Talk:Parapsychology

Psychokinesis

The position of brackets in the opening paragraph seems to imply that psychokinesis is a form of extrasensory perception, but psychokinesis is not actually a form of extrasensory perception. Rollo August (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability of claims in first paragraph

Hi there

The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article asserts that the majority of mainstream scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience, both for reasons of lack of empirical evidence and for a priori reasons. However, as far as I can tell, the 8 sources cited to support this sentence do not refer to any empirical research which actually shows that this is the view of the majority of mainstream scientists. I was able to access and check most of the 8 sources. In addition to this, only one of the sources, the first one, argues that ‘the data are irrelevant’ and that parapsychological claims should be rejected on a priori grounds.

Whilst I don’t doubt that most scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience, I am not sure that most of them would reject parapsychology on a priori grounds and consider that the data are irrelevant. In any case, whether most scientists do hold either of these views is not verifiable from the sources cited. So, I suggest this sentence be modified, deleted, or updated with verifiable sources that support the assertions made. Thanks. Gadoj (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gadom appears to have already decided on an answer to the question asked above.[1][2][3][4] WP:BRD] and WP:TALKDONTREVERT apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but that was a different issue (I'm not talking about reverting or adding a new sentence, but the accuracy of the existing sentence). Gadoj (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD paragraph is intended to be a summary of cited material contained in the body of the article, so inline citations aren't strictly necessary there. Have you looked at the rest of the article? And I noticed you have been trying to insert material cited to Journal of Scientific Exploration. Wikipedia doesn't consider that a reliable or independent source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the rest of the article refers to research indicating that the majority of scientists consider that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, based on lack of empirical evidence and/or for apriori reasons. As the lead paragraph is intended to be a summary of cited material contained in the body of the article, as you say, this is even more reason for the opening paragraph to be amended.To reiterate, the issue here is about verifying what the views of the majority of scientists are regarding parapsychology, not parapsychological claims themselves. Issues to do with the Journal of Scientific Exploration are also not relevant to this specific issue. Gadoj (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I propose changing the last sentence of the first paragraph by replacing 'a vast majority of mainstream scientists' with 'many scientists'. It can be changed again if sources are cited which verify the claims made. Are there any comments on this proposal? Gadoj (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

[5] <—-The subject has been discussed innumerable times here, with the present text as the end result. -LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response but, again, the issue being discussed here is not whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The issue is citation of empirical research which verifies the assertion that the vast majority of scientists consider it a psedoscience, and do so on both empirical and a priori grounds (personally, I think is is possible that most scientists would reject the proposition that the 'data are irrelevant', as Reber and Alcock attest). If this issue was already discussed and resolved, then the sources which verify the sentence in question need to be updated to reflect this. Gadoj (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of Wikipedia editors strongly supports the current wording and not a single person has expressed agreement with your suggested changes. I doubt that you will find anyone who surveyed scientists on this exact question, but just try to find any legitimate scientist who considers parapsychology to be anything other than pseudoscience. Maybe historically, when the very first experiments were being performed, but the complete lack of any experimental evidence that any of it exists pretty much convinced everyone who has looked into this.

Here is some advice for you: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll consider a RfC or 3O. But before I do that, are there any objections if the sentence is amended to:

"It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists because of a lack of replicable empirical evidence, and because many scientists consider that parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't." ? Gadoj (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You want to change...

...[rejected by] scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims [cannot by true]

...to...

[rejected by] scientists because of a lack of replicable empirical evidence, and because many scientists consider that parapsychological claims [cannot by true]

This, in the context of your edit warring,[6][7] convinces me that you are pushing the fringe POV that there are legitimate scientists who believe that parapsychological claims might be true. Other than a few kooks who are laughed at by real scientists, no such scientists exist. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

My single reversion (which does not qualify as edit warring) happened because my original edit was reversed without any consultation or explanation being provided as to why. Admittedly, that was also my first edit on Wikipedia and I had not investigated all these processes for obtaining consensus. The point I am trying to make is that no evidence has been provided that the majority of scientists believe the data are irrelevant in relation to parapsychological claims and they they can be rejected on a prirori grounds.

In any case, all I need to know before proceeding to RfC is whether or not anyone objects to the proposed edit. RfC will make a decision based on whether the sources cited support the claims made in the sentence. Gadoj (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You’ve been here a couple days and made 15 or so edits and you’re filing an RfC? Is this your first user account? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your question, but yes this is my first user account. I found out about RfC through the advice Guy Macon provided above. Gadoj (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about what just happened. Alas, we get a lot of users who get banned from Wikipedia and come back with new identities. We need to WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem.Gadoj (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Something to remember is that since it's pseudoscience, it's even a given by WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL that we don't even need to WP:ATTRIBUTE to many/some scientists that it's considered untenable. Thus "rejected by scientists" is acceptable. Alternatives would be: "is considered to be pseudoscience and there is no evidence to support its claims and tenets", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"It is considered to be pseudoscience and is rejected by most scientists" would be acceptable to me (as at least it doesn't legitimize Reber and Alcock's position that the data are irrelevant). If Reber and Alcok's position is considered worthy of inclusion in the article by editors, perhaps another section could be added for it, rather than condensing their argument into half a sentence in the opening paragraph.Gadoj (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that we need to remember that scientists tend to laugh at paranormal nonsense, rather than investigate it. It's kinda difficult to fund investigating nonsense, and the investigation itself would be a waste of time. Scientists tend to look at the probable, rather than the batshit insane. I do not support the watering down of the lead in this manner, we must follow policy and call this spade wot itis. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 18:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying could be true, but it should be verifiable with a reliable source b4 being included in an article.

Interestingly, this reliable source [8], whilst not referring to the beliefs of professional scientists per se, concludes that a better understanding of science 'could be protective against pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs, but not against conspiracy ideation' (unfortunately the full article is behind a pay wall). Gadoj (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." Source: --WP:PARITY

• "it is reasonable to demand that the parapsychologists produce consistently significant findings from experiments that are methodologically adequate before their claims are taken seriously." --Psi experiments: Do the best parapsychological experiments justify the claims for psi?
• "Although parapsychology has been studying paranormal phenomena for over 130 years, currently it exists mainly at the fringes of scientific institutions. Mainstream science largely ignores psi, e.g. physics textbooks make no mention of the possibility that mental events might influence physical objects at a distance and science funding agencies generally will not financially support parapsychology research. Naturally parapsychologists object to this state of affairs..." --Claims about the "taboo" status of parapsychology lack substance
• "If any person claiming to have paranormal ability did in fact poses it, he, or she, would easily be able to claim the James Randi Education Foundation's million dollar challenge offering a prize US$1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Anyone possessing a genuine paranormal ability should easily be able to reach an agreement on the test criteria with James Randi (aka "The Amazing Randi"). No one was able to claim the award, so no one posses any provable paranormal ability. Period. " --The Best Proof that Paranormal Phenomena do not Exist
• "The big problem with parapsychology as a field is that science is all of a piece. Thus, physics is consistent with chemistry, biology and so on... Basic physics leaves parapsychology as a field to be completely impossible. All matter [is made] of quarks and leptons; everything else they do is emergent properties of the behaviour of quarks and leptons. And the quarks and leptons interact through the four forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. Thus either it's one of the four known forces or it's a new force, and any new force with range over 1 millimetre must be at most a billionth the strength of gravity or it will have been captured in experiments already done. So either it's electromagnetism, gravity or something weaker than gravity. This leaves no force that could possibly account for telekinesis, for example. Telepathy would require a new force much weaker than gravity that is not subject to the inverse square law, and also a detector in the brain evolved to use it for signaling. Precognition, the receipt of information transmitted back in time, would violate quantum field theory. What this means is that these ideas have pretty much no chance of being right even before we test them directly." --Rational Wiki: Parapsychology
• "From the standpoint of physics there seems to be a major problem with the assumption and alleged discovery by some parapsychologists that spatial distance is irrelevant to psi. Three of the four known forces in nature weaken with distance. The skeptic would rather believe that ESP doesn’t exist than that there is some very strong and powerful force that is undetectable even though we’re able to detect what must be a much weaker force, gravity, without any trouble at all." --The Skeptic's Dictionary: Parapsychology

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, there is one procedural objection to a RFC: a local RFC cannot trump a WP:AE decision. This article is already under discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science. So, even if a RFC would be successful, it cannot trump that binding for all Wikipedians this is an article about pseudoscience or fringe science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That would only be an issue if Gadoj posted an RfC asking whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience or asking whether parapsychology is fringe science. I don't see any problem with an RfC about their suggested changes described above. Gadoj appears to be following the advice I gave at WP:1AM. I would ask everyone reading this to please take another look at that page, and if any of my advice is bad, inaccurate, or just needs tweaking, please start a discussion on the essay's talk page so I can fix the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. Taking it into account, I propose changing the sentence from:

" It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't."

To:

"It is considered to be pseudoscience and is rejected by a vast majority of mainstream scientists."

Are there any objections to this? Gadoj (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see your reasons why you think this change should be made before deciding. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reasons:

1. I think Reber and Alcock's [9] argument that the data are irrelevant for parapsychological claims, that they cannot possibly be true, and that such claims can be rejected on purely philosophical grounds is ridiculous. Skeptics such as Paul Kurtz [10] would agree with me on this point: "He promoted what he called "Skepticism of the Third Kind," in which skeptics actively investigate claims of the paranormal, rather than just question them. He saw this type of skepticism as distinct from the "first kind" of extreme philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility that anything can be known, as well as the "second kind" of skepticism, which accepts that knowledge of the real world is possible but is still largely a philosophical exercise."

2. Reber and Alcock do not claim that the vast majority of scientists agree with their argument.

3. No sources are provided which verify the claim that the vast majority of scientists agree with their argument.

4. If Reber and Alcock's argument is accepted then the rest of article lacks coherence (why discuss data if it is not relevant?).

5. The WP:LEAD "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Reber and Alcock's argument is not discussed in the rest of the article, so referring to it in the opening paragraph means that the lead section is not summarising the most important contents of the article. Gadoj (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. One compelling reason would be enough to get me to support the change, so let me go through what to me are the best first.

#5 by itself is convincing. Shorter leads are better, and moving things from the lead when the body covers them is often a good idea. Based upon argument #5 alone, I am going to support Gadoj's proposed change unless someone comes up with a good reason why I shouldn't.

#4 is weaker. Many Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience topics discuss data and arguments that someone thinks supports pseudoscience.

#2 and #3 are WP:PARITY arguments. Find me a source which verifies the claim that the vast majority of scientists think that the moon isn't made of green cheese, that pigs can't fly, or that vampires have no reflection. While it is absolutely true that the vast majority of scientists agree on these things, only a tiny minority have addressed those specific questions -- or parapsychology -- in print.

#1 is completely wrong and I completely reject it. We don't say that parapsychology cannot possibly be true on purely philosophical grounds. We say that parapsychology cannot possibly be true because it violates what we do know to be true. It really is the case that if parapsychology is true that all of physics, chemistry, optics, probability, and another dozen scientific fields are completely false. Even such mundane tasks as designing Las Vegas games where on the average the house comes out ahead or designing a pacemaker that doesn't allow someone to kill the patient by thinking about it become impossible if parapsychology is true.

But again, argument #5 is good enough for me and I only need one good reason. Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, respectable scientific journals don't publish paranormal research, which is precisely why parapsychologists complain they're like Galileo facing Inquisition. See e.g. [11]: parapsychologists as martyred by peer-review. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not published in respectable journals is not relevant, according to the reasoning in the lead paragraph. A direct quote from the Reber and Alcock article [12]: "We did not examine the data for psi, to the consternation of the parapsychologist who was one of the reviewers. Our reason was simple: the data are irrelevant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadoj (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

True, there are no reputable publications, so it's garbage in, garbage out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is a consensus, so I will edit the sentence as per the above (it can always be reversed if new issues come up). Thanks all. Gadoj (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Organized misinformation campaign

On July 8th, 2021, the Society for Psychical Research tweeted, "Parapsychology's battle for the Internet". The tweet had this image attached, titled "Parapsychology's battle for the Internet: A Critical Insight into the Wiki Problem".

There is a section titled "Wikipedia", which states that it's a "particular problem for parapsychology" and claims that its editors are "hostile to parapsychology."

The next section titled "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" criticizes Susan Gerbic, and her work and her group's work on Wikipedia.

The next three sections are titled "Professional Skeptics", "Bias is Rampant", and "Resistance is Impossible!", and are self-describing.

Then there is the "What Can Be Done?" section, which encourages organized misinformation campaigns online, including on Wikipedia. The final bullet point in this section says "Whenever possible, [people sympathetic to parapsychology] should challenge the anonymity of Wikipedia editors and urge them to permit the creation of more balanced views."