Talk:Paranormal

Parachute and paranormal trivia section

I was strongly tempted to remove this, since:

a) it lacks a citation,

b) it is non-notable in the context of the article and

c) a Google search found nothing to back up this claim.

Unless anyone objects or provides a reference, it will be removed quickly. It may even be someone's attempt at a joke.--Ianmacm 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editor added that awhile back and I didn't really have the heart to remove it, so I moved it to a trivia section (it was in the etymology section). I generally only tag and remove unsourced controversial stuff, obvious vandalism, or spam, and it didn't seem like the editor was posting it in bad faith. I don't think anyone would object to a removal though, because the editor only made that one edit. I say go for it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with List of paranormal subjects

I created a spin-off of the main paranormal page's "subjects" so that I can summarize the more notable ones in a more encyclopedic fashion. I don't really have the time to work on the List of paranormal subjects page as I'm focusing on the main page. It needs sources and descriptions, better intro, and so on. If anyone wants to tackle it, it'd be much appreciated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of James Randi

Wouldn't it be better to use his current Wikipedia biography image at [1] rather than the book cover, which is not a very good likeness?--Ianmacm 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That works too. Done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Link and Book Spam

This is an encyclopedia entry on a topic where there exists thousands of books and websites on the subject. A further reading section should include Wikipedia articles in the form of a "See Also" section, not a list of non-notable books. Given the amount of spam that creeps into this article, it doesn't need any sort of external links section, per WP:EL. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My family is not happy with our home..

We been haveing lots of bad luck inor lives sience we moved in to our condo home. Our love has been going down and we, can't find happiness everything we do is going wrong. Sometimes I feel like someone is watching us or walking around us everyday...pls help us what to do.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.223.20 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a service that conducts exorcisms. Sounds like you are in a haunted locale. Powerzilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you got a subprime option arm mortgage.....you don't need an exorcist, you need a re-fi! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"...pls help us what to do.." I can't help self. I think, there can be a solution for your problem.

Disobedient Angels:http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010901/article_02.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020122a/article_01.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010901/article_01.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/archives/index.htm --81.214.110.130 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacremento, California

See http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50924&provider=top

Its like what happened in Chicago all over again, only there are pixes of the UFO this time. Local media has a UFO on the incl. video link. So far, only this link has been found. Powerzilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just what the hell is this thing?! Powerzilla (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Debunking" section unbalanced

I've flagged this section for balance / accuracy because it caricatures the position of skeptics. Key points to correct:

1) Skeptics and skeptical organization typically do not use nor endorse the term "debunking." Most prominent skeptics explicitly reject it. In the current state of the literature, it is a weasel word used almost exclusively by critics of organized skepticism.

2) Skeptics do not typically advocate a "debunking approach" that "presumes that what appears to be paranormal is necessarily a misinterpretation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual anomalous phenomenon." This is a straw man. Skeptics advocate scientific investigation. Whether they embody ideal this may be contested, but it is a PoV bias to claim skeptics advocate an approach different from what skeptics actually say.

3) "In contrast to the scientific position, which requires claims to be proven, the debunking approach actively seeks to disprove the claims." Here, the article makes a PoV argument: that skeptics advocate an unscientific position.

4) No mention is made here that paranormal hoaxing in fact occurs, nor that skeptics have sometimes identified such hoaxing. (see for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff)

5) No mention is made here that paranormal mistakes in fact occur. It's dishonest to imply that skeptics are grinding an ideological axe when they suggest that a given case could have an natural explanation, when researchers on all sides of this agree that mistakes of this type are common. For example, the pioneering pro-paranormal author of the alien abduction literature Budd Hopkins asserts, "It has long been obvious to serious UFO researchers that the majority of UFO reports — some say up to ninety percent — are misidentifications of conventional aircraft, stars, and other natural or artificial objects.”

6) Contrasting skepticism with "anomalistics" may be Marcello Truzzi's idiosyncratic PoV, but it is not a standard distinction. Nor is anomalistics notable in this context. (I just tested its prominence on google: "anomalistics" gets a mere 2,630 hits, as opposed to 127,000 for "CSICOP," 629,000 for "james randi," or 23,200,000 for "paranormal.") Loxton (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Verbal's edits address my concerns, but I wonder if they may have overshot the NPOV goal? I wouldn't want to suggest that nothing in parapsychology is "scientific investigation." I may re-title the section again as "skeptical investigation." The language here is all contested, but I submit that may be as close to a NPoV as we'll be able to find. It is certainly how skeptics characterize their own activity.Loxton (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps other scientific investigation, or move them closer together. Parapsychology does seem to have fallen away at the moment. The current version is a "neutralization" of what was there. It should probably be marked for a rewrite. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'd really be happier bumping this whole "approaches" section over to the parapsychology article. It seems like a pretty major digression from the topic of this one. The whole section could be collapsed here to a couple sentences, like "Several groups attempt to perform research and investigation into paranormal topics, including UFOlogists, cryptozoologists, skeptics, (etc)…"Loxton (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe start a new section here/there on that. It needs a rewrite if it stays or goes elsewhere, but I'm not too sure about the best way forward. Perhaps a "Paranormal investigation" article fork, which could perhaps subsume parapsychology, or keep both separate as parapsychology was once a big field (even Peter Venkman had a PhD in it). A new article would leave room and scope to more fully address your points above. However, a problem with investigating the paranormal is that once you've explained it, it's normal - and hence was never paranormal... so you've not explained "The Paranormal"! But right now I need to sleep... Good night, Verbal chat 22:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology is pretty big already, so moving there would probably be a mistake. Verbal chat 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the "skeptical investigation" vs "skeptical scientific investigation" question, I might mention for consideration that many skeptical investigations are not strictly "scientific," but historical (or involving other relatively rigorous academic areas). Randi's Million Dollar Challenge is explicitly scientific and experimental, but many skeptical investigations are (while informed by science) really historical sleuthing or investigative journalism. Loxton (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This structure is still very flawed. The article needs to stop mixing up the study of the paranormal itself with the study of belief. "Skeptical scientific investigation", while better than "Debunking", implies that it's some special kind of scientific investigation going on- what about a "scientific investigation" subsection that examines how the paranormal is treated in mainstream scientific journals? Also, alphabetical ordering is inappropriate for conveying the weight of different "approaches", since in the current structure, all the mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journals go under the fourth subsection, way under Charles Fort who gets the first subsection to himself.

A better ordering would be 1) the scientific mainstream, 2) parapsychology 3) anecdotal or subjective approach. In the article at present there's no mention of the very productive line of research in using cognitive bias (such as illusion of control) to explain paranormal belief (Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So", Vyse's "Believing in Magic", Sutherland's "Irrationality", Susan Blackmore's research etc.). To have nothing on this, and yet a whole subsection, sparsely referenced, on a "participant-observer approach which" is arguably not a research method at all but something people do for fun - note it's mention in the context of reality TV - is a real problem with this article. Are we going to say that riding a "ghost train" at a fairground is an approach to the investigation of ghosts? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with supernatural?

According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. I've posted the same question at Talk:Supernatural#Merge_with_paranormal?, which is where I would suggest posting any discussion on this question to avoid confusion. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1st Sentence

Currently:

"Paranormal is a general term that describes unusual experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation,[1]"

I am going to remove the word "obvious" because it implies that there are non-obvious scientific explanations for the paranormal, when, in fact there are no scientific explanations, and the citation does not use the word "obvious".Desoto10 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the word paranormal describes things that lack scientific evidence. For example there is evidence for dark matter, but it does not have a scientific explanation (I know of). Scientists say it could be this or that, maybe. Nevertheless it is not commonly called a paranormal phenomenon. – Lakefall (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference #4 from the NSF states, in no uncertain terms that this field is pseudoscience and causes harm. I know that there are some issues on Wikipedia about labeling something as pseudoscience, so I am asking for comment before editing this paragraph a bit. If this reference is reliable, then we should give a full account of the NSF opinion on paranormal.Desoto10 (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

arbcom redux

I have filed a request for amendment related to the Paranormal arbitration case. All interested parties are invited to respond. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC) – —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.202 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good site(s) for research?

Whats a good, objective site for researching haunted buildings/places? http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/ has a fair amount of material but some of it needs updating, and there's no contact information on the site so ther's no way to report updates. Thanks --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight inaccuracy pertaining to James Randi in this article

The article says that James Randi is a member of CSICOP. This should read that he was a member of CSICOP. He resigned from the organization after one of Uri Gellar's lawsuits. Anyway, I added the word was into the article to reflect the correct tense of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Cheers, Verbal chat 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal culture section?

I am trying to find a fitting home for the many lists that arguably litter parapsychology-related articles by referring to the exemplification of the phenomena under scientific question to certain TV shows, pop books, etc. This info, while always interesting, offers no particular informativeness within the articles under discussion; see, e.g., Precognition. Would a new section under this page be happy to house such information - but not using such terms as precognition to head them; instead using "fortune-telling, prophecy" as the heading, referring to cultural practices and beliefs from which the scientific researchers of such phenomena have earnestly tried to extract their enquiries (just as, for instance, psychologists prefer to more succinctly speak of "self-efficacy" rather than "confidence" or "valor"). Rodgarton 09:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)