Talk:Daryl Bem
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Describing James Alcock
editAn IP wishes to describe Alcock as an "anti-parapsychology activist", but no source was given for this change. Further, it doesn't appear to be a neutral labeling, seemingly intended to generate prejudice in the mind of the reader. Manul ~ talk 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I guess time has washed over that. It can be archived. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
White flag
editI've tried my best to keep this article unbiased. I don't think that the article is fair with Bem and his ideas, specially because I've cited a lot of mainstream peer reviewed papers. I'm not referencing parapsychology journals, but people are still deleting everything I post. It's nonsense to delete peer-reviewed papers published on Psychological Bulletim, Frontiers, f1000 and keep articles by CSICOP.
However, I understand that the topic is highly controversial and it's not widely accepted, but at least the Daryl Bem and other 'parapsychologists' are playing by the rules: they are publishing in rigorous peer-review journals. So, I'm proposing something: at least keep the references. There is nothing wrong with them. We can discuss a better way to word the text, but please don't simply delete everything I write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massless theory (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bem was admittedly p-hacking, a method with which one can "prove" whatever one wants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Recent reversions
editRe ganzfeld "still being debated", as I mentioned in my edit comment in February, this fails WP:PSCI because it presents a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the mainstream and fringe view. The sources for the 2015 paper are inadequate: one is a primary source, one is a blog, and the last is an (apparent) book in which the paper is briefly mentioned but not discussed in any detail. Coverage by independent sources is needed here. Manul ~ talk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel the future controversy
editI understood from Dutch Skepter magazine that Bem's methodology was as good or as bad as was common in social science in 2011. I think this should be mentioned. I also understood that his article was one of the triggers of the replication crisis. Andries (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC) See also https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html
(Personally I find it disappointing that scientists only seem to care deeply about methodology when the results do not fit into their worldview). Andries (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- If we have sources saying so, why not?
- Maybe scientists' worldviews are so often right that bad methodology is the main reason for results not fitting into them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I see negative selective citing from the slate article. Andries (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)