopaedic viewpoint, gives the correct view of the scientific community, and is supported by the sources. Verbal chat 17:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• But, the alternative version is a horse's leg--and, in the preceding discussion, I've attempted to say why. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Verbal here. Of the two options listed above, the one labeled "Current version" is superior. The second engages in WP:WEASEL words so that it's more wordy with less said in the process. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Which words are the weasel words? WP:WEASEL cautions against excessively vague phrasing, not against lengthy albeit meticulously accurate prose. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to point out that this RfC is badly formed, for the following reasons:

1. no one in the discussion (that I've seen) disagrees that the NSF is a reliable source for the given statement, which is a matter that is directly attributable.
2. no one in the discussion disagrees that the NSF is (in general) a good source for representing the scientific community.

The actual dispute point is over whether this NSF citation should be taken as a general statement that indicates the scientific community opposes pseudoscientific research (which everyone agrees with), or whether it should be extended to suggest that the NSF is actively engaged in efforts to refute or debunk paranormal beliefs broadly put (something which is not suggested by any scholarly sources). With that in mind I am closing this RfC as resolved, and ask that brangifer reopen the RfC on the substantive question. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reopened the RfC, I don't think you should unilaterally decide it's the wrong question when we all seem to think it's fine. Verbal chat 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Ludwigs2, your summation is itself somewhat flawed and uses straw man arguments. You fail to state in your summary that you and two other editors all thought that the NSF was just plain wrong, and that I was simply following the source, rather than engaging in such OR. You may have had something else in mind, but the arguments used by yourself, dab, and Cosmic Latte were dissing the NSF for its clear statement, and engaging in personal speculation and OR of why it was wrong, all heading towards removing it from the article. If that had ever happened I can't know, but it looked that way to me. Since such an important matter needed wider community input, I opened this RfC, which is supposed to do exactly that. We now have a number of previously uninvolved editors who accept that the NSF is a reliable source for such a statement, that it summarizes the scientific consensus, and that their statement is accurate. No one has claimed that they engage in "research". They don't have to. That's a straw man. They know of paranormal research, but they also understand the scientific method better than advocates and researchers of the paranormal, and thus they can state that such beliefs are pseudoscientific in nature. The RfC remains open for more comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• That deletion of this RfC has had a very disruptive effect, in that it triggered the bot to remove it from the three RfC watchlists on which it was listed. It will get relisted, but there can go many hours before that happens, during which time more input will be delayed. Unfortunately (but for good reason) it's not possible to revert those bot deletions. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like the bot restored it pretty fast, so not much disruption was caused by a long delay. "Good bot! Here's a doggy biscuit." -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

look, if you guys want to have an RfC on the issue, feel free - I will myself agree with both of the points raised in the RfC question, as will almost everyone else. and then I will turn around and make exactly the arguments I made prior to the RfC about why the cite cannot be used in the way it's being used. the RfC does nothing to resolve that issue, and merely creates an opportunity for a whole lot of useless, off-topic discussion of broader pseudoscience issues.

I thought I was helping you guys focus on the correct issue, but by all means if you want the opportunity to vent about side issues, please continue. I will wait until this particular exercise in distraction and futility is over, and then I will go back to the original issue.

I recommend to all participants in this RfC to please keep focussed on the actual issues raised by the RfC, and not let it stray into side disputes. that way the RfC can be finished fairly quickly. no one really disagrees with the points raised anyway. --Ludwigs2 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of getting bogged down by dwelling on what seems like your version of IDHT (actually stated more like "I won't hear that and will ignore it..."), I'll focus on something you say that might help us make progress. (It wouldn't be very constructive if you choose to ignore this RfC and return to old errors.) Above you mention "...why the cite cannot be used in the way it's being used." Please elaborate. You didn't say why, but you have said it before, and none of the participants here have considered it a valid argument or worthy of comment. Try to rephrase it here in such a manner that they can respond to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I did elaborate, quite extensively, in the section immediately preceding the RfC. in that section, I made it clear that (1) The NSF did in fact say what you say it said (agreeing with point 1 of this RfC), and (2) the NSF is clearly a well-renowned source for scientific opinion (agreeing at least partly with point 2 of this RfC). The problem on this article is that the citation comes from what must be treated as a primary source, and that source is a statistical work on public attitudes towards paranormal beliefs (which is one section of a larger work about the status of science as a whole). aside from the one or two or three comments in this section, I do not think there any other mentions of pseudoscience in the primary source document, there is certainly no indication that the use of the terminology is anything more than an off-handed colloquialism, and there are no secondary sources whatsoever which indicate that the NSF is actively engaged in or concerned about paranormal 'beliefs'. Their main concern (which I think could be sourced extensively) is in combatting clear pseudoscience - claims that masquerade themselves as scientific research without proper testing procedures. As I mentioned above, The scientific community in the creationism debate restricted themselves to refuting the pseudoscientific claims of creationism; they did not extend the debate to attempts to debunk Christian beliefs as a whole. If you want to use the NSF quote on this article (which I have no objection to) it can only be used to counter actual efforts at pseudoscience; trying to extend it beyond that starts to violate wp:SYN. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• And that happens to violate OR. We can't close the RfC with you holding this attitude. If you can convince the community that there really is a SYNTH issue here, then try starting another RfC on that subject, but note that doing so might be considered stonewalling and further disruption. I guess it depends on how you word it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Response to the request for comment, NSF is a reliable source. It is very obvious, there is consensus, why are editors arguing about it? Please close this RfC, it is resolved. MiRroar (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• NSF is a reliable source and reflects the scientific consensus in the United States. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• yeesh... can someone please close this RfC as resolved? I'd do it myself, but it seems that every time I try to do anything sensible on this article a number of editors start screaming and kicking like I took their favorite toy away. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Your comments above (02:36, 1 March 2010) indicate that you have no intention of agreeing with the results of this RfC and will resume where you left off. The RfC can hardly be closed with such a threat hanging over the article. This RfC was supposed to result in less disruption and stonewalling, not IDHT and a return to the previous state of affairs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• At the risk of adding another redundant comment, I think the consensus here is very clear. NSF are a reputable source on the topic of what fields of study are and are not science. It's very clear that NSF's opinion is that ghosts and ghost-hunting is a topic of pseudoscientific enquiry, and not scientific inquiry. I agree with User:BullRangifer. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OR and Failed verification tags added to lead

I have tagged part of User:Dbachmann's edit with tags:

• Beginning with 19th-century spiritism, various attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the existence of ghosts through scientific methods, but such efforts are generally held to be pseudoscientific.

I don't find anything even close to any of that in the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To make it clear which elements are OR, there is nothing about "various attempts...through scientific methods", or about "such efforts" in that source. That subject isn't mentioned at all. That's pure OR, and is actually another subject that must use other sources as backing. Both Dbachmannn and Ludwigs2 have been pushing this OR interpretation of that source for too long. It is a legitimate subject, but it isn't mentioned in the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To make it doubly clear, I have argued extensively above that this citation does not support any claims about the NSF's attitudes towards public beliefs, and trying to make it do violates wp:Syn. please leave my tags on the quote until you are willing to discuss the point that I have raise three times now. ignoring me won't make the point go away. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting in a BRD is edit warring. Self-revert immediately and stick to discussion. No one has been ignoring you. They just haven't been agreeing with you. The consensus in the RfC is totally against you. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

you're kidding, right? BRD isn't even a guideline. When you respond to my explanation of why this quote can't be used this way, we can discuss the matter. till then - have a nice day. --Ludwigs2 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. You have been warned, warned, and warned about edit warring before, but now you're ignoring those warnings again, again, and again. I previously (at your edit war at alternative medicine) tried to get you to promise to respect BRD in the future, but you refused to do so. You're a combative editor who fails to show any respect for our edit warring policies, guidelines, and the repeated advice and warnings you received against edit warring. Whether BRD is a guideline or not is irrelevant. It is still the only thing we have that defines the line between edit warring and not edit warring. You have crossed that line again and you have been reported. Even if what I have written here had no other merit, you are failing to show a collaborative spirit.

As to discussing it, the whole RfC discussed it! You are ignoring it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC (as I said explicitly several times above) was not about the fitness of the use of this quote in the article. I voted in favor of your position on the RfC, for heaven's sake, because you constructed the RfC to ask about something trivially true. Don't blame me if you RfC'd the wrong issue. If you would like to have another RfC about whether this citation can be used in the article in the way you're using it, feel free. If you would like to discuss the issue rather than fly off on rants about my behavior, I'm good with that as well. till then, I will keep the usage tagged as inappropriate use of a citation and OR. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then let's make sure we're on the same page. Here's the statement, including your tags:

• The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs.

What have I included that wasn't part of what you agreed to in the RfC? Do they or do they not consider those beliefs to be pseudoscientific? Please point out the exact wordings that you believe are wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

for the fourth time: the problem is not with what the quote literally says; the problem is that this is a minor quote from a small section of a primary source on a different topic that has no supporting secondary sources, and yet you are treating it as though this seemingly off-hand comment reflects an actual programme or policy of the NSF. As I said, even a casual analysis of secondary sources shows that the NSF and the scientific community at large do not have a practice of questioning people's beliefs; at best, they question efforts to elevate paranormal beliefs to matters of scientific fact. as I said above, even in the creationism debate scientists were careful not to call Christian beliefs into question, just the pseudoscientific claims being made by creationists. Using the quote as you do above is en claire synthesis from a primary source. so:

• are you suggesting this document isn't a primary source?
• are you suggesting this document is, as a whole, primarily about pseudoscience (or even carries pseudoscience as a major theme)?
• are you suggesting that there are (as yet unrevealed) secondary sources that support your claim that the NSF is engaged in a programme against non-scientific beliefs?

This seems to be blue-letter core policy, BR, but I await whatever argument you want to make. --Ludwigs2 06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and failure to abide by BRD

I see that Ludwigs2 has violated BRD by restoring a revert of a clear WP:POINT violation, even though the explanation was clear in the edit summary. The matter is clearly explained above. He is yet again ignoring the clear consensus in the RfC. The sourced statement is exactly what the RfC has supported. Self-revert and "Discuss" or you'll get reported. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post above - that fact that you type faster than me does not constitute a violation of BRD, and the fact that you have consistently failed to respond to explanations is not an excuse for you to continue pushing for insupportable material.--Ludwigs2 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you reverted a Revert in the BRD cycle, rather than Discuss, is a clear violation. Talk about Deja vu! Period. Self-revert and continue to discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim by the National Science Foundation is blatantly false. A belief in ghosts, goblins, spirits, spectres, fairies, elves, pixies, and so on is not a pseudo-scientific belief.

A mere belief is either scientific or unscientific. A mere belief cannot be pseudo-scientific. Only a process or a procedure can be pseudo-scientific.

A process or a procedure is pseudo-scientific if it appears to have some of the attributes of a scientific endeavor but does not satisfy the rigors of that endeavor. The reason for pseudo-scientific processes or procedures is always to bamboozle or hornswoggle someone.

The naked belief in some absurdity is not an attempt to appear scientific. People believed in ghosts for tens of thousands of years before they had any notion of science. Someone's belief in ghosts is not by itself bamboozling or hornswoggling anyone. Accordingly, the issues of pseudo-science do not arise in relation to a belief. To reiterate, a mere belief cannot be pseudo-scientific.

Accordingly, the expression used by the National Science Foundation is inappropriate. The citation should not be used. PYRRHON  talk   07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for displaying your blatant OR in contravention of the clear consensus in the RfC above. I'll take the NSF over your opinions anyday. We follow the sources, not the opinions of editors who don't like what the NSF says. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon8 seems to be arguing that ghost-belief is not pseudoscientific because some ghost believers do not even make a pretence of of appearing to be scientific. Pyrrhon8 seems to be missing the obvious point that many people actually do make this claim. Simply observe any 'ghost-hunter' type program and observe the self-proclaimed ghost-scientists attempt to deploy all manner of scientific-looking apparatus which can purportedly detect ghosts. This is very clearly a pseudofscientific belief. Let me draw an analgoy - creationism is pseudoscience regardless of whether you believe it on faith or because you believe what Dr. Dino told you.

If we were to apply Pyrrhon8's standard of pseudoscience then almost no field would qualify since pretty much any junk-field (e.g. aromatherapy, acupuncture, homoeopathy) could also be excluded from the defintition. Pyrrhon8 is effectivly trying to define the word pseudoscience away. I do not feel that Misplaced Pages is the right forum for this act of lexical recalibration. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The context of the NSF statements about pseudoscience, IOW the whole page, would seem to indicate that they consider any false belief arrived at through a lack of understanding of the scientific method as a pseudoscientific belief. They are basically extending the simplistic definition we often use so that it includes the very basis for pseudoscientific beliefs, which is a failure to understand the scientific method. They are using a more inclusive definition, rather than a superficial one. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Terminology is important in this connection. While it is proper to label anyone who holds false beliefs, and then engages in scientific research in attempts to promote and prove those beliefs, as a pseudoscientist, it would not be proper to label ordinary, naive believers as such. They are simply people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs. If they have been presented with the evidence against their belief and persist in it, then they become true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

still waiting for you to respond to my points above. it's particularly disheartening that you would continue using this argument without first addressing the fact that I've disputed (well, pretty much refuted) it. You are close to crossing the line into IDHT territory. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "fourth time" comment? Total BS based on misunderstandings of wikipolicies, and therefore unworthy of reply. I accept the RfC's conclusions and you don't. That's about it. Right before your comment I had requested:

• What have I included that wasn't part of what you agreed to in the RfC? Do they or do they not consider those beliefs to be pseudoscientific? Please point out the exact wordings that you believe are wrong.

Instead of answering my questions, you evaded and made a long comment based on misunderstandings of wikipolicies. You should have answered my questions. Please do so now. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, so now you are truly engaged in wp:IDHT - you can't even address my point in a sensible fashion. I ANSWERED your question, directly and explicitly. I TOLD you what the problem with using the cite in this way was, several other editors have AGREED and told you the same thing. you can can refuse to acknowledge the point until the cows come home, and you can continue arguing inconsequential points that no one disagrees with - it's your life, and I really don't care. But sticking your head in the sand and bleating like a sheep (pardon the mixed metaphor) doesn't make you correct; it just leaves your nether parts sticking out in the cold. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding-Public Knowledge About S&T", Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, National Science Board, National Science Foundation
2. ^ Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Belief in Pseudoscience. They have included them in a list of ten items:

   From Note 29: " Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
• C-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles
• C-Class Occult articles
• High-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• C-Class Literature articles
• Mid-importance Literature articles
• C-Class horror articles
• Unknown-importance horror articles
• WikiProject Horror articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment