Talk:Remote viewing

---

Citation

A citation is needed to validate the statement concerning the lack of scientific research on RV, especially since the statement is a definitive one. I did start to look myself, but am busy this morning so won't get any further. The citation that was in place pokes fun at the research but does not support the statement being made.(olive (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

• Paranormal believers love to demand proof of a negative in this way. Doesn't change the facts, though. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "facts" need to be referenced.

Wow! Comments went into the summary .... very weird .... lets try that again!...and the typos .... yikes!

There are three definitive staments made in this paragraph:

• ESP has not been accepted by the scientific community
• RV has not been accepted by the scientific community
• and... No remote veiwing demonstration has been successful in a controlled environment.

None of these statements are referenced.

By the way, I personnally have no opinion about remote viewing one way or the other, at least none that I care to air here. This a request for a neutral edit as per policy.(olive (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

This staement would be more compliant were it written less as a negative and more specifically to particular studies and references.(olive (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

No, really a much lower standard. All you have to do is have the statement be from a source- any notable source, like CSI will do. That's basic ATT. Guy- you're an admin. You're very experienced. Why don't you think we need to attribute? What does our mediator have to say? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really disagree Martin ... this staement in no way references what is being said in this part of the article ..... The reference has to at least reference what is being said... N0?

Right. But let's solve the problem of attribution, then make sure that the source actually says what the text does. One step at a time. There are still editors here inserting flat negative actually anti-sourced statements of fact, and JzG objects to Attrubution. Let's solve that first. See recent edit history. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's substantiated, however. Are there a good deal of attributions within ESP? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. What is it that's substantiated? No, at this point, Extrasensory perception has the same basic problems as this article, courtesy of some of the same editors. Perhaps we'll have to go there next [1] . In this case at ESP, the source does not make the statement- and it's probably actually anti-sourced, I'd have to look it up. However, the criticism part of lead of ESP is better as it sticks to statements which the sources uphold and which is not in dispute:

"The existence of ESP abilities is highly controversial, and no scientifically conclusive demonstrations of the existence of ESP have been given.[4] Parapsychology explores this possibility, and some experiments such as the ganzfeld have been suggested as good evidence of ESP,[5][6] however its existence is not generally accepted by the scientific establishment."

A lot of the problem with the way it is put here at RV is the tone: highly negative. We could say the same thing in a way more akin to that of ESP. See, when you say "has not been proved," the reader will hear what JzG says, and that is "there is no evidence." You could write it as "there is no objective evidence of RV, and science does not accept it," and the effect would not be any stronger. But that is simply not the case.

Further, and this also something that is fixed in ESP, some say there is an ammount proof which would usually generate acceptance in science. CSI paranormal debunker Richard Wiseman is among those. In science proof = good enough evidence, not truth. So, there is evidence, and whether there is proof is controversial.

"The existence of the ability of RV is highly controversial, and no scientifically conclusive demonstrations of its existence have been given. Parapsychology and government funded research has explored this possibility, and some experiments been suggested as good evidence of RV by government sponsored reviewers. Other reviewers remain skeptical, though unable to explain the results conclusively. However the existence of RV is not generally accepted by the scientific establishment, and further studies are suggested to resolve the debate."

If we wanted to really be accurate, that's what we'd say. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream science not accepting remote viewing isn't all that controversial, and is easily sourced [2] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good.... and the second source could be removed now since it wasn't a good source to begin with and we do have a good source now? Any objections to that?(olive (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

A great improvement. Olive, you can't go wrong with the An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural source for a critical opinion, and it is similar anyway to the one used by Nealparr, if a bit less authoritative. We need to qualify the statement "Critics such as Randi and Clarke in An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural explain RV by normal means." But this is very good progress (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And I see no difference between http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/remote_viewing.html and the encyclopedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern isn't the source, but is what the source says . Whether either of these is the best source possible is debateable, but my concern is not with that. The CSICOP source doesn't support the statement we are making in the article, so to my mind, we can't use it. We could as well use a source that says snakes have armpits, because thats how "obscure";0)...that source would be. However I may be missing something here, so no worries. At any rate, things are improving.(olive (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Um, yeah. and if that were the only source, I'd say you're right. Or if this were an ideal Wikipedia. But why bother stirring up the animals as long as we take care of the basics? That source is like some benign parasite, like the viruses that live in chicken DNA and your chicken dinner. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Purported again

"Purported: 1. Have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming"

"Apparent: 2. Appearing as such but not necessarily so"

Ok, thanks in part to our mediator's presence, and in part to Nealparr and the attention brought on by mediation, we -at the time of this writing- have taken care of the ATT problems in the lead. Now, the word "purported," the next problem. Please see arguments above, and I'll partly copy but one of my posts here:

The word"paranormal" would be a good replacement, as would the word "apparent." "Paranormal" was explicitly mentioned in the Paranormal ArbCom as being one with which to frame an article. They said [3] "The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose." and "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." and ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." I'm guessing we can say the same for "purported remote viewing ability," especially when there are other NPOV words.

The other option is to write around the issue altogether, like this:

Remote viewing is a protocol for attempting to use Extra-sensory perception to get information about subjects or places which the viewer cannot see by normal means. The term was introduced by.... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Silence = consensus [4]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Silence <> consensus. Purported = claimed. Now stop POV pushing. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now it is time for our mediator to step in. I have given many reasons and arguments, and we went all the way through ArbCom over this. It was, before that ArbCom, one of the main points of contention, because this word, and claimed, are both WTAs. The ArbCom recognized that this was one of the issues, and specifically addressed it. I have given other options, which are NPOV.

Guy/JzG has stated that the reason for using the word "purported," is that it "make[s] clear from the very outset that this *is not objectively real*" [5] -which is of course disputed- and that it shows that the subject is a load of dingoes' kidneys [6]. He'd have a better case if he hadn't said that. JzG/Guy and I agree on what the word conveys to the reader, and that it is not NPOV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Silence = consensus, but rarely for longer than 24 hours ;-)

I can see how purported seems judgmental, but I wonder: is it the text, or is it the editor who put it there? Both? I think my reasoning for paranormal is basically the same reasoning Guy is using for purported. But purported can come across as judgmental to readers who believe in RV; paranormal puts a caution sign up likewise, but not for everybody (all paranormal is purported, no?). I hope that makes sense. :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

although I quickly see the problem with paranormal, as was discussed above. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Paranormal" would be fine, and we could also write around the whole issue, like I said above. No, it isn't the author who put it in that's thw problem. This has been going on for a while. "Purported" is a favorite word of some editors, because of what it communicates. That's why the ArbCom used it as an example- this has been going on for years, and ought to have been settled at the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the wording. The "ability claimed by supporters of the paranormal" would indeed be fine; "defined by believers in the paranormal as..." would be marginally acceptable if a bit weaselly. There's nothing wrong with saying it is not objectively real, that is simply a statement of fact (or can you cite any reputable independent scientist who has published a peer-reviewed proof of RV?). Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Several wordings are suggested above. Defining it "in house" won't stand for long, and isn't necessary for NPOV. "Apparent," "extrasensory perception," "paranormal," and writing it as a method rather than an ability are ok. "Paranormal ability," especially when linked, is NPOV due to the definition of paranormal (disputed).

"Remote viewing (RV) is a protocol in which a viewer attempts to gather impressions and "knowingness" about a target by means of Extra-sensory perception."

This has indeed been going on for a while, and was one of the issues which brought on the ArbCom [7] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with "apparent ability": the ability is not apparent other than to true believers. There is a problem with "paranormal ability": paranormal abilities have no objectively provable existence, so are actually purported paranormal abilities, which puts us back to square one. There is a problem with "a protocol whereby..." because it's only considered a protocol whereby... by True Believers, the average scientist will define it as a protocol whereby a staggeringly large sum was extracted fomr the Government to investigate utter twaddle. And so on. Purported ability, on the other hand, states it well: it is a purported (i.e. claimed) ability. No judgement is made on the validity of the claim. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> As I said above, you state your reason for using the word as making sure we make clear RV is unreal from the outset. A "paranormal ability" is intrinsically one in dispute. And everyone would agree it is a protocol, and that it attempts to use ESP. Thus, we can write around the issue of "purported." I know you like that word, but it isn't NPOV.

"Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." [8] Emphasis added. Note also that in the case of Jean Dixon, the ArbCom is obviously talking about article leads. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Claimed ability"? I'm kinda low on answers, since it's hard to argue for/against either-or situations. I think both paranormal and purported are OK, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My interest is in copyediting and syntax generally, in articles. I don't really know much about this area, but the syntax might be a little awkward. If you include, "is defined as", then there is no POV since this is simply about the definition, and is not making any statements about whether this is a real ability or not. If you include paranormal as well - that which is not proven by science, then it seems that RV is placed in context of its "genre". In all, in the example below RV has been:

• placed in context of its "genre"
• placed in context of its "sub-genre" if you will.... ESP
• and defined

Copyedited-for-syntax, example below:

Remote viewing (RV), a form of extra-sensory perception, is classified as paranormal, and defined as the ability to gather information on a remote target that is hidden from the physical perception of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer at some distance.

(olive (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

• Absolutely not, thank you very much. That asserts that it is a form of ESP, when the dominant view is that there is no such thing; that it is classified as paranormal when actually most scientists would classify it as hokum; that it is defined as an ability, when nobody other than True Believers defines it as such. Martinphi has a real problem with questioning the reality of RV. I don't. Martinphi can resolve this issue by citing a credible, unequivocal peer-reviewed demonstration of RV under controlled scientific conditions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc,e but in this case I would settle for the quite ordinary evidence required of any reasonable claim. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused by your reply. The article is about RV. It seems to be notable enought to include in the encycopedia, so why is it inappropritae to define what it actually is ... not what you or I thinks it is which is POV . This isn't about proving it actually works or not, nor is this about Martin whatever his beliefs are. There are no claims here. There is an attemtp to define a term. My rewrite is a definition.

The paragraph already says its a form of ESP .... the change is only in placement of the term, so I'm not sure why you are concerned about this now. Guy, if the asrticle was about the reality of RV then I assume we would begin to accumulate refs debating both sides. Again this is a definition. I can write an article about UFO's, but before I get to the part about whether they exist or not I have to define what they are, that's all this rewrite is. (olive (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you, olive. Yes, this shouldn't be anything personal. It's about what communicates the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. That's what we are aiming for. Your version is nice, if a bit wordy. We could also merely define it as a method- that suggestion has been totally ignored. We must not define it in accordance with anybody's take on what is or is not real. I think that the word which seems to have the most consensus as a qualifier, is the word "paranormal," perhaps because that has direct ArbCom backing. I repeat that the continued assertions about the epistemological status of the subject are irrelevant. They do not add anything whatsoever to the conversation. No one here is going to get their POV into the article. We will not write the article with the tone that RV does not exist. We will not write the article with the tone that RV exists. We will not make clear from the start that RV does not exist. We will write in an NPOV tone, without regard to what any editor feels about the subject.

My main suggestion was to define it as "a protocol which attempts ESP." This says nothing about the validity of ESP. Saying it is a protocol is, I believe, a non-controversial statement.

Guy needs to read the paranormal ArbCom. They directly answered what he said above when they said:

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."[9]

and

"The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose."[10]

Also see Adequate_framing, which I also quoted for you above. It says "Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling"" [emphasis added]. It is safe to say that Extrasensory perception also serves to frame the matter.

Guy says above "That asserts that it is a form of ESP" Yes, and ESP -or the alternate word paranormal which is also used, serves to frame its controversial epistemological status. It does not serve Guy's POV attempt to make it clear from the start that RV is fictional.

Thus, the ArbCom has dealt very directly with what Guy says above, and found that a link to ESP or paranormal serves to frame the matter. Please let's put these sorts of arguments to rest. They have been dealt with. The ArbCom is the last word.

FYI, for anyone who cares, polls show that most scientists, especially physical scientists, believe in ESP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet another version per discussions Martin and GUY:

Remote viewing (RV), described as a form of extra-sensory perception, and classified as paranormal, has been defined as the process by which an individual acquires information on a remote target, hidden from the physical perception of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer by distance.

(olive (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

It's highly technical but I'd go with anything which is basically NPOV, that is, does not judge the subject or assert the truth of anything. So this is ok with me. Of course I like my very own better, "...protocol for attempting to use Extra-sensory perception..." above. Thanks for your efforts here olive, I know it can be a trying environment, but these articles can be improved, if only gradually (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Same problem: it's only defined as such by believers, who are a fringe minority. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the argument. This is an encyclopedia. The entry must be defined . We are definig this phrase. Per your argument, the CIA defined the term and so did Randi. This is about definition not believers. Concern with "believers" is a Red Herring in this context...<>< (olive (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

The CIA defined the term before they discovered it was bogus. Kudos to them for giving it a try, but the people charged with proving it, failed to do so to the satisfaction of anyone who did not already believe. That, in the world of science, is a death sentence for any theory. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does not address the point, but hey, enough discussion for now.(olive (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

remote viewing This phenomenon first became a celebrated subject after parapsychologists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ published a scientific paper which reported on experiments in which a remote location had been chosen, an experimenter visited there, and a subject recorded his or her psychic impressions of the spot. Their results seemed to prove that a “remote sensing” faculty did exist.

This is the first paragraph of An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural . Yet, this incredibly POV source is not as POV as the current Wikipedia first paragraph.

They then go on to make some statements, and we could use the same statements if we attributed. Seriously, people, get real. You're trying to out-do Randi as debunkers here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent statements in lead

The recent statements in the lead took the article back to a state of absolute statements based on highly biased sources. Specifically: "Critics have explained how the targets of remote viewing can be solved by clues inadvertently given by researchers." and "As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the scientific community considers claims of remote viewing to have no objective validity." That is why I put the tag on. The first sentence is arguably a little better, but having the first word be "Ostensibly" is simply not necessary, as we could just describe it as a process. See all arguments above. Don't like to have to keep repeating myself. This is just an explanation of the tag.

Remember, polls show most of the scientific community believes in ESP. Thus, the statement is highly unlikely to be true, and certainly isn't accurate as a statement of fact. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with you on your overall point, that it's unnecessary to put in words like "ostensibly" etc., there's nothing really wrong with the word and it's not POV even if unnecessary. I don't think it's necessary because the very next paragraph explains that scientists feel it has no objective validity. So if the next paragraph says that, what's the point of putting "purported", "claimed", "ostensibly", etc. in the first paragraph? That said, unlike "purported" or "claimed", "ostensibly" doesn't hurt anything, and is NPOV, so why not if it means people will move on?

I also find it dubious that polls show most of the scientific community believes in ESP. This is the second time you said that, so I'm calling you on it. I'm pretty sure it's not true. The general US population, yes, but scientists, no. If you're quoting the poll I think you're quoting, that was conducted in 1979 and is horribly dated. CSICOP (now CSI), which had a huge impact on scientist's view of ESP, wasn't even founded until 1976. If you have more recent polling, I'd be very interested in hearing about it, but I have to be skeptical of that claim. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of skeptical about the "majority" claim also, though I do think there is more recent data. The thing is, scientists are human, and most humans have had these experiences, or know of them in close relations. But that's about the latest major data we have. It doesn't matter in this context, as people are tying to make a hard claim to the contrary, based 100% on their own hope. Do you know of any source which makes a reliable claim that most scientists think RV is bunk? Why are "we" citing the skeptic's encyclopedia, when "we" could cite the government report or Time for a negative view?

"Ostensibly" is the least of my objections on the lead.

Nah, dudes. If An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural and Wiseman (a fellow of CSI) say what they do, we have no business writing this way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Martin, the simple fact is that virtually nobody other than true believers covers this subject at all. You can't prove a negative, and requiring people to do so is absurd. For a theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be documented in terms of reproducible experimental protocols - and nobody other than people who already believe have ever managed to reproduce any parapsychological / paranormal "experiment". Yes, I am fully aware that paranormal believers don't like this truth, and hate the fact that NPOV requires that we note the fundamentally unverifiable nature of the supposed phenomena, and would really rather we did not mention that these extraordinary claims lack not only the extraordinary evidence necessary to be accepted, but even quite ordinary levels of evidence sufficient to get them published in reputable journals. We cannot fix that. We cannot fix the fact that these effects are in direct conflict with the near-universally accepted principles of physics. We cannot fix the fact that scientific journals don't even bother saying the claims are twaddle, because nobody's publishing anything they would accept as a valid experimental protocol. we can't fix it. Wikipedia is not here to fix "problems" which exist in the real world, especially when these "problems" consist of the fact that proponents of the paranormal have never succeeded in proving their claims to the satisfaction of any reasonably skeptical audience. Robert Hooke was denounced as a braggart for centuries because it was not possible to make a gravimeter to his design. In the 1980s they managed it, and it worked. That's how it is in the West these days: you want to have a claim accepted, you have to prove it, not demand that others disprove it, but the parapsychological folks are still demanding that people prove that things like RV don't exist. It does not, according to any objectively provable criteria. Much as you would like to dismiss Clarke and Randi, their reputation is high and Clarke in particular is a world-renowned authority. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers inline below:

Martin, the simple fact is that virtually nobody other than true believers covers this subject at all. You can't prove a negative, and requiring people to do so is absurd. For a theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be documented in terms of reproducible experimental protocols

Very true

- and nobody other than people who already believe have ever managed to reproduce any parapsychological / paranormal "experiment".  

Contradicted by the facts. Skeptics have sometimes reproduced parapsychological experiments.

Yes, I am fully aware that paranormal believers don't like this truth, and hate the fact that NPOV requires that we note the fundamentally unverifiable nature of the supposed phenomena, and would really rather we did not mention that these extraordinary claims lack not only the extraordinary evidence necessary to be accepted, but even quite ordinary levels of evidence sufficient to get them published in reputable journals. We cannot fix that. We cannot fix the fact that these effects are in direct conflict with the near-universally accepted principles of physics.

No, they are not. This has been extensively covered in the literature.

We cannot fix the fact that scientific journals don't even bother saying the claims are twaddle, because nobody's publishing anything they would accept as a valid experimental protocol. we can't fix it.

The experimental protocols are tighter in parapsychology than in other fields, perhaps all other fields.

Wikipedia is not here to fix "problems" which exist in the real world, especially when these "problems" consist of the fact that proponents of the paranormal have never succeeded in proving their claims to the satisfaction of any reasonably skeptical audience. Robert Hooke was denounced as a braggart for centuries because it was not possible to make a gravimeter to his design. In the 1980s they managed it, and it worked. That's how it is in the West these days: you want to have a claim accepted, you have to prove it, not demand that others disprove it, but the parapsychological folks are still demanding that people prove that things like RV don't exist.

Find me one source that says this, and I'll find you a kook.

It does not, according to any objectively provable criteria.

According to you, that's true.

Much as you would like to dismiss Clarke and Randi, their reputation is high and Clarke in particular is a world-renowned authority. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the skeptic's encyclopedia is not as negative as this article.

This is all your POV. You have a right to it. You misunderstand, apparently, what I am trying to do, which is to make this article

1. Conform to the ArbCom on the paranormal
2. Conform to basic principles of Attribution
3. Sound neutral, per the NPOV policy.

That's all. I have no interest in argument over whether RV has anything to it or not. You have set yourself against the basic principles of Wikipedia here, in your edits to the article, and on this talk page. Basically, I think you should stop trying to argue your point, and start trying to apply policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree, because I do not think the fundamental principles of Wikipedia include documenting fictional or pseudoscientific concepts as if they were real, something I have made abundantly clear for some time. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We completely agree on that. I'm only trying to apply basic policy, and you continue to thwart that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are, because your version of policy allows all pro-RV sources to be reliable as being considered authoritative in-universe (as all pro-RV people think other pro-RV people are Real Smart), while requiring explicit statements from the scientific community to show that the scientific community ignores it. We do not find papers in Nature along the lines of Remote viewing still bunk. Scientists simply ignore it. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I meant to hit talk on a user and hit contribs, meaning its time for me to take a nap. But the point is the last thing done was a change to this introductory paragraph. I reverted as there seems to be mediation and discussion on it here, and the new intro was not really descriptive except from a sceptical pov (even though this is a highly controversal and skeptical thing). Just wanted to note my reasoning. Kthxbai? Hooper (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please go back to your other content disputes, you're causing quite enough disruption there. Reverting to an in-universe description of a fictional concept does not advance the encyclopaedia in any way. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert war with you. This is yet another controversal topic, where policy states that its best to discuss changes on the talk page first and a discussion is currently going on, where you have came in and removed without regards to the discussion taking place. I lack enough knowledge on this article but the talk page is here for when other contributors get here to be able to look up the changes and discuss accordingly. Hooper (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fer cryin' out loud, both versions read the same! Xavexgoem (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I know extremely little about this article's topic, and reading the version supplied by JzG, I'm left with a feeling that this just is absolutely impossible. Whereas the other version just leaves me my normal skeptical way. Maybe that is just me. But still, there is a long debate on the intro above and changes should be taken up there first, imo. Hooper (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know very little, too :-)

Agree to disagree? There are thousands upon thousands of editors, and more readers besides. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is very true. I can agree with that. Hooper (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Hooper is right. That was both the intent and the effect, as is quite obvious from Guy's comments on this page: he wants to make it clear that the subject is twaddle. It is completely inappropriate of him to edit out of his POV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In-universe

...would be "Remote viewing is where someone psychically gets information about a remote target" or something more eloquent but in-universe.

Outside the universe would be:

"Remote viewing (RV) is a process that involves a person ostensibly gathering information on a remote target that is both hidden from physical view and typically separated from the viewer at some distance. It is described by proponents as a form of extra-sensory perception."

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not too bad. I much prefer Remote viewing is a process in which a viewer attempts to aquire information about a remote target by means of extra-sensory perception....

As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the validity of RV has not been accepted as part of the scientific consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Or a bit of both:

Remote viewing is a process in which a viewer attempts to aquire information about a remote target that is both hidden from physical view and typically separated from the viewer at some distance, and can be described as a form of extra-sensory perception."

I would remove proponents since there are those who are not proponents who might label this ESP....The world is made up of more people than just two groups those who label this ESP and those who don't. Seem kinda humourous to actually try to narrow this down to such a tiny, narrow definition of who calls this ESP and who doesn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 April 2008

Article on remote viewing, and the problems to study it [11], from Springerlink. It describes RV as "the supposed faculty which enables a percipient, sited in a closed room, to describe the perceptions of a remote agent visiting an unknown target site" --Enric Naval (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hint: what the lead is lacking is the word "supposed" --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By Martinphi's source[12], "reported" would also be ok and it would be sourced. "seemed to be proven by studies" would be more accurate to the source but probably too long.

"apparent" implies too much that the effect actually exists and is apparent to observers, and it's not sourced anywhere (that I know of) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I'm really content with most anything which sounds reasonably neutral. I mean, I'd be quite happy with the first paragraph of this, though it isn't perfect in terms of information. The second paragraph, if merely attributed, would also be fine. There is a lot in that source, about the most skeptical source you could get, which no one would allow here because it looks too positive.

As far as "supposed," first there are other better words, such as Enric's "reported," or even using "paranormal" as a modifier. Look at the ArbCom ruleing where they talk about modifiers, and essentially say that stating clearly what the thing is is enough [13]. In other words, according to the ArbCom, merely saying it is ESP or paranormal is good enough. We just don't need any more (as part of the definition), because the reader is not so dumb as not to know the general scientific status of ESP (and anyway we link it in case the reader is that dumb). This is really all a matter of POV pushing. We can make sure the reader knows all the skeptical explanations and opinions avaliable without sounding POV. It's easy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree with "Remote viewing (RV) is reported as a process (...)"? (I want to see how many problems JzG finds with this wording, lol)

Notice that using the conditional ", in the paranormal belief system," also would be ok by that ruling, and it was removed[14].

Oh, Martin, randi's link only describes how the first study was found not to be correct. It is not at all a description of the theory. We could only use it on a section called "how it became a celebrated subject". The second paragraph would go in "how the study was found to be faulty". I don't see at all how Randi's text can be used at all for the purpose of tweaking the first sentence of this article. His text is no introduction to the theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy's edits were to prove a point, not to develop consensus or work constructively with other editors. That's why "paranormal belief system" was removed. However, had Guy been constructively editing, I would have removed it anyway as WP:OR not supported by sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No they weren't, they were to avoid straying from WP:NPOV by failing to note that RV is mythical. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, Randi's article isn't what we need. My point was that it sounds a lot more positive toward RV than our article.

Yeah, it's "reported as a process," but we don't need to bend over backward to make Guy happy that much. It's a process, a protocol, period. What are we going to do, question whether RV experiments ever even took place? Claim that all the protocol descriptions have never been tried? Something like that?

The so-called "paranormal belief system" does not exist. Where is it? Who's the priest? A skeptic can try RV, and skeptics have. Defining RV as a "belief" won't do- it's a practice, a protocol, for attempting to describe remote targets by ESP. That's a completely neutral statement. All this other argument about specific words is just an attempt to write in a non-neutral tone, as there are completely neutral ways of saying these things.

I have been advised to ask for formal mediation of this article, by our current informal mediator, poor Xavexgoem. I'll try to do that tomorrow if I have a block of time. Or someone else can. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor? :-p I apologize, it's just a deeply entrenched issue and assumptions of bad faith abound. Not easy to work with. I didn't scale my effort to the problem... sorry about that. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're not a poor mediator, you're poor cause you got dragged into this swamp! You did good (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the word "apparent" and also RV as a a protocol, there is this wonderful quote Nealparr just put on Guy's talk page:

Michael Shermer describing remote viewing: "2. ESP and Evidence of Mind. Here Chopra relies on psi research in remote viewing and telepathy, in which subjects locked in a room alone can apparently receive images from senders in another room without the use of the five senses."[15]

Shermer is another debunker, writes for Scientific American, and is a member of CSICOP (I think, anyway). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the first sentence according to Shermer's wording and placed him as reference[16]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the intro. 1) Targ and Purthoff were physicists and are always described as such. 2) Critics "contend" that they have explained RV, but have nor really "demonstrated" that explanation. 3) Hyman is saying the scientific community has not accepted the evidence for remote viewing, but this is different from saying they have come to the positive view that it has been shown to be wrong (see Wiseman further into the article to see why it should be written this way).

Shermer = CSICOP? No, dear me no! (:67.228.101.165 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with those changes, but while checking the sources for "2)", I found that Randi's source was being misquoted [17], so I had to change it to comply with WP:V and maybe even WP:OR.

Apparently, the article had been misrepresenting the source before the change from above IP (I'm not going to dig throught all the history to see who made the changes to the sentence, it was probably a gradual thing by many editors). From the context, it was cited as supporting a statement that it didn't really make. The source didn't talk about experiments on general, but only of the Purtogg-Targ experiment, it was citing discoveries from "other scienticists" not from "critics" (it was not a statement made directly by Randi, he is describing other people's statements), and some other minor inaccuracies on not using the exact words from the source. Please, to include on the lead statements that are actually made by critics like Randi, use a different source, like an article made by him where he is making direct statements about RV and don't use sentences where he is talking about what other people said. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Current lead is a little better. It's still way off though. For example, "On the original experiment by Puthoff and Targ other researchers found that clues inadvertently included by researchers allowed the subjects to solve the locations without use of any psychic powers." This isn't true at all. They at best found that there were some flaws in the procedure, and that's about it. They in no way showed those minor flaws were responsible for the results. Unless I much mis-recall. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how Randi describes what happened, remember that we need to rely on published sources. We should look for other sources describing the event to see if we can fill in all the details of what happened, and make a separate section dissecting the experiment and what was found about it (who are those "other researchers", when did they analyze the results, where did they publish the results, who were those students, etc) the section called "criticism" contains a complete description of that. "other researchers" appear to be David Marks, Mumford, Rose and Goslin(from one of the references). Also Kammann, who wrote a book with Marks. The review of that book says that the errors were not minor, but "crucial" and says "Marks and Kammann effectively demonstrated that the Targ-Puthoff research had been so poorly controlled that their data could not be taken seriously as evidence for the existence of paranormal processes"[18] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! references 6 and 7 are being WP:SYNTHESIS synthesited to support a very mild sentence. The first ref is quite a bit harsher than the sentence (see its last paragraph), and the second ref talks about Courtney Brown, a PhD that wrote a book about how you can use RV to see into future events and talk with Jesus, Budha, and martians! --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to do much with this. Relative to what I said above, the claim was stated and not attributed- and that's been fixed now. So all is well (: As far as I'm concerned the lead is NPOV enough at this point. It could be a lot better written, and should include more stuff, but at least it isn't more into debunking than Randi's encyclopedia! Good work you guys (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro is looking a bit better in terms of each statement in itself being NPOV, but there is now an awful lot of stuff critical of RV and especially Targ and Puthoff's original experiments and not a lot about remote viewing itself. Not sure that the Randi stuff should really be in the intro quite so specifically since Targ and Puthoff's original experiments are not the be all and end of all of this subject by any means. Could we not just have the "mainstream science" bit and then maybe the general point about critics having suggested explanations for RV and "considering it pseudoscience". I think we should also say something in the intro about the bulk of RV work being done the US military since this is quite a singular fact about RV and is probably needed to introduce the subject properly. Nonetheless, getting there. 67.228.101.165 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In? Or for them, under contract? Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way it's a fairly significant and singular fact about RV that I feel should be noted in the introduction.67.228.101.165 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

changing wordings without checking the attributed sources

Well, JzG has changed the first sentence[19] without noticing that it's now attributed to a source, and has changed the wording to a version he believes to be better without first checking that the source is still correctly attributed.

So here you have me, someone that nobody would accuse of favoring paranormal stuff, changing the article back to a less skeptical version[20], while using the friggin The Western Institute of Remote Viewing as a source for a change that should calm down JzG objections to the wording.

(I hope that nobody objects to "The Western Institute of Remote Viewing" source on the grounds it's biased against RV......) (Please notice I found this source while looking at a blog post about cryptozoology where one of the commenters uses the word "ostensibly") --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure I can find any number of sources which define Elvis as having been abducted by aliens, but they don't make good sources for a lead para that says Elvis was a singer who was abducted by aliens. And as for the "book co-authored by Randi" (and we'd better keep quiet about the much more famous co-authors, lest it look good or something), that is blatant special pleading. This is a mad theory with no provable basis in fact, and however hard you try to obscure that fact I am just going to push right back at you. Since your objection was that the slightly less blatantly pro RV version by Olive was attributed to the wrong source, I've gone back to her version of both paragraphs. In-universe definitions are a very poor way of defining fictional phenomena which are claimed by some to be real. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • (ec)Guy, the personal opinions of editors should not be a factor on writing articles, as I am sure that you are aware of. Notice that I am a skeptic, and I'm only trying to keep the attribution of sources.
    • About sources: I agree that the Western Institute source was inadequate for the first sentence.
    • About sources(2): the source for the 1974 sentence mentions neither "physicists" nor "parapsychologists". It plainly calls them by their name, with no adjectives. A different source should be found for the adjectives, or adjectives should be removed from sentence.
    • About Randi source: I'm ok with saying "critics contend", since the sentence is already attributed with a ref. However, Guy, you are plainly misrepresenting what the Randi source says in order to fit it to what you think that it should say, please don't revert it again to say things that the attributed source does not say, this is not constructive. If you want to make a different statement on the article about the original experiment, then please ffs find a source for it first.
    • Would you oppose re-adding "without the use of the five senses" to the first sentence? I asked User:Littleolive_oil to comment on the matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll find a US government report which states that Elvis' abduction by aliens is proven to the extent that it would be accepted as fact in any other field of scientific research. Nor do I think you would find a major skeptic like Richard Wiseman conceding this point. That is quite a fundamental difference to my mind. Moreover, surveys show that over 50% of scientists either believe in esp or are agnostic on the matter. These, it seems to me, are the simple facts of the matter that the article must do justice to.67.228.101.165 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

several comments were moved to survey section below --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• @Enric: I would propose returning to the version we had for several months, which said RV is the purported ability to perceive objects at a distance. There being no objective evidence that it exists, purported is exactly the right word: purported, as in claimed. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at the first sentence on February[21] and it looks like way better than current version. It looks like a wonderful idea to me --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

half of martinphi's comment was moved to survey section below --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to the word "purported." It could be several other modifiers, which are just as good, or it could just be defined as a process. In this version you mention, it says it "has not been proved." Such a statement -contradicting as it does even skeptics like Wiseman- needs to be explained. We need to say it is "not accepted" but not take a position on whether or not the evidence exists, as that is in dispute. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

half of Enric Naval's comment was moved to survey section below --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If "purpoted" is just as good as other modifiers, then let's just use "purpoted". The article makes references to Marks' work and Mumford, Rose and Goslin, who make clear that the available evidence has proven nothing, so it's correct to say that it has not been proved. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

several comments were moved to survey section below --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Purported is a WP:WTA. It's a requirement for Featured Articles to avoid WTAs, so I'm a stickler on it. More to the point, however, it's a word that can be avoided, as many of the sources do. I've been providing links to these sources for examples, and editors can choose to ignore that, but it stands that WTAs can be avoided here. So the choice to include them, when they can be avoided, is exactly that, a choice. One needs to back up their choice with a rationale that explains why Wikipedia has to be less neutral than even the biased sources, or I'll continue to exercise my right as an editor to remove WTAs when I have the time, per the guidelines. Someone can call me a pov pusher for doing that (apparently the de facto response), but the WTAs address NPOV, so I feel justified in removing them.

From the WTA guideline: "[These] connotation[s] introduces unnecessary bias into the writing". The keyword there is unnecessary. When a specific individual is making a claim, say Ingo Swann for example, that is a claim, and should be attributed to him as his claim. WTA addresses this. However, carte blanche and ambiguous statements like remote viewing itself a purported something or other is also addressed by WTA, we simply don't do it. "Purported" is specifically addressed in WTA as requiring no ambiguity. That is why I have in the past replaced such statements with "Proponents say..." etc. The point is, not avoiding these words is lazy editing, and entirely a choice. For a choice to remain sticky in the article, there will need to be a consensus on it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I supossed that synonims of purported are out of the question.

Guy, would accept replacing "ostensibly" with "apparently" and leaving the rest of the sentence untouched? Looking at its definition here it looks a good replacement --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ostensibly is completely neutral, isn't in the words to avoid, and is entirely Wikipedia compatible (I'm the one who originally added it to the article). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

50% survey

50% of scientists secretly support ESP/RV? lol...Guy, you have the patience of a saint with these folks. - 66.30.77.62 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

50% survey? lol, that is going need a really really really reliable source for inclusion on article --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The surveys are not exactly top secret and the results are fairly consistent. If you can find one to the contrary I would be happy to see it. I think the split is usually about 1/3 each for belief, agnostic and disbelief.67.228.101.165 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please find a source for a survey. You are the one wanting to add the information to the article, so per WP:BURDEN you should be the one providing the burden of proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested adding it to the article. I said these are the facts (easily supported) that the article should do justice do.67.228.101.165 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No WP:V WP:RS source = no justice --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The survey is old, but real:

A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so much going to suggest using the skepdic.com wording, which puts the survey results on its proper context: "Despite the fact that psychologists have been in the forefront of paranormal studies, a study of 1,100 college professors in the United States found that only 34% of psychologists believe that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility(...)"skepdic.com --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the survey about scientists' views of ESP, here's an article that covers that point and a few others.[22] The survey referred to was conducted in the 70s and published in New Scientist I believe (it's fairly well known though and has been widely published including in CSICOP's SI and Skepdic). Note also the views of Robert Rosenthal, chairman of the psychology department at Harvard University, who said "the numbers are so clear now that it's really incumbent on the critics to try to explain these and make them go away". That they haven't been able to is probably why Wiseman said what he did.

None of this means of course that we should present RV as being proven or even accepted by the scientific community because it simply hasn't been, but as I said, these are simple facts that the article has to do justice to. 67.228.101.165 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That article is not verifiable. It doesn't include any data to find the original survey. Notice that it's probably the same survey as the one on skepdic, and there we discover that it was done on college professors and not "natural scientists", and it also only mentions the higher percentage. It does not look like a reliable source. I wouldn't use it as source for anything, except for finding clues on the talk page of what to look for --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was published in the Boston Globe. The survey itself has been reported in numerous places including Skepdic (which you just quoted). A few minutes ago you were "laughing out loud" at my suggestion that surveys showed that over 50% of scientists though ESP was real or were agnostic yet that is exactly what is being reported here. 67.228.101.165 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained how this article is misrepresenting the study. If you have doubts about the reliability of this source, I suggest posting about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where uninvolved editors can advice on its reliability --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the Boston Globe and New Scientist are misrepresenting the study simply by reporting the findings. Leave it to Honest Bob Carroll to set them straight.67.228.101.165 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to bring the source to WP:RSN or not? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is just reiterating the results of the 1978 survey. As I pointed out to Martinphi above, CSICOP had a huge impact on scientist's view of ESP, and it wasn't even founded until 1976. A survey published in 1978, or newer articles that just reiterate those findings, are not reliable in 2008. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, I don't think you need go to the RSN to know the Boston Globe and New Scientist are better sources than Skepdic but you can if you want. In any event, I am not suggesting we include the survey in the article. I am pointing out that the survey shows a level of support for ESP amongst scientists that (pending evidence to the contrary) the article has to do justice to rather than riding roughshod over.

Nealparr, I think you might overestimate the CSICOP effect. There are certainly some very vocal anti-esp advocates (some are even scientists), but absent some evidence of current belief levels or the like, this survey is the only hard evidence we have at our disposal at present. 67.228.101.165 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"At present" is what I'm disagreeing with. Twenty years ago is hardly present, and the CSICOP (now CSI of course) had a huge impact. Prior to their establishment, there was no organized skeptical body to debate these issues. Following their establishment, their voice has been present at every single debate. Randi likewise didn't start in on his stuff until 1972, publically debunking Uri Geller. His widely publicized "paranormal challenge" didn't become widely publicized until the late 1970s, early 80s. A lot of the initial excitement over parapsychology studies didn't pan out. Most of the early labs closed from lack of funding and at best inconclusive results. The PEAR lab closing, whatever the actual reason, was spun in the media as closing out of embarrassment to the University. It doesn't take a new survey to reasonably conclude that the climate of acceptance has changed dramatically since the 1970s. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, you do have this: Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts, which is kind of strange-cool, but that doesn't represent a study of actual beliefs among actual scientists, just students from a variety of fields. Further, beliefs do not = support of evidence. For example, (and I can't remember where it is so I can't link to it) one study found that 2/3rds of scientists in general believe in God. That belief is a far cry from believing God is established scientifically, or that there is any evidence of God in the natural world. All it shows is that many scientists have faith-based beliefs lacking evidence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to cite a similar one that features esp.[23] I take your points though, and did say above that we don't want to say RV (or ESP) has been accepted by the scientific community because it patently has not. Nonetheless, the point is that we should be careful not to simply assume the opposite and say that scientists reject such notions outright because all they evidence we have suggests that they do not. That is why I think it is fairer to say that "the scientific community does not consider the objective validity of RV to have been demonstrated."67.228.101.165 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that wording. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with a phrase like the "scientific community", a very large, all encompassing phrase, and using sources that specifically refer to, as they do in the UTT's article to specific refutations by an individual, or the second source which is hardly an unbiased reference. I can't imagine allowing any student of mine to get away with this particular statement, and those references as support for them. To be acceptable, specific references to the studies should be mentioned. For example, reasearch conducted by .... was refuted by...... or the phrase "scientific commumnity" needs to be qualified, for example, memebers of the scientific community such as .... and .....believe the RV has no objective validity. A thought.(olive (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I tend to get beaten down to what I think is doable rather than what is best. What do we have? We have 1) significant doubt that there is a consensus of scientists that RV is bunk 2) we have no statement that it's bunk from a scientific body... 3) we have the need to attribute 4) we have statements from at least one highly skeptical source that there is some evidence of RV- indeed, up to the leve that it would be accepted if it were considered theoretically possible. I think objectively, what we can say is that any evidence for RV has not been accepted in the scientific community as conclusive. Note the different use of "scientific community:" As I just used it, it isn't a monolith, but more like a collection of literature. And it is not controversial to say that the body of literature has not accepted any evidence there may be for RV.

I do now recall that there is one paper, I think put out by a committee controlled by about two members of CSICOP, for the government. This paper said there was "no evidence" or similar wording. The dissenting member of the committee, who I don't think was really a believer, slammed the report, saying there was obvious tampering. Anyway, that is the nearest I know of to a real authoritative refutation of RV. Anyone got anything better? I'll try and look it up. I didn't find it in the current refs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The AIR committee said it has no value to the intelligence community. Specifically, David Goslin, a member of the AIR committee which recommended the CIA dump the program, was quoted in Time as saying, "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community".[24] American Institutes for Research is a reputable, reliable, neutral third party to the dispute between Utts and Hyman. They are a scientific group whose purpose is to evaluate research. They're not parapsychologists, nor skeptics, ie. neutral. So I don't know why we don't just print that and call it a day. Dump all the Randi stuff, Skeptical Inquirer stuff, etc. and just use AIR in the intro. They actually had hands-on involvement with the material and aren't just coming from one ideological side of the debate, or, like Randi, having had no experience with the research whatsoever. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. That was my general impression of what the best sources say- that there was a dispute between Hyman and Utts, with Hyman finding some possible flaws but not an explanation of the results. And they concluded it didn't have actionable intelligence value, based on a small sample of the avaliable evidence, which is claimed not to be the best... but nevermind, that's the best mainstream source. I see a section is there which could easily be adapted for the lead. I think that is the end of the mainstream RS trail of RV, isn't it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more mainstream than that, and yes, barring some secret trials still being conducted by the CIA somewhere deep beneath Washington, that's the end of RV's story as far as the mainstream is concerned. If it's not worth your money, it's not worth your time. [Of course the fringe conspiracy theory is that they did discover something useful, but because the research was leaked they had to bury it and move it to a secret location, hence the whitewash statements and media blitz. Of course that sort of WP:OR could get me killed if the CIA is monitoring this page, which apparently they do [25]. Shhhhh.] Just messing around : ) Print the AIR evaluation and call it done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• You can't dump Randi and Clarke without also dumping Targ and Puthoff. But what you can do is to describe it as we do for elements of other mythologies - saints in Christian mythology are documented as the real individuals they were, but the mythology is documented as just that. So one might start: in paranormal mythology, remote viewing is the ability to (blah blah), and then document the verifiable things as verifiable things, without implying that they confer any reality on the mythological elements. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Targ and Puthoff coined the term, notable. Stargate Project, notable. AIR's critique of Stargate Project, notable. They're all listed in bulk in the article because they're notable. Randi and Clarke didn't do anything with the topic but write a brief blurb about the subject in a book, not really notable, especially for the lead. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't NPOV. However, no one is trying to dump Randi and Clarke. They are a good source for a skeptical opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in the lead per WP:SIMPLICITY (ought to be a guideline), but you guys can do what you want on it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's what he's talking about! I agree with you: using the best mainstream source as a basis for the lead seems a very good idea. Missed a beat there. But Randi would still be in the article as a notable opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

EL

Oops. This revert [26] is because of WP:EL and WP:SELFPUB, not WP:SELF. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox

[Note, the following was copied from various user talk pages so that it could be discussed in a central location.]

You removed the "pseudoscience" category, but you didn't remove the "pseudoscience" category. Does WP:PSCI say to give a different standard for the category and it's associated infobox? (Notice I have had this same discussion at Talk:Water memory) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What I removed was the infobox and reworded the "generally considered pseudoscience" statement. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the category link because there's quite a few people who feel the topic is pseudoscience, it's reliably sourced as a notable view, and Wikipedia articles can have more than one category associated with them. There's a difference between that and saying it's generally considered pseudoscience, especially when the US Government didn't feel that way when they were doing their research, nor stated anything like that after the research concluded. The infobox brands the topic as such, which is inappropriate in this particular case. WP:PSCI makes distinctions on what should be generally considered pseudoscience and gives an example of astrology, something the US Government (to my knowledge) never spent $20 mil pursuing. For example they never considered pursuing astrology as a means for predicting military conflicts or something like that. They did, however, see remote viewing research as something worth sinking money into. There's a separation of issues here. One one hand, the research concluded that it's of no value to the intelligence community. It's a waste of time and money. On the other hand is the question of whether coming to that conclusion can be done scientifically. Obviously they thought it could, which counterexamples the notion of it being generally considered pseudoscience.

Believing that remote viewing is supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief, of course, like believing astrology is supported by science would be. Astrology is also a system that people misrepresent as scientific because it looks scientific, asserting that tracking planets and stars and relating them to events in one's life is actually science. That's a misrepresentation of science, pseudoscience, and why Popper used it as an example when popularizing the term. Remote viewing isn't a system posing as science like astrology. It's just an idea, an idea that some (like the US Government) thought could be tested in a scientific way. The topic itself isn't pseudoscientific, nor the research. The topic doesn't misrepresent itself as science, and the research was conducted using scientific standards. It's the belief that remote viewing is either partially or completely supported by science that is pseudoscientific. Those beliefs could be generally considered pseudoscientific, but the US Government didn't see the topic itself as pseudoscience.

I don't know anything about water memory. If there's some misrepresentation of science (like astrology is when it's referred to as a scientific system) then it's pseudoscience. If it's not supported by science, but people claim it is, then those beliefs are pseudoscientific. I don't know what the issues are surrounding that topic, however. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The water memory case is wholly different from remote viewing, you can take my word for that. I'm thinking of asking for a clarification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions to see if the infobox and the category need different levels of proof to be on an article. I would also like them to clarify if you can call something "pseudoscience" when the most basic research on the topic has been proven to be non-replicable and full of flaws. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that there is a separate criteria for an infobox and a category link, whether that's officially implied by WP:PSCI or not. A category link is a relatively minor addition to a page and serves as much as a "see also" as it does as an actual category or label. It also serves a technical purpose as being one of three ways people navigate in the MediaWiki system -- search, interlinks to specific pages, and categories or groups of like pages. A non-strict interpretation of WP:PSCI would be that the ArbCom didn't mean categorization like we use it, but categorization as in characterizing it as that. My opinion, since one could put multiple categories on a page, and since the category link isn't intrusive, as long as one reliable source calls it pseudoscience that's enough for the link, whether it is generally considered it or not. That's just my opinion though. Editors who don't think it is at all pseudoscientific remove the category link as well, but I don't agree with that decision if a reliable source describes it as such. I don't know what the ArbCom's intent was about "may be categorized as such", whether that meant "characterized as" or if it had to do with the actual system of category linking.

The infobox is different. It dominates a page. Like I said above, it's like branding the topic as pseudoscience, much different than a simple link at the bottom of the article. I can see how an infobox fits on a topic obviously falling under the topic described by the infobox (like an article about a Buddhist practice having the Buddhism infobox), but if not explicitly falling under the topic it may be POV by nature of the dominance of the infobox (see WP:UNDUE where it describes prominence of placement as affecting neutrality). If you look at the list of articles where the infobox is transcluded [27], they're more "obvious pseudoscience" as described by WP:PSCI and biography pages of purveyors of pseudoscience rather than "generally considered pseudoscience". I don't believe the infobox should be included on an article that even meets the criteria of generally considered pseudoscience. I think it should be reserved for obvious or explicitly pseudoscience.

That's my take on it. Me and ScienceApologist bump heads all the time on the extent of what is generally considered pseudoscience. He uses it more liberally where I believe it should be more conservatively, basing that on what I believe is the "spirit" of the ArbCom decision. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of making a RfC for people to opinate on the pseudocience infobox appropiatedness? I'd rather do that before escalating to ArbCom. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On the RfC, definitely. Let me know when you post it so I can add the above. I'd like to see some consensus reached as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would the title "Is there enough evidence of Remote Viewing being considered a pseudoscience to guarantee the addition on the pseudoscience infobox" be neutral enough? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it more general instead of just being about remote viewing, since the consensus would be for any article presumably relating to pseudoscience, like water memory as well. When asking about evidence it begs the question of whether the commentor is familiar with the sources, evidence, and issues surrounding the topic. You'll get a lot of grief from promoters of pseudoscience saying "Oh, you just don't now about the ultra-cutting edge research being conducted on X, so who are you to judge?" You wouldn't want the RfC to degrade into who's more familiar with the topic, and in keeping it general it's better to ask what should be the "criteria" for including the infobox. I don't know anything about water memory, for example, like many other editors won't, but I can comment on what criteria I think should be met for including the infobox on an article.

This also goes to what you said about asking the ArbCom to clarify if you can call something "pseudoscience" when the most basic research on the topic has been proven to be non-replicable and full of flaws. I don't think the issue is defining pseudoscience and setting up a criteria for what constitutes pseudoscience. There's already a definition and a loose criteria established by science philosophers. As Wikipedians we're only interested in other people's opinions about the topic anyway, per WP:OR, so it shouldn't be about whether we think it is pseudoscience. Rather, I think the issue is 1) what sourcing criteria is needed to establish the topic as pseudoscience, and 2) at what opinion-level is it appropriate to use the infobox (obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, etc.). I would title it "What should be the sourcing criteria for including the pseudoscience infobox on an article, and at what opinion-level established by WP:PSCI is it appropriate to include it?" and see what comments come out of it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your wording better. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since it's identified as pseudoscience by reliable sources, I think an RfC is a waste of time. It's also a failure of WP:NPOV since the combination of unscientific claims with a purportedly scientific methodology precisely fits the definition of pseudoscience. As science goes, it doesn't get a lot more pseudo than this. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom set levels of distinction in even using the pejorative term. There have been several CfD discussion whether even the category is appropriate. The infobox itself has been up for deletion at least once that I'm aware of. It's anything but a clear case of when to use it and when not to. The proposed RfC will examine at what level of distinction is it appropriate to use the infobox, what criteria causes it to be neutral to use it, and when is it not neutral to use it. Reliability is also subjective. There's reliable sources to support that there is a view of some that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, but the ArbCom decided that it is inappropriate to characterize it as such. The infobox can easily be seen to characterize a topic as that, especially when it's in the lead section. If the infobox continues to exist, there will very much need to be an established usage for it. Hence the need for an RfC. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the result of the template for delete discussion was "no consensus" (which defaults to keep), not "keep", so that shows that there is very much a question of how it should be used, if used at all. Many commentors said that it was inherently point of view. The other detractors said if kept it needs some usage instructions, and it does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom did not say that pseudoscience was a "pejorative". We aren't dealing with WP:BLP-type issues here. We are dealing with things that either are or are not pseudoscience. As it is, the current consensus of people who study science legitimately is that this subject is pseudoscience. Even so, I hardly see how simply putting an infobox in an article is so problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See above for why it's problematic, source your "consensus", and participate in the discussion. Seriously, why are you guys arguing against a simple discussion? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. There are no serious scientists who think that remote viewing is a possibility. Seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not viable does not automatically = pseudoscience. Claiming that it is viable, and saying that science supports that claim = pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this if it's already been answered in this thread, but which are these RS that say it is "pseudoscience?" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin, did you read Talk:Remote_viewing#Recent_statements_in_lead? Especially the remarks about serious scientists not bothering to treat the subject. Actually, since links to CSICOP and Randi calling RV pseudoscience have been already provided, and since they are know for accuracy and fact checking (aka reliable), do you have any RS sources about RV being considered or treated a serious science? You know, apart from the Nature and IEEE papers by Targ and Puthoff themselves. Any Nature article that was talking about RV as a serious science after the Targ and Phutoff paper, etc. That would help a great deal on this debate --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be it. I'm not saying anything about providing sources that it isn't pseudoscience. Can't prove a negative. Though if we were being logical here, we have Wiseman saying it, and Randi saying that parapsychology, which includes RV, is not pseudoscience, and also the encyclopedia here. So what you are actually saying is "Parapsychology is not pseudoscience, according to the sources, even the skeptical ones. But among the things that parapsychology studies, RV is pseudoscience." That sounds kinda silly to me. But Randi and Clarke known for fact checking? Certainly not Randi- very very far from it. Maybe Clarke, I don't know. Anyway, where do they call it pseudoscience? Who are the people that SA mentions who "study science legitimately"? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you might be right there. Randi does not call RV a pseudoscience. This made me add to the RfC a petition to suggest better infoboxes (I should have done already, but I forgot). If there is a better template for the top of the article, like a parapsychology series box or some other infobox, then the pseudoscience infobox could be moved to the criticism section, since it's the section dealing specifically with claims of scientific validation. There are several categories at the bottom of the article, and probably one or more have associated infoboxes. Randi's reliability is discussed here at RSN. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a fine compromise. In fact, I think it comes under "not disputed," that some have called it pseudoscience, tho I'm not sure what source that would be. But I'm not disputing that you could find such a critical source, and so putting that box under the crit section would be fine.

Ask Nealparr about the infoboxes. I hate the things no matter what they say, and so have not dealt with them (-:

On the James Rand RSN thread -heh- looks like no one there even really knew anything about him. Randi has really been caught in some very very sloppy stuff, not the kind which is really disputable. I'd have to look it up though. Randi has done a lot more good than harm, but he is sloppy.

And see jossi's post:

"Randi may be an known stage magician and skeptic, but that is not the issue at hand. Will omits the fact that the few paragraphs in that book that want to be used as a source in a BLP, contains numerous factual inaccuracies, such as wrong dates, wrong information about aspects that are well documented by scholarly sources, etc"

I would most agree with this:

"Randi is a reliable, although opinionated, source, for claims of the paranormal or transcendent. Because he's approaching things from the "debunking" side, it may generally be appropriate to qualify his remarks as "according to noted skeptic James Randi...", however, his opinion is worth mentioning. <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

"Reliable but opinionated source"............ heh ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Put that way, the supposed sources for RV are unreliable, as they are clearly promoters of a fringe and unprovable pseudoscientific concept. Randi is considered an authority on hokum, this is hokum, therefore Randi is an appropriate source. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nealparr has made a uber-long post on the RfC section (I wonder if it's going to scare commenters away :P) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm about done, except for responding to comments and maybe adding some guidelines on when it would be appropriate to use it. I certainly hope no one is scared away from making comments, because I feel strongly about "branding topics", and would like to see the whole dispute resolution process settled here rather than carrying it on further. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Martin, you should look at Jossi's comment " I agree. There is no dispute that this book from Randi can be considered a usable source in certain contexts, and a case can be made that it is not usable in other contexts. The real discussion about suitability and appropriateness for inclusion needs to be had at the specific article"[28]. If you notice, Jossi is agreeing with Shoemaker that Randi is reliable. If you notice, nobody appears to dispute that assessment that Jossi makes at the end of the discussion. Martin, picking up some comments in the middle of the discussion that get contested later is not a useful example of anything. Especially if you pick a negative comment from Jossi and neglect to mention that jossi finally agrees that it's a reliable source and that it's usage needs to be discussed at the talk page. What you have done is called "cherry-picking". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• And, Martin, if you think that Randi is not actually reliable, then you should go to RSN and explain *exactly* where Randi has been sloppy or been caught, so other editors can verify and assess those claims. Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to smear a source that you don't like. So stop saying that Randi is not a reliable until you have explained on detail where he has been unreliable and other editors have checked that he really was. Proof or STFU. And I really mean, I'm not going to argue endlessly about a source that talks about fringe claims with an user that has been on a RfCU and a ArbCom case about promoting WP:FRINGE unless that editor actually makes arguments with a solid base instead of simply claiming something with no proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi caught him being sloppy. Are you saying jossi is wrong? jossi's not saying Randi is reliable, he's saying he's a good source for some things- like a skeptical opinion. "usable source in certain contexts". That's not the same as reliable. I agree with jossi on this, and other editors there. Randi should be a source for this article. He's just not a reliable source for bald unattributed statements of fact, that's all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you know what, I looked at RSN again, and I see that I totally misunderstood what Jossi said. Also, Jossi is not agreeing with Shoemaker but with Jayen466, who makes a completely different argument on Randi's addition being either "simply minority-bashing" or a "good-faith effort to reflect the views of a significant commentator on religious matters in Wikipedia" or something, which means that I was horribly wrong on my comment above.

You are right, I am very wrong, I made several bad faith assumptions, I was an ass for bringing out the ArbCom thing, and I apologize for behaving like an ass. Also, sorry for not checking my email before. It's not saying "maybe you're right", it's that you are totally right (btw, if you ever send me an email and want an inmediate answer, it's better if you notify me on my talk page because sometimes I don't check my email for several days on a row) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (: It's no problem, don't be too hard on yourself. WP is a frustrating place, which is a major understatement. Also, you're right that I don't have the facts on hand about exactly how Randi has been sloppy, so maybe I shouldn't have said anything. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC for pseudoscience infobox

The article is listed on Category:Pseudoscience, and this listing is not challenged. The question is whether it's adequate to use {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} for an article on the pseudoscience category. Looking at WP:PSCI, can the infobox be used on "Generally considered pseudoscience" or if it should be reserved exclusively for "Obvious pseudoscience"? Also, are there better infoboxes to use instead of this one? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• This fits both anyway. It is generally considered pseudoscience, and it is also obvious pseudoscience since it purports to scientific method but relies on concepts that have no scientifically proven validity. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's more, the article says that some astrologers claim that the scientific method does not apply to astrology, which makes it inherently unscientific and logically defunct (the scientific principle is based on cause and effect; if cause and effect do not apply to a system supposed to predict the future or analyse the present by looking at the past, then what does?). If something "can not be explained by science", then it can't be science, simple as that. Ergo: obvious pseudoscience with the usual claims of scientific bases. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh- no, that's an argument that Astrology is not pseudoscience. If it doesn't claim to be science, it isn't pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I see no reason to restrict the infobox to just "Obvious" pseudoscience. Anything generally considered pseudoscience is a legitimate candidate for this infobox. I also agree with JzG that it's a moot point on this article. Powers ^T 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overall, I'd say that this a rather weak example of an infobox and if used at all, it should be done so with extreme care. This is not a branding tool to satisfy the opinions of some, but rather a way to consistently summarize related topics that are beyond doubt an obvious pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Nealparr

Since I have multiple issues to cover, I'm sectioning them.

Principles & observations

• An arbitration case on pseudoscientific topics made the distinction between Obvious pseudoscience, Generally considered pseudoscience, Questionable science, Alternative theoretical formulations, and gave loose content guidelines for each pertaining to the categorization of the topic (at lower levels) and characterization of the topic (at upper levels).
• From Help:Infobox: "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject."
• Infoboxes provide an "at-a-glance" summary of the text so that one need not read it all to get the basic info.
• In short articles, no infobox is necessary to summarize the info.
• The arbitration case did not cover the use of infoboxes in this area.
• The Category:Pseudoscience has been up for discussion twice [29][30] with various points raised. Among the votes to keep there were additional comments about how it should be used.
• The {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} itself was up for deletion [31]. The result was not keep, but "no consensus", which defaults to keep. Again, among the votes to keep there were additional comments about how it should be used.
• As of 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC), there are less than 50 transclusions[32] of the infobox template despite a creation date of November 2005, indicating that it is an obscure template. Only 17 of these transclusions are actual articles.
• The template was added here after a content dispute. Previously it has never been used here, nor discussed being used here.
• The articles where the use of the infobox is currently being disputed is Remote viewing[33] and Water memory[34].
• It was likewised added to Water memory article following a content dispute.
• The orginal infobox was titled "Disputed science"[35]. It was renamed to "Pseudoscience" in January 2008[36].
• It was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter (Renamed January 10 2008, put up for deletion February 3 2008). Again, the result of that nomination was "no consensus". In the little over two years between creation and renaming, there were no debates about it that I could find.
• WP:UNDUE, part of the core Neutral Point of View policy, states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• As an encyclopedia striving to cover multiple issues surrounding a topic, rarely is a topic all about pseudoscience. For example even in astrology, there is historical/cultural viewpoints to cover. Even in the hot topic of concern to scientists, intelligent design, it's not all about science vs. pseudoscience. Legal issues such as a separation of church and state must also be covered. "Categorical ownership" is therefore a concern, related to WP:UNDUE.
• When adding the infobox to the Water memory article, the contributing editor remarked "adding infobox. right next on the lead was a bit too prominent, so I put it under the next section"[37]. That was May 1 2008. On May 4 2008, it was added to lead section of Remote viewing[38].
• The infobox is much larger than a simple category link, the links alone being a contentious issue.

Personal speculation

• Infoboxes, by way of their size and definitely by way of their placement, have a tendency to "brand" a subject as being all, mostly, or heavily about the topic the infobox covers. Adding a contentious infobox to an article is like stamping it with a scarlet letter. This is especially true if no other infoboxes are present, and when the infobox is given prominent placement. All other aspects surrounding the topic are immediately overshadowed by the "big box". Whether the box should even exist is only partly a concern. Whether one should use the box and when is the bigger issue. The issue becomes compounded when one uses the box in a middle of a content dispute, because then it becomes about whether that edit is WP:DE or WP:POINT, regardless of the merits of including the box itself.

• Motives. Related to the above point, an editor wishing to add the infobox to an article, in or out of a content dispute, should really spend some time explaining their motive in doing so. It's an obscure or unpopular infobox, only used on 17 articles in the 2,360,000 + articles Wikipedia covers. It's also a contentious infobox, surrounded in disputes and debates, prone to causing disputes and debates. If it's a good faith addition, editors should explain the merits of it and respond to concerns raised by other editors without taking it personally. One of the things I'm hoping to point out here is that discussion is always needed when using this particular infobox.

• An infobox should only be used to summarize information, not to make a point or to brand a topic. This means that if an article is short, no infobox is necessary at all. If an article is of sufficient length where an infobox provides a useful summary, then it should be used in a placement relative to where the information it is summarizing is located. If an article concerns multiple aspects related to the topic independently of the topic of pseudoscience, a pseudoscience infobox should not dominate or in any way imply that the subject is all, mostly, or heavily about pseudoscience; it should be placed near to where the topic of pseudoscience is discussed (typically in a criticism section, not the lead which brands the article).

• I consider the astrology article to be a "good" use of the box. Note that the astrology article contains several graphics and infoboxes, where a single infobox wouldn't overshadow another. Also note it's placement in a section specifically discussing "Astrology and science". It doesn't assert that the primary issue surrounding astrology is that it's considered pseudoscience. It allows, for example, the discussion of astrology's history, cultural influences, and so on to continue without distraction. Only when the discussion turns to astrology and science is the infobox used, and only there is it relevant. It's not plastered in the lead, nor in some other irrelevant place. On the intelligent design article it is likewise used appropriately, placed in a section called "Defining science", which is heavily where "pseudoscience" is relevant.

Case by case

• Seeing as how there are only 17 articles that even use the template, two of them being the recently disputed uses, we could actually go case-by-case and examine what's appropriate and what isn't. Four of them Astrology, Phrenology, Intelligent design, and Creation science are used appropriately without question. Those have other infoboxes/graphic boxes so that it's not dominant on the page, and all of them use the infobox in a section explicitly relevant, either talking about how it is pseudoscience or comparing the topic to science. None of them label the topic as being all about pseudoscience, but instead allow uninterrupted discussion of other aspects of the topic, for example legal issues in the case of intelligent design or the historical/cultural aspects of astrology.

Discussion on Nealparr's points

(You can discuss my points here)

Sorry so long. There were issues involved in using the infobox that I felt no one was addressing, and I wanted to hilight them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is normally for comments for outsiders commenting on the RfC question, since the usual editors have already commented on other sections and the purpose of the RfC is usually to bring uninvolved editors that can bring a fresh view when the usual editors get stuck, but your post is so well done that I won't move it. Commenters can probably read it throught and get a good view of the question --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the new template on the Myron Evans page.

• By removing the name section of the old template, the contents of the template had to be adjusted to include Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) theory which appears nowhere else in the article.
• The heading "pseudoscientific ideas" does not seem best possible; in this and many other cases "pseudoscientific theories" would surely be more appropriate. In the academic world people usually refer to "scientific theories" and vary rarely to "scientific ideas".

Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Theories" really looks more appropiate, I changed the title --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling them "theories" is in itself pseudoscientific. They don't really meet the technical definition of theory as used by science. From the article on theories:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

The common usage, in a scientific context, is misleading. That's why I used "ideas". When one refers to "scientific theories", it doesn't involve pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And using "Pseudoscientific Subjects", the same word that Pseudoscience uses? (sorry if my suggerence is lame) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific Subjects" would be for a category of subjects or a nav box. It's much broader than the purpose of an info box, which is meant to summarize something particular. This is an infobox that points out what idea in the subject is pseudoscientific (not the subject as a whole). It's not a nav box like {{Paranormal}} or {{Parapsychology}} or the other nav boxes. In this case it's an info box meant to summarize the pseudoscientific concept in the subject. "Concept" works too if you don't like "idea", but "subjects" is broader than the scope of the box and "theory" is misleading. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply and discussion olive

I'm not sure you wanted this section for open discussion, so If I am in the wrong place please move my comments. I wanted to emphasize the importance, in my mind, of this statement." "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject."

• The inclusion of non-consistently and non-community accepted info boxes seems questionable since anyone could create an infobox anywhere, creating Undue Weight and any POV. This inclusion seem to push the boundaries of what might be acceptable in an article where consensus and agreement ensure the evolution of a discussion.
• The insertion of the info box at this point in discussion was disruptive to the discussion since it had not been discussed, had no consensus or agreement for inclusion in a contentious article undergoing long discussion, and in being placed veered discussion off into another direction
• I would also consider the box badly placed. It reiterates what is said in the lead and is redundant in this proximity, and quite possibly anywhere in the article.

undueweight

Infoboxes get a lot of space/weight/prominence in an article. They approach "one picture is worth 10,000 words" in prominence/effect. Many articles labelled (correctly) pseudoscience now swamp the detailing of the topic with poorly sourced OR on the scientific flaws of the theory/"world view" in ways that fail WP:WEIGHT. The psuedo-science info box greatly exacerbates this problem, resulting in more undue weight/emphasis being given to the pseudo-scientific nature of the topic. Many commonly held beliefs/"world views"/models are not scientifically based. We should be presenting RS info on the topic as per WP:NPOV, section WP:DUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them..." - not creating ""What's crap and what's not - An Encyclopaedic Guide to A Scientific Reality SmithBlue (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hum, which are those articles that are correctly labelled as pseudoscience, in spite of their subjects being based on belief and not on science? Can you point us to one of those articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's several actually. List of Pseudoscientific Theories#Religious and spiritual beliefs (and others in the list outside that section). My personal contention is with listing Reincarnation in there. What's that about? Many of these are sourced to Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, written by Michael Shermer, a former New Ager turned skeptic. It's easy to see why he would include some religous topics in his book, but in many cases it would be undue weight to contextualize the topic as being all or mostly about pseudoscience, or to weight Shermer's opinion as a notable one to the topic outside the narrow context where it applies. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see Feng shui, Neoshamanism, Reincarnation and Shroud of Turin, but none of them uses the Pseudoscience infobox, and, actually, they aren't even on the "Pseudoscience" category....

As an aside, the article sets context before the list saying "Spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience.[124] At least one prominent skeptical source relates the following to pseudoscience in some way, however:". Also, looking at Reincarnation#Scientific_research, I can see a short section where some prominent scientists have debated the scientific basis for reincarnation and scientific research about it (I even added a bit of sourcing about Carl Sagan), so it's not that off the mark to talk about scientific research on reincarnation, even if the focus of the article is on the belief --Enric Naval (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about topics described as pseudoscience in general. If you're just talking about the infobox it's only used on 17 articles total, none religious, and none concerning just belief-topics. Each one is tangibly connected to a pseudoscientific claim. Here it wasn't (at least not implicitly), but I already fixed that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a RfC on using the infobox when the article is already categorized as pseudoscience :) The issue raised by Whiteblue is a different one, about how some non-pseudoscience articles get swamped with the debunking of the scientific claims made by a minority. I guess that *those* articles would need a "scientific claims" infobox instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the issue of "branding the topic" that I outlined above. Eg. Reincarnation. If the infobox is placed in the lead it becomes problematic. If the infobox is placed in that section talking about the efforts of some to scientifically establish reincarnation, and the issue of that being pseudoscience is fully covered in that section, it's less of a problem. It'd probably still be hard to get editors to accept having the infobox there or want it to be there (it's still a contentious box, possibly overweighted POV, possibly neutral), but at least there'd be a sound rationale for it being there, and it'd be a technically correct usage. I personally feel it's more acceptible now that the title's been changed. Now it's about the concepts that are pseudoscientific rather than the whole topic being about pseudoscience, and the box can be used correctly to summarize info in the section rather than as a brand. That's just my opinion though. Using the box will probably remain controversial. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Seems that concerns have been more or less addressed, and actual situation of infobox on article is not longer contested. It seems that the RfC has already fulfilled its purpose, it was five days since last comment, so I'm closing it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit lead

I copy edited the lead for syntax and grammar before noting the discussion. I don't believe the edits change the information, but if they do, changes that are syntactically accurate are fine with me (olive (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Oops. I guess what I'm saying is I had not intention of compounding problems in the discussion.... just wanted to make what is there more easily readable.(olive (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))la

• Yes, there was a significant change in meaning, in that the first paragraph slipped back into pretending it is real. I qualified it. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Until discussion on info box can be completed

Deleted for now until discussion and consensus or agreement from all editors can take place. Violates WP:Undue Weight since it repeats information in the lead paragraph and is placed in proximity to it, and so also violates NPOV since its placement and repetitious nature emphasize certain points. As well this was put in place in a contentious article recommended for mediation, without agreement or consensus in discussion. Further there is disagreement about the use of the term Pseudoscience which should probably be discussed before the term is used again in an info box. Finally, this info box, see Nealparr’s, discussion is not a “consistently formatted table”. Because there are multiple concerns here, discussion would be an appropriate next step.(olive (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

"Consistently formatted table" is technical jargon referring to the code that displays the information in the template. It's a table, consistently formatted. But all the other reasons, yes, absolutely. The infobox can be used, but not misused as it is here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry and thanks for correcting me. Thought that was referring to something else... makes perfect sense as technical jargon in reference to code now that I see it used ... not that I am knowledgeable in that area, very far from it.(olive (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Discussion of alternatives and addition of navigational template(s)

I'm actually ok with using it on the criticism section, and I agree on moving it there even if no better infobox is found. Any series box will do (a template listing a series of articles on the same topic, similar to an infobox on size and placement. See the use of {{Infobox Paranormalterms}} at Clairvoyance). What do you think of it? Suggerences to adapt it to this article? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably also find some navigational template for the bottom of the article, so it's more tightly integrated with other parapsychology articles. I hope that this is not controversial. Doh, actually, I see that {{Parapsychology}} already links to RV, but RV does not use the template. Anyone opposes to adding it? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of reading up on Nealparr's stuff above. But unless he has reasons for not doing this, I think that is a good solution as I said above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Parapsychology}} is good. {{Paranormal}} is better (I did a lot of coding on it myself). It includes related topics including skepticism, debunking, and pseudoscience. It's well balanced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably add both, like in Psychokinesis, Ghost, Parapsychology, Telepathy, Psychic and Extrasensory_perception and I suppose that many other articles, as they go on different parts of the article. I see that both already link to RV, so they should be fairly uncontroversial. I see that {{Infobox Paranormalterms}} would have one of the problems with the pseudoscience infobox: repeating information that is already on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Great (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless machinations

It doesn't matter to me where the pseudoscience infobox goes in. All that should be noted is when some subject is obviously pseudoscience, it is not controversial to merely include an infobox that summarizes the main points of the pseudoscience. The arguments that including such a box causes "undue weight" to describing the pseudoscience as a pseudoscience are particularly ridiculous. Wikipedia is in the business of describing reality, not fantasy. If people want to place the box in other locations in the article, that's a stylistic question and is irrelevant to the discussion of whether pseudoscience infoboxes should be used in the first place. Reasonable editors who have science degrees can agree which subjects are pseudoscience and which aren't. It's not hard. Parapsychology is pseudoscience. Electrodynamics is not pseudoscience. The end. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Groovy. Updated [39] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The info box in place now, seems at this point to be fine to me. I objected to the one in place previously because it created a POV rather than adding information, because of its placement, and because of what it said and how it was said. Its important to separate the idea of an info box from the kind of info box used. As regards pseudoscience, the question is not whether it is or not but who says it is, and if its verifiable and reliable. I have a terminal degree in art but that doesn't mean I can decide for Wikipedia what is good and bad art, and whether its real art or fantasy. I am however not arguing one way or the other at this point about pseudoscience, and admit that I was distracted and my points were not clearly stated, and one in particular was inaccurate.(olive (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Art and science sit in very different places on the empirical and epistemological trees. Judging whether something is pseudoscience is not the same as judging whether something is "bad art" or "good art". If we must make a comparison, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is more akin to judging whether some piece of artwork is propaganda/advertising or not. Sure, there are weird boundary issues (is Andy Warhol's art advertising? Is Charles Fort an advocate for pseudoscience?) but the very fact that people agree that there are boundaries in these discussions indicates that it isn't simply a matter of "who says so" any more than 1+1=2 is a who-says-so argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People may agree that there are boundaries, but they don't appear to agree easily as to where those boundaries are. A quote from www.websters-online-dictionary.org on pseudoscience:

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures. If the claims of a given field can be tested it may be real science, however odd or astonishing. If they cannot be tested by any means imaginable it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience.

In light of the above, it looks as if an end to presumption on this topic is long overdue. If there are sources that indicate successful results, even in microscopic amounts, then either post them and have a rational discussion (read: without condescension, insult, or character assassination) on them, or wipe this entire article from the site. As it stands, this discussion does not speak well for the professionalism of Wikipedia editorship.

Eigentourist (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverts for syntax

Some of these reversions are of syntactical problems they should be left in place and not reverted to versions that are weaker in terms of grammar and syntax.(olive (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

For heaven's sake no need to edit war over grammar... sheesh.(olive (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

automatic archival by MiszaBot

I have added a template so that MiszaBot archives threads that have had no replies for 180 days. Is that time enough or should I tell it to leave the threads more time on the page? (that's about 6 months, so the threads where the oldest comment is from 20 November 2007 like "Purpoted" will get archived on a few days at most if nobody comments there) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the bot is even working, and I'm not too sure it is, that's way too long. I have trouble loading stuff, as it takes me 100 seconds to load a 200 kb page. How about 30 days? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot may take weeks to start working. I removed all old threads, but there are still 170 KB left. I'll have to archive recent threads that are not longer discussed instead of waiting until they are 90 days old (maybe tomorrow) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lancet article

A few years ago Lommel P. Van published in the Lancet on near-death experiences. Subjects reported seeing objects that they reportedly could not have seen. Anyone know how to find his text?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Send me an email and I'll send you the .pdf file of the original study, or maybe you can get it here [40] (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please do not edit war material into this article. Discuss it first. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, and please try to maintain a neutral tone in the article. --Ludwigs2 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your plea for WP:NPOV, but I am surprised that you reverted away from this version which surely adheres closer to the NPOV-sense than the one you reverted to! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, he doesn't think so. Please refer to other discussions above and the archives of this talk page. Issue has been thoroughly discussed. I will try and look up the ArbCom decision where it says editors are not obligated to repeat arguments over and over if they have already been thoroughly explained. In the meantime, I'll just say you have to source and attribute broad disputed claims. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And please do not claim in edit summaries that nothing has been said on the talk without checking the talk page first. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit has not been discussed on this page nor in the archives. You are being disruptive and are in violation of your probation. You are also maligning my character which is a violation of no personal attacks and civility regulations. In short, your comment is entirely unhelpful and unworthy of consideration as adding anything meaningful to the discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)