Talk:Remote viewing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link blanking

Please don't blank links without discussion. If you think they should be removed, please discuss here on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I blanked some links for instance CSICOP as they have nothing to do with remote viewing.

Also new age and psudoscience tags do not belong there. It has not claims to be a science, but it mesurable by normal scientific methods so what is psudo about it.

It's not pseudoscience, if only by a technicality-- it doesn't claim to be a science. Wether or not something is "measurable" doesn't make it non-pseudoscience. Something being measurable isn't even part of the definition.

The study must adhere to the basic concept of the Scientific Method-- taht is to say....

1. Use your experience - consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations; if this is a new problem to you, then do

2. Conjecture an explanation - when nothing else is yet known, try to state your explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation- if 2 were true, then state a consequence of that explanation.

4. Test - look for the opposite of that consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

(gathered from Scientific Method page, wikipedia)

I would argue that noone posting on this wiki would likely know wether or no they actually followed this method. That it is not pseudoscience, however, does not mean that it is real. --Melissia 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown at Fort Meade

This information is cited to a specific source - why has it been repeatedly deleted? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall rightly, the source only said that it was going to be shut down, and it's dated, so we need a source saying it actually was. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An episode of the progarm "The Unexplained: Remote Sensing" on the Biography Channel, aired 4/1/2007 12-1pm MDT stated and showed a photograph that the building WAS torn down at Ft. Meade. I did not catch the date of the episode, and the channel guide did not have the next repeat of this story. Further internet searches on the Bio Channel and other sources may find other information. LanceBarber 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Science and pseudoscience

This article can be connected to both science and pseudoscience. Please give sources if you remove one Cat but leave the other in. It should either be in neither Cat, or both. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, RVings exploration may have been grounded in science at one stage, but that exploration just showed it to be invalid as a theory. Since it is still being explored with no theoretically basis for any of it's underlying principles, it makes is more pseudoscience than science. The science side has basically said "tested, failed", so really it does qualify for pseudoscience until such time it's underpinnings are grounded in solid science. This is how science works. As for sources, they are all in the history and criticism sections. Again, the fact that it is a science with little or poor theoretically underpinning, little interest from scientists and large amounts of criticism tend to sway it towards the "junk" side of science. Shot info 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue this at the present. There is more to the story than what you just said- but the Parapsychology article and some others need to be re-done first. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, just because something is researched doesn't make it a science. RVing (and others) may be "real" science in the future, but not at this present time with the conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method. At this moment in time here in WP, RVing (and others) are pseudoscience. Just like plate tectonics were until the theories were proven and evidence shown. Shot info 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is protoscience with some methodological problems- not pseudoscience. One doesn't have to choose strictly between pseudoscience and science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method"...pseudoscience. Shot info 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, protoscience is that which becomes science. This is a field to which very few reputable scientists would have given any credence either before or after the inconclusive investigations. of the 70s and 80s. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I say- if your're right, you're right. I'm not prepaired to argue this right now, but we'll get to it someday, eh? (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I am treading carefully, especially around BLPs and looking at other equivalent articles to see what they have done to help the way forward. However, you may just have to accept that in some instances the WP community regards certain categories as appropriate. Thanks though Shot info 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is, with gravity, we can say with complete confidence what rules govern it. With RV, we can say with very close to toal confidence that repeating the experiment with either or both parties replaced by a random individual, or replacing the observer by one who is not vested in proving the existence of the purported phenomenon, reduces the rate of positives to a point unmeasurably different from random. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the definition needs improving. It seems to me that there is quite a negative POV added there and no real explanation power. There's more in the world than science can explain. I think the views of RVers is just not being presented fairly. For starters its highly regarded among quite a few hypnosis practitioners. I feel more could be stated there. There is also quite a lot of advance in subliminal programming and RVing [http://www.amazon.com/BMV-Quantum-Subliminal-Entrainment-Ultra-Silent/dp/B000EVGOYG]. It could do with a far better intro I think. Steve B110 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have WP:V and WP:RS as a start. Shot info 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Shot info. I think you need to explain what problem you have with that information. The skeptical attitude is a view, but quite shortsighted by a lot of updated science views. Just because some phenomena cannot be measured it doesn't mean they don't exist. There have been a lot of recent discoveries about the brain and human potential. For example, its been proposed by neurologists that the mind is an emergent phenomenon. Also, near death experiences are scarily similar in form. Research into perception indicates that ESP experiences may also be emergent from the combination of measurable sense organs. Remote viewing is becoming standard practice in a lot of neurolinguistic programming trainings. So from my point of view remote viewing is quite plausible (in fact I've had consistent success with the technique for several years in both information gathering and remote influence). I have no problem with skeptical views being heard, but I think they should be stated as skeptical views. Steve B110 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

cf WP:V and WP:RS. Shot info 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, if you really want to know if remote viewing works you should take a look at some of the work being done at: http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr It is totally amazing.

Science in the case of remote viewing has clearly shown time and time again that something 'above the norm' is happening. This can be seen in the FOIA (freedom of information act) documents released from the DIA,SRI,CIA where reports and studies showed remote viewing occured at a levels much more than chance alone. Many of these domcuments and examples of remote viewing can be seen and downloaded from here: remote viewing FOIA documents and examples

Even the bodged MOD remote viewing study in 2001-02 under scientific protocols and study, showed a accuracy rate above the norm (28%) - these can be downloaded here UK MOD RV documents Also see this BBC article for details of the remote viewing study: BBC article on MOD RV study —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazdude (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Clairvoyance?

I couldn't find a specific sub section regardering the suggested merge tag on the front page, so I'm starting one. I vote NO. Remote viewing is not the same ability as clairvoyance. eveningscribe 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Remote viewing is NOT clairvoyance:

The term "Remote Viewing" has one definition with two separate parts to it. The first part of the definition says it is:

The process of an individual acquiring information about a person, place, thing or event which is distant in time or space, when that information could not be accessible to the individual through any means currently known to science.

A certain type of psychic or "ESP" process, defined as Remote Viewing instead of ESP by the fact that it is done within an approved Remote Viewing protocol.

There are rules in Remote viewing to ensure the information one is obtaining could not be accessible to the psychic through any means but psi. These rules are not aplicaable to clairvoyance.

[daz smith] I vote NO. Remote viewing is not the same ability as clairvoyance. Vald 12:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the two subjects are dissimilar enough that they warrant two seperate articles. Ersby 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Remote viewing" refers broadly to a set of ESP protocols used in the government-sponsored program, or to protocols derived from them by commercial operators. Thus, remote viewing techniques comprise a subset of ESP/clairvoyance techniques. The articles should make this clear.

Criticism

1. Some of the changes to the criticisms were pointless and mealy-mouthed. Pointing out that one particular criticism doesn't explain all the results is vacuous when the article doesn't say it does. And besides, no one argument could possibly explain all the results by itself. You need an extensive list to do that.

2. Referencing the ganzfeld experiments is also a mistake. The two are best treated seperately.

3. Plus, the article needs to be rewritten so as to rely less on one source. Am I being paranoid in noticing a similarity between wikijs7's name and the email of Jim Schnabel? Doesn't a lot of this contravene no original research? I've added POV in the meantime. Ersby 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Hello? Wikijs7? This is where debates about the article go. Not in the article itself.Ersby 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

5. I've numbered your comments in this section, Ersby, for ease of reference. Re #1: The reference to Marks's criticism was (and still is) written in a way that implies a far greater relevance to the RV debate than it ever had. Re #2: Remote viewing is merely a "brand name" for a variety (not "one form") of ESP-type protocols used in the government-sponsored program (or subsequently derived from those protocols by commercial operators). With the way the article is written now, most uninformed readers will tend to read any criticism of any "remote viewing" experiment as a criticism of all ESP-type phenomena. To be more even-handed, an editor should clarify the limits of any methodological criticism. Re #3 and #4: Before I edited it, the article lacked the kind of information an entry on this subject should have, and any naive person reading it would have been grossly misinformed about the RV program. Surely completeness and accuracy are priorities over diversity of authorship??? Frankly, it appears to me that the people who control this page have scared away the people who are knowledgeable about this subject. (I understand that this is a general criticism of wikipedia.) But it should be possible to have an informative article on this subject which focusses particularly on the history of the program and is even-handed with regard to the views of skeptics and believers. (I'll have more to say about all this, and more to add on the history part of the article, when I have more time to devote to all this.)

So anyone who disagrees with you is scared of the truth? Nice attitude. Your "response to criticism" still lacks references. Putoff and Targ 1978 is not in the list at the bottom of the page. I'll leave it this way for now so you can add them in.

Clearly I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is scared of the truth. But the article lacked detail, and was biased towards the rejectionist view. (I agree that the article should be agnostic about the phenomenon's validity, while detailing what different groups believe and why.) Frankly, it appeared that people who were once involved in the program had abandoned the article to people who knew relatively little about RV. It seems to me that this is a situation to be particularly avoided by anybody who believes in wikipedia's long-term viability.

You are wrong in assuming that because an article contains one section on remote viewing called "criticism", that this implies all parapsychological research is flawed. This article is about remote viewing, and nothing else. There are other articles that take a wider view of parapsychology.

I repeat: For the sake of even-handedness, notes on methodological criticisms should describe the limits of those criticisms. I don't see why this should be objectionable. I think that part of the problem is the previous article's implication that "RV" is just one technique. I'll draft a section later which describes several types of RV protocol (outbound, associative, coordinate, etc.) so that in the reference to Marks's criticism, it can be specified that it referred to an early phase of outbound RV experimentation.

And it is preferable to have multiple sources. I can't believe this isn't obvious. And subjective validation has been considered a reason for "amazing hits", not just in remote viewing but also in ganzfeld and pyschic mediums and has been written about in parapsychological papers. It is totally relevant to the issue.Ersby 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that having multiple sources is desirable. It isn't obvious that that consideration takes priority over accuracy and detail. I'm going to try to expand the article (again, when I have time) and I am hoping that that will encourage others who are deeply knowledgeable about the program -- and skeptics who had some access -- to contribute to the appropriate sections. Please bear with me.

Rather than argue this "subjective validation" point with you endlessly, I will draft an expansion of the sections on criticisms/responses to clarify all these arguments so they don't look like mere hand-waving. I will also add some (stronger) criticisms (of certain RV techniques) that are currently absent.

In general, I'm not trying to dominate the contributions, but to specify sections (perhaps 5-10 more than exist now) in a way that allows content to be added in the right places, by the right people, with minimal controversy -- and with what ought to be a relatively quick stabilization of the historical content.

Merge with Project Stargate?

There seems to be a lot of new material that is better suited to the Project Stargate page. Or do people think that Remote Viewing and Project Stargate are sufficiently similar that the two can be merged? Ersby 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, "remote viewing" is really a kind of brand name invented by Puthoff et al to cover the protocols devised at SRI under the auspices of the govt-sponsored program, so there is a close connection between "remote viewing" and "Project Star Gate." However, "remote viewing" is really the dominant and broader term. "Star Gate" was only the last of several different names for the program (Grill Flame, Gondola Wish, Center Lane, Sun Streak, Star Gate). So I suggest that it would make more sense for Star Gate and the other code-names to have their own brief articles linked to the main "remote viewing" article.--Wikijs7 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. RV needs its own article. I don't do much editing here, but I watch it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This subject is wide enough to stand alone. In the discussions I hear reflections of the difficulty the editors appear to be experiencing in regard to incorporating the topic into their personal world view. I see little demonstration of an inclination to devote time toward attaining an educated perspective. This will be to the detriment of Wikipedia.

POV?

What is the justification for this now?--Wikijs7 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Use of terms like "killing" to describe the end of the program, and putting the word "evaluate" in quotes.
• Describing Hyman as a long-term opponent of psi, but not describing Utts as a long-term supporter of psi, which is, after all, why she was chosen to contribute to the paper. Also, calling her the "team's statistician" is misleading. She was one of the main authors of the paper.
• "Each side was convinced the other was utterly wrong" is then followed only by arguments for the pro-ESP side.
• "such claims beg the question of why the program lasted twenty three years" - not for wikipedia to ask leading questions like that.
• No mention of Stargate's more curious targets, such as Mars at the year 1,000,000 BC, or the Tunguska explosion. According to McMoneagle, the program became more and more new age, especially after its trasfer to SAIC

Ersby 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this issue should probably be revisited after I've had time to integrate the new sections, re-check the existing material (e.g., the descriptions of Utts that were there before I came along) and add some basic material -- for example on the weird targeting and apparent psychological/psychiatric side-effects of RV involvement.--Wikijs7 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That description of Utts is yours. 87.194.43.100 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The "weird targeting" was only a fraction of the output of the remote viewing unit. After searching through the 12,000+ documents in the CIA's declassified archives, I found about three dozen sessions involving "weird" targets. The vast majority -- at least a couple of thousand -- were against more conventional targets. Considering "weird" targets in the Wiki article seems justified only for the fact that such targets -- and media attention to them -- loom larger in the public mind. For encylopedic purposes, such mention seems trivial. Re: the disputed Utts reference -- last night I reworded it slightly to reflect her status as firmly in the "pro" psi camp. However (to be fair to the original drafter) Hyman's presence in the skeptic camp (50 years or more, now, and a number of books) far exceeds Utts' 20 years in the pro-psi category. If you examine their respective contributions to the AIR report, it becomes clear that Utts' work was far more rigorous than was Hyman's. See: [1]An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning by Jessica Utts. [2] Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena by Ray Hyman. Paul H. Smith 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

President and prime instructor for RVIS, Inc (Remote Viewing Instructional Services) The promotion of remote viewing is directly connected to Mr. Smith's book, business, and livelyhood, something to keep in mind. Teaching RV? seems to be very profitable. Be cautious. Kazuba 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you, Kazuba, that ad hominem attacks are against official Wikipedia talkpage policy. While nothing you say above is factually incorrect (except, unfortunately, the profitability of teaching remote viewing), you have intentionally presented it in such as way as to impugn my trustworthiness. I had drafted a detailed post rebutting your insinuations, but decided it was more appropriate to merely draw your attention to the Wiki ad-hominem policy. Rather than committing the logical fallacy of attacking the character of the person presenting an argument, one is expected rather to discuss the merit of what is argued. In that light, I should point out that nothing in the post in question involves any outrageous claims, and everything I asserted in it is either verified (via sourcing) or verifiable.Paul H. Smith 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the heated conversation going on, one harsh critic said:

"It is not objectively proven to exist, and there is no mechanism known to science by which it can exist." This actually is true. But his attitude of ridiculing something that has been functionally used by public institutions, and well documented as such, is unprofessional and he should take he pet peeves to some other article. Actually, although people have wierd theories, nobody knows the mechanism for gravity to work. But, the apple still falls with the observed mathmatical predicted speed as developed by Sir Issac Newton.

Remote viewing is not standard science because it can not pass the tests of the scientific method. But working practical use has been made based on the current status of a functioning working theory that has been proved at least statistically significant by those who have funded serious projects that produced working results. This article can state what Remote Viewing is by those who created, used, and supported the term. After all, even if you do not belive it to be true, and this is all some big hoax, including all the documents of the United States Government, it still has a definition in detail that belongs in Wikipedia.

Running a big red virtual marker through it and calling it "horsefeathers" is just childish behaviour and borders on libel against the working careers of professionls who have spent decades working on this and producing documentation. Nobody is saying this is proven science, but nobody should mass delete valuable reference information, or be crude and insulting, because they have a personal vendetta that this all somehow just can not have anything to it. Bptdude 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very balanced view. He reverts everything I try to do, though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Category change

Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I searched Google for some of the text said to be a copyright violation, and don't fine it. Where is it from? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Live Remote Viewing Demo

Check out the More Information: Video: Live Demonstration, See if you can spot the flaws, the con. They are most definitely there. If you can't recognize these juicy tidbits maybe you should keep away from this PSI stuff. You are just too easy. "Welcome to my web," said the spider to the fly. [3] Kazuba 03:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you presume that this "demo" is representative of an authentic remote viewing session? Since anyone can append anything to a Wiki page -- at least in the short run -- it can happen (as in this case) that less-than-rigorous examples may be presented from sources that are not credible. An arbitrarily-posted video on the Web such as this does not constitute evidence of any sort either for or against remote viewing, because the circumstances under which it was produced are unknown and, as far as can be determined, uncontrolled. Paul H. Smith 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite opening section?

The whole opening section is way too long and rambling to meet WP quality standards. I propose tidying it up to be more concise, and relocate the useful material removed to elsewhere in the page. Any opinions on this? JXM 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've tightened up the opening section and moved the rest of that material elsewhere. Nothing has been deleted -- everything has just been moved around. There's a new (and not very well-done) Introduction, a section covering Stephan Schwartz and Distant Viewing, and a separate section on the AIR evaluation.

I haven't tried to do anything about the neutrality issue yet. The long quote from Opening to the Infinite was previously unattributed. It apparently comes from a book by Stephan Schwartz, and consequently may not be NPOV. The criticism-related sections near the end are also in need of NPOV attention.

Perhaps someone else can now take a crack at the next round of refinement, like improving my Introduction scetion and addressing the neutrality problem. JXM 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Work on Introduction Section

I'm reversing the last edit (about Joseph McMoneagle) in the Introduction section because it's too off-topic in this early part of the article. Also, the Reader's Digest citation isn't complete - we need to show the issue date for example.

We probably need a new "RV Today" section further on, that covers the more recent on-going work, where this McMoneagle item perhaps resides. More generally, the Introduction section needs some close editing attention to tell a better story, but this isn't the way to achieve that. jxm 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Large Rewrites

Please don't do mass alterations with some amount of discussion. For example, the whole SRI series of experiments are certainly controversial, but they merit a description of what the protocols were and where the methodological failures lay. Similarly, the way the funding moved from one organization to another is useful, to help show where the influences of 'less rigorous' sciences came into play. I think it would be helpful to get some decent section structure in there first and then prune away the POV stuff. If nothing else, we need to provide readers with accurate NPOV descriptions of the overall topic, to help them present rational arguments about its lack of validity. Thanks for your help with this. jxm 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I was reverting a massive addition of POV by one or two users over a period of six months. We've been round this circle before, bloated with crap and then pruned down, I just short-circuited the process by going back to a version that was at least tolerable. I think it's better to work fomr that, using the intermediate version as a pointer form time to time. Remote viewing has no significant currency, and it's not an "experimental protocol" unless you're a proponent - it's a purported paranormal phenomenon, and one which has virtually no support these days. Better by far to go back to something an intelligent size and expand it if you like, with good sources. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, as you wish. I agree that there's been a lot of meandering POV added, which needs to be corrected. I think we just disagreed on the sequence for dealing with it. I'd like to try and summarize, in an NPOV manner of course, the studies sponsored by the CIA et al in the 70s, by drawing upon the peer-reviewed pubs (IEEE, Nature, etc.) and government reports at the time, and discussing the (significant) limitations in them. One approach would be to introduce a separate article specifically on this narrower topic, which I will undertake to ensure remains POV-free. The other approach would be to continue editing work on the current article, where I'd presumably be dealing with the ongoing bloat problem, in addition to your concerns about the overall efficacy of the topic in general. (For example, I'm uneasy about your linking of the term "experimental protocol" to "proponent", but that's a separate matter.) I'm rather in favor of the first approach, with the assumption that we could always merge in the future, if both pieces were of sufficient quality. But I'll take your guidance on this -- you're the admin after all, and I've no desire to waste my time unnecessarily. Thanks for your input. jxm 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be great, vastly more constructive than the POV-pusher's revert summary calling it, if I recall, "vital" history. The most crucial thing about remote viewing is that it has been found to be complete twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that comment, Guy. I'll get weaving on this and run a draft by you before insertion as a separate article. Cheers! jxm 04:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• That would be good. The article has been almost exclusively written by believers, and it really could do with a sanity check; they "know" what is significant but this "knowledge" appears to be coloured by a pressing need to make the idea seem legitimate and even mainstream, which clearly it is not. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing/references?

I am puzzled as to what happened to a fairly extensive addition of peer-reviewed and academic references on remote viewing that I contributed to the article a few months back (in response to complaints that there were "no" or "too few" of such documents listed). They have been replaced by a mixed bag of references, some of which have merit, but others that are of questionable provenance or reliabilty. I am fairly new to this Wikipedia stuff, so don't know what might have happened or why. Paul H. Smith 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd think that it it wasn't bogus at least one or two mainstream sources would cover it. But they don't. Because it is bogus. Ah well, never mind. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "covering it." You seem unaware that articles on remote viewing reporting positive results have been published in "Nature," "Proceedings of the IEEE," "Perceptual and Motor Skills," a Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. A further problem with your comment, however, is that it is a logical fallacy. Your argument amounts to this: 1) Only those research programs are legitimate that are covered by mainstream science publications. 2) Parapsychology research programs are not covered by mainstream science publications. 3) Therefore parasychology research is not legitimate (or, as you colorfully put it -- 'is bogus'). This is a valid argument in that if both premises were true, the conclusion would follow. But it is not a sound argument, since Premise 1), at least, is false. "Being covered" by a mainstream science publication satisfies no truth conditions for a claimed phenomenon. Many phenomena now accepted into scientific discourse were once not covered by mainstream science publications, and we can be sure that there will be others accepted into science in the future that are not being covered today. One of these may turn out to be ESP. Paul H. Smith 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Remote Viewing Process

Whoa. Before one starts saying this or that about remote viewing shouldn't the process be described in detail? My favorites are how long can the viewer describe what the target is? 15 minutes, or is it 30 minutes? How many written and oral statements are allowed? A hundred? How many sketches are allowed to be drawn? How many hits are required? Only one? Where is all of this information revealed? Certainly not here. Where are the detailed records? Has anyone ever really seen them? The question of the down and dirty details are not even touched on in this entry, regardless if RV has value or not. Why? What does it mean when Joseph McMoneagle states, "A remote viewer can never be wrong." If there is a common target and six remote viewers, cannot some of them be wrong? Where's the detective work? If one reveals all the details is that being neutral? What if someone does not like the details? Kazuba 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) kazuba

Two points, if I may:

1) The alleged statement you quote is very uncharacteristic of Joe McMoneagle. Either it is falsely attributed, or has been taken seriously out of context. I am under the impression that skeptics, too, have the same obligation to provide source references as anyone else. Citation, please?

2) The following is from the WP talkpage guidelines: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." Your paragraph of questions is a thinly-veiled op-ed against remote viewing per se. Let's stick to the business at hand -- trying to craft a fair, accurate, neutral article on remote viewing. Paul H. Smith 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Quote: "Speaking of failures, one of my earliest discoveries was to be one of the most valuable. In remote viewing there are failures for the scientists, there are failures for the judges, there are failures for the observers- but there are no failures for the remote viewer." [The italics are also in the text.] Mind Trek: Exploring Conconsciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing, Hamptons Roads Publishing Co., Inc., 1997, page 62, Paragraph four. I guess if you wait and use your creative imagination long enough maybe you'll get something right. Now don't go changing the text on me. (Who owns Hampton Roads?) Asking for detailed information is NOT arguing. It deals with the quality of the remote viewing entry. Could it be improved? I have absolutely nothing against remote viewing. I just want to learn more about it. Haven't you ever been curious about something? Really curious? Enough to read books written by remote viewers themselves, so you are dealing with primary sources? In the world of the professional historian objectivity is the goal. Kazuba 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that I have misunderstood your motives. And you will yourself, I'm sure, be glad to hear that you have misunderstood Joe McMoneagle! In the same section from which your quote comes, he sums up his point thus: "The scientist sees a failure, the judges sees failure, any observer sees failure, but... I have learned something, so I have not failed. Right or wrong, I am learning and squeezing 100% from the experience" (p. 63). So it is clear that Joe is not saying remote viewers are never wrong (I note that you did indeed misquote him in your previous post -- inadvertently, I'm sure). He seems to be saying instead that even in being wrong there is something to be learned and the only failure is not to learn it. This is, of course, a point that remote viewer Lyn Buchanan and others have also often made, and it applies in most areas of life, not just remote viewing. I'm pleased that we have gotten to the bottom of this! Now, back to work... Paul H. Smith 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) What about the quote: "Upon seeing the actual target, I find out that it wasn't the bow of a ship: it was a church." That's a big difference.(p. 63) Kazuba 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He is acknowledging analytical overlay. It is a big obstacle to accurate remote viewing -- perhaps the biggest one. Joe is not claiming this as a hit, but as a miss -- though an interesting one. Perhaps if he can come to understand the mental mechanisms that led him to the belief of 'ship' rather than 'church,' he will get it right next time. He obviously doesn't go into this much detail in his text, but it is what he is implying when he counts this not as a failure but as a useful learning experience. Paul H. Smith 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "Mind Race" is the "bible" of remote viewing. It is a good book on the subject, but there are others, including "Mind Reach" by Targ and Puthoff, that might be contenders for that title. But contenders only -- I don't think the real remote viewing "bible" has yet been written nor, perhaps, will it be. Few fields, controversial or not, actually have anything one could call a "bible." The experimental protocol you describe here resembles the ARV (for "associative remote viewing") protocol. Done properly, I think it does provide solid evidence for the reality of the remote viewing protocol.Paul H. Smith 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what matters is that any attempt to reproduce the experiment without cues by people not already committed to the idea has failed to replicate the supposed phenomenon. The biggest obstacle to "accurate" remote viewing is, according to the dominant scientific view, that it does not exist as an objectively provable concept. No provable mechanism exists, no objectively verifiable demonstration has ever been given, the experiment fails the scientific method and indeed occam's razor. Pretty much every article on or related to remote viewing is written in an "in-universe" style. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, as far as I know there has only been one attempt by skeptics to do what you describe above -- and that was Marks and Kammann. And their experiment duplicated many of the same errors of the earliest SRI RV attempts -- mistakes that were quickly corrected, though Marks and Kammann were apparently unaware of that. What's interesting in the skeptic vs. proponent debate with remote viewing is the nearly complete absence of skeptic/critic attempts at replication. In other words, no attempts to replicate RV experiments by 'nonbelievers' have succeeded because there have been virtually no such attempts. That makes your claim here question begging. The assertions in the second half of your post are pretty much a rehash of older skeptical arguments that have been answered numerous times in the scientific parapsychology literature (best compendium for that would be Radin's "The Conscious Universe"). Perhaps I can respond more to this in a later e-mail, but for now I am late to an appointment! Paul H. Smith 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• And that is a core of the problem. Almost the only people who have investigated it in any way are those who believe. And when it's tried by a non-believer, and no results, it's because of "errors". It's absolutely typical of fringe and pseudoscience subjects: close to zero mainstream coverage because the mainstream is unpersuaded that there is either a credible mechanism or any scientific rigour. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Progress, of a sort. You have moved from saying 'any attempts' by non-believers have failed (implying there were at least several) to the more accurate 'the' attempt by a non-believer has failed. Unfortunately, that doesn't buy you what you want, since one attempt is insufficient to establish any claim (you would certainly not accept only one experiment by a parapsychologist). The fact that there is only one skeptical attempt at replication (a half-hearted one at that) is not a problem of the phenomenon, of course. Instead it is a problem with the sociology (and perhaps the psychology) of scientists. Notice the parallel between the skeptics being unwilling to even test the claims parapsychologists are making and the academics in Galileo's day who refused to even look through the telescope, since they 'knew' that there was nothing there to be seen. But there is at least one modern instance where a skeptic did agree to try a parapsychology experiment. Skeptic Daryl Bem, professor of psychology at Cornell, agreed to a joint Ganzfeld experiment with Charles Honorton, fully expecting it to fail. However, under controlled conditions the experiment succeeded, as did a number of other experiments Bem has since pursued. Bem says he is no longer a skeptic. Of course, Ganzfeld is only a related ESP research protocol, not specifically an actual remote viewing one. As noted above, there are no examples of skeptics attempting remote viewing experiments other than Marks and Kamman.Paul H. Smith 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy (JzG), I find it interesting that you created a template, called Template:Partisan, just so you could tag this article. There should be no problem with putting information in the article, both in the lead and in the criticism section, that mainstream science has not been convinced. But your changes to the lead controvert WP:WTA, and the ArbCom on the paranormal [4]. Are you going to respond below, so that the problem can be worked out? The basic thing here is that we have to go with what sources we have. There is a govt report, I believe, which concludes that there is nothing to it. We can include that. But there is nothing wrong with the sources being partisan. If there are no non-partisan sources out there, then that is what we go with, per WP:FRINGE. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was a response to the fact that no sources other than partisan ones appear to exist in the article. Feel free ot produce rigorous scientific investigations by independent scientists investigating this, but actually I don't think there are any. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You call Nature partisan? That is one of the citations. Government reports? Don't they cite the gov't reports any more? And if there aren't any alternatives to partisan sources, then there is no need to tag. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Purported

I chose this word very carefully for its exact English meaning. Generally we avoid the word purported, as in "X purported to demonstrate Y", because where it is attached to individuals and subjects it implies a value judgement. In this case, however, it implies no such judgement. See wikt:purport: "1. To convey, imply, or profess outwardly; 2. To have the appearance of being intending, claiming, etc."; Merriam-Webster has "the idea that is conveyed or intended to be conveyed to the mind by language, symbol, or action" - I think it is more precise than a claimed (or alleged or supposed, or other near synonyms) ability, since the people doing the claiming are bringing what they consider as evidence, albeit either disputed or refuted according to mainstream science. If anyone can think of a better word I'd be glad to talk about it, English is a great language and has many words that convey nuance, allowing for an enviable precision in description. I am an engineer, not a linguist, so I am always open to persuasion in matters of usage.

This is comparable to the use of the word "belief" in articles on belief systems. It is necessary to set the scene in the same way that we set the scene in the lead of articles on fictional characters, by saying "in the fictional foo universe, Bar is..." - I wouldn't mind identifying this as a concept within the fictional remote viewing universe, but I doubt that its proponents would think much of that, and it would not really be good style anyway. What's important is to make it clear in the lead (which acts as a summary of the whole article) that this has been investigated and rejected by the mainstream, but that it still has currency among a fairly small group of believers. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good word, which allows one to give a definition without any bias at all as to the validity of the subject:

define means:

b: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions>

And as used in a lead, it would obviously be that meaning. Then we could specifically state, per WP:WTA, the controversy, having defined what the article is about.

WTA says:

Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.

— here

So basically, I think that this is one of several ways of talking about a controversial topic without taking sides. But I do think that purported, while it does have some advantages, is better left to dictionaries rather than encyclopedias, where we have the space to be specific about controversy.

In some cases, "means," "denotes," and "indicates" can also be used. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• But it is only defined as such by proponents. Sceptics don't consider it to be defined at all. You can't say that God is defined as the omnipotent being, because it's not objectively verifiable. You can say that believers in monotheistic religions consider God the omnipotent being. Likewise you can't say that remote viewing is defined as the ability for a viewer to perceive things at some remote location, because almost every scientist on the planet actually defines remote viewing as a load of dingos' kidneys. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions are analytic, hence a priori, not a posteriori (in other words, not empirical, or "objectively verifiable"). It is a mistake to require that a definition have a physical realizer (as in the "God" example above). Even though unicorns are non-existent, "unicorn" can still be defined. Further, virtually all new scientific definitions are generated by proponents (or discoverers, or developers -- which in science amounts to essentially the same thing). Skeptics do not have a mandate to determine what is definable and what is not. It is also an erroneous claim that "almost every scientist on the planet" has any definition of remote viewing at all since that would require nearly all scientists to have an idea of what remote viewing is alleged to be. Based on my (admittedly) arbitrary sampling of perhaps a dozen or more scientists from various scientific disciplines in various settings around the country, it appears that most of them have never even heard of remote viewing in the first place, much less have an opinion about it. Paul H. Smith 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"God (IPA: /ɡɒd/) most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]"

In other words, define first. In this definition, God is defined as the deity. Then the prominent belief is stated. For RV, you have:

"Remote viewing (RV)is a term for extra-sensory perception in which a viewer attempts 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."

This is the same as the God definition: define the subject, then say what it's meaning is, in this case that it is a process which attempts to view at a distance.

So I suggest that if the God article is not in accord with WP, that you go change it, but we need to follow general WP practice, and the ArbCom, and we need to pay attention to WP:WTA. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• We are following ArbCom. The article accurately describes, in the lead at least, the fact that this is a purported ability with no objectively provable existence in reality. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed this interpretation, but we are not. Do we have to go through another ArbCom to get enforcement? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't need to, your current restriction should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Papers/References

Under the section "Papers" I have restored the list of peer-reviewed and academic articles that had been removed from the article some time in the recent past. I wonder, though, whether these papers should instead have been incorporated into the "Reference" section? If so, I can go back and do that. Paul H. Smith 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind -- I see that the "References" section is for foot-notes. Paul H. Smith 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV lead

The lead is POV, see above section Talk:Remote_viewing#Purported. It either needs to be reverted to where I NPOVed it, or a further suggestion needs to be made, which is in accord with the ArbCom and does not use WTAs. Suggestions are welcome. Editors should be aware of this page, and should not make arguments which controvert its letter or spirit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, the lead is neutral. Remote viewing is the purported ability to view objects at a distance. It is not objectively proven to exist, and there is no mechanism known to science by which it can exist. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will have to bow to the ArbCom on this one. Your definition isn't even sourced. I could remove it as unsourced, if nothing else.

Tell me, do you consider Nature a partisan source? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I bow to ArbCom, who says that we don't represent fringe views as if they were mainstream. Your preferred version does just that. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific- and please answer the question about Nature. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the recent arbcom restriction placed on you, please stop disrupting this article with fringe theory advocacy. There are no independent reliable sources, and nothing current either. Who wrote the paper in Nature? Targ and Puthoff. Who wrote the IEEE paper? Puthoff and Targ. No independent objective evaluation has ever duplicated the proposed effect. There are no current reliable independent sources supporting the existence of remote viewing, no credible mechanism has been advanced by which it might work, and it is very clear that it is a fringe theory rejected by the scientific establishment. In as much as it ever had any currency or perceived validity, that has long gone. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of question begging. Guy's definition of the term "independent reliable source" will always be the empty set. This is because anyone -- including a skeptic -- who successfully replicates a remote viewing or other ESP experiment automatically becomes a partisan source. This constitutes a tautology. Producing successful results, even with the cleanest of protocols, makes one a partisan. Producing negative results, even with the sloppiest of protocols, makes one "ojbective and independent." And of course there are no reliable sources (listed on the Wikipedia remote viewing page) because Guy/JzG deletes them when they are posted. Paul H. Smith (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. The only rigorous investigation into this by a sceptic, as far as I can tell, concluded that it's bogus. All the published papers are by the closed circle of proponents. See WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that means you don't know the sources. However, if you have alternate sources, please show them to us. Otherwise, the sources we have are the sources upon which we have to base the article, partisan or no. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw this page listed on WP:3O, so I'm here to comment. I have to admit, I'm not really sure why the page was listed on there. Is it really all over the use of "purported" in the introduction? And what is this ArbCom decision that keeps being mentioned? With a little more information as to what the problem is, I can give a better opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over: Here is the ArbCom, I've directed right to one of the sections which relate specifically to the word in the intro, but there are about 3 others. Here is the situation: I'm under ArbCom sanction, which basically says I can be banned for a week if I edit in a disruptive way [5]. Guy/JzG, an admin, is calling my participation on this page disruptive, and threatening to have me blocked (so if I can't get back to you that's why). I also feel rather insulted by his "spit in the soup" dismissal. He created the "Partisan" template just for use on this page, then tagged everything- but has no alternative sources to use, as far as I know. You might look over this discussion on his talk page- which says it all. Also see edit summary here. His version of the lead has been edit-warred in, over the objections of other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's... a lot of Wikidrama. Um, I'm not really sure on this one. You certainly need to watch yourself on this one. As for the use of "purported" in the first sentence, it seems okay, I guess. This resolution on the RfA seems to indicate that the addition of "purported" adds nothing to the case. Is the use of this word the reason you listed on 3O, or is there something else that I'm not getting here?

Side note: I wouldn't recommend it since you've been so recently sanctioned, but if you really feel bullied, you do have the option of bringing up an issue against an admin, either at WP:ADMIN#Dealing with grievances or WP:RFC/ADMIN. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming along. Unfortunately, the listing at 3O is just forum shopping - this is not a dispute between only two users. There is no indication that Martinphi will accept any answer other than that he is right, based on my interactions with him elsewhere. This is one of the reasons for his ArbCom sanction. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Actually, there are several issues, one the OWNING of the article, (the special template, edit warring etc.) and the other the threats and incivility, made merely for discussion on the talk page. I am not the only editor who opposes the word choice, or the other actions. I do feel bullied here, so I may take your advice. Thanks again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that the text you keep putting in contains the assumption that remote viewing works, and provides or provided "valuable" intelligence. Whereas of course there is no objectively verifiable evidence that it does work or that he provided anything other than a lucky guess. The way to deal with it is to cite it to a footnote which links to the citation, and let people make up their own mind. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh thank you so much. A denouncement of censorship is a pretty reliable indicator that a fringe view has been reduced to its proper perspective and weight. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Talk header and Paranormal Group

Peer review requested. This stub is too light. I'll add as time permits Maxwellordinary 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• As long as there are people in that project who support the mainstream as well as the pro-paranormal viewpoint, that will be helpful. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paranormal designation

Paranormal designation, and peer review withdrawn by editor. (Parallel peer review request active). --Maxwellordinary (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes was right

Well. Yesterday I re-posted a list of science articles, some favorable, a few critical of remote viewing. Today it is gone. After a bit of poking around and learning a few more Wikepedian ropes, I find that the list was deleted because the deleter arbitrarily decided that too many of the listed papers reported positive results or favorable judgments about remote viewing. The culprit was an anonymous someone going by the initials JzG who, on further investigation, may just be an alter-ego of another alter-ego of someone else who makes a hobby of going around vandalizing Wikipedia parapsychology entries. It seems that the social experiment known as Wikipedia is a failure when it comes to handling any entries on subjects slightly more controversial than the chemical make-up of salt. In any case, after fooling around trial and error with this for more than a year off and on and seeing entries and edits wiped out without a trace merely on the whim of some skeptical bigot who happens by, it seems that I could contribute more by spending my time building sand castles at low tide. I've also come to realize what an un-policed online "state of Nature" looks like.

My thanks and respect to those editors of good conscience who put their energy into trying to keep a balance going here. I don't envy you -- nor do I hold out much hope. Paul H. Smith 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• First, Paul H. Smith should not be editing the article (per our conflict of interest guidelines). Second, Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that the world in general thinks this idea is horsefeathers. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a mis-representation of COI. Read the ArbCom I've already mentioned here. There is to be caution, but the quality of editing is everything. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a COI. He makes money selling "remote viewing". Guy (Help!) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat: the quality of editing is everything. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's argument begs the question. If making money or selling in a field is a disqualifier, then physicists employed at Los Alamos should not edit Wiki articles on quantum field theory, AMD computer scientists should never edit articles on semiconductor technology, nor florists edit an article on flower arranging. Obviously, the position is absurd. Fortunately, the Wikepedia guidlines are not so rigid as Guy seems to be. This is what they say about COI: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace." Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They do not make money by promoting quantum field theory, they are paid to study it. If you can show me a body of work in the reputable science journals in favour of remote viewing that is even one hundredth the size of those supporting quantum theory, I will happily help rewrite the article based on those sources. I'm afraid that Puthoff and Targ publishing in support of their own hypothesis is no more convincing than Fleischmann and Pons publishing in support of theirs. This is a better example than any of yours, I believe, since it addresses a more analogous situation, namely a theory with no significant remaining support outside of its few proponents. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop in and revisit this after a long absence doing other things. First, do you seriously think anyone will believe that the professor teaching classes and writing a book on his interpretation of quantum theory is not getting paid to promote quantum theory? Second, your position here is question begging. The size of a body of peer-reviewed, published work on a scientific topic as compared to the volume of work published on some other scientific topic has absolutely no bearing on the scientific legitimacy of either topic. You commit an apparently intentional logical fallacy here by implying that all that has been published on the subject of RV comes from Targ and Puthoff, when there is an extensive body of peer-reviewed articles in publications (both mainstream and specialty) by other researchers on remote viewing and related topics...a number of these cited on a reference list I posted on the Wiki page but which you kept deleting only because several of the referenced articles reported positive results! That kind of behavior implies that you will tolerate only the negative point of view, and even when there is evidence for the positive point of view you take it upon yourself to prevent others from seeing it. This attitude seems directly antithetical to Wikipedia's touted "neutral POV" policy. Paul H. Smith (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Early SRI Work?

Since "neutrality" has now apparently (and somewhat mysteriously) been achieved (see edit on March 10th), I'd like to recommend that we move the RV section on the main SRI page to this page instead. At least that material contains accurate citations of the various scholarly articles that this page still lacks. Comments? jxm (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead etc.

Martinphi made a number of changes which served, in my view, to give the impression that RV is widely accepted and disputed only by "out there" skeptics. This is a false impression. The scientific consensus is strongly against the existence of paranormal phenomena, and the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies. Randi is indeed one of the few proponents of the mainstream view who dignifies this twaddle with a rebuttal, but the fact remains that science in general simply does not accept the paranormal, mainstream support for investigation into the paranormal has been in decline since the 19th century because science has much better explanations now. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not write your posts in a way which insults those who believe in remote viewing.

If you can cite a scientific consensus, then that is what we should put in the article. Such a source -as with Astrology- is highly valuable. However, the other sources in the article militate against what you say. Thus, what you say needs sourcing.

By definition, science does not accept the paranormal, which is why we could frame the article with that word, or equally with the current "extra-sensory perception," per the decision of the ArbCom, which you can read in summary form here. However, citing skeptical sources, such as Randi requires attribution. This is standard and basic Wikipedia policy, and I see no reason why you have any objection to it.

I would also like a source for saying that the paranormal is not a mainstream view, and that Randi's view are mainstream. According to Gallup polls, it is the mainstream view, with I believe over 70 percent of people believing in one or more paranormal claims. The percentage goes up with education level, and a majority of physical scientists believe in the paranormal.

I also see no reason for wholesale reversion of good edits along with those you disagree with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help the fact that the dominant scientific view is that remote viewing is bunk. This is not just the view of skeptics such as Randi, it is the dominant scientific view of all paranormal phenomena, as you know perfectly well. Please stop trying to obscure this obvious and well documented truth. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the dominant view is as you say, why not cite the source? Right now the lead section you have added is OR and POV as any editor can see. My interest is not whether the topic is true or not but the policies. Not sure what the problem is, but wouold like to see this lead comply per Wikipedia policy. Martinphi seems to be making a reasonable claim and request. (olive (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Stop Wikilawyering. You know that JzG is right. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Wikilawyering, eh?....Nice one!(olive (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

"You know that JzG is right." A 'mind reader' who does not believe in remote viewing; fascinating.

It is standard pseudosceptic practice to demand proof but provide none themselves, which is also the prevailing Wiki Editor approach, perfectly normal double standards, especially among those who hide behind pseudonyms. Surveys such as one referred to on the BBC Web Site have shown that most people believe in, accept, have exeperienced the non-physical. So, on a weight of numbers basis the dominant view is contrary to pseudosceptic propoganda.

I have only 'dabbled' in remote viewing but do have expereince of telepathy; thanks to a telepath to whom I was introduced, remotely of course, I was able to describe scenes and a two people, one of them the telepath herself, in mainland Europe (I was in Southern England), confirmed by someone who had met them and been there. It is real enough. RichardKingCEng (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what then, since Littleolive appears to challenge the assertion that the dominant scientific view is that paranormal phenomena are bunk, why not cite a list of successful reproductions of paranormal experiments by mainstream scientists published in mainstream scientific journals in the last 50 years? Guy (Help!) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Lets be clear, and lets not put words in Olive's mouth. There was no challenge here to the truth of the material. Thats not my job as an editor. So "appears to challenge the assertion that the dominant scientific view is that paranormal phenomena are bunk, is, ahhhh, well, bunk . I didn't say that. I am very clearly challenging the reliability of the statement, rather than its truth, and the source, in terms of Wikipedia. It is OR and becomes POV.The original statement in place was neutral, so why you would remove it, is beyond me. Your atatement JzG is a red herring. The issue at hand is reliablity of source and OR and not what Olive believes.(olive (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

SA, why would you want a source in the lead that says nothing to prove what you are trying to say, that in fact weakens your argument because its basically a "non sequitur" source. Wouldn't this kind of source weaken the reliabilty of the statement, and the scholarship here.(olive (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Neutral enough for whom? This word is I believe directly referenced in Wikipedia WTA. Does this present a concern in trying to write an encyclopedic article that complies with certain standards.(olive (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

JzG, per the ArbCom on Paranormal [6], you cannot cite a scientific consensus without sources. But you can if you do have sources. As you see, the ArbCom dealt directly with this situation. Please cite your sources. I have sources which put your statement in serious doubt, as I said above and RichardKingCEng also said. Therefore, if you keep insisting that RV is rejected, as opposed to not accepted, (ie paranormal) all you have to do is cite your source.

RichardKingCEng, it is better not to call them pseudoskeptics. Let them be the insulting nasty ones. One can do better than that, both on a personal level, and in terms of working within the Wikipedia system to eliminate non-scientific skepticism.

We could all agree RV is bunk, and the argument would still go on. Because it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the sources say. And the sources and/or WP rules such as WP:ATT do not support the statement as it stands.

The word "purported" is not only a WTA, it was specifically stated to be not necessary by the Arbitration committee. It is also not necessary, as other neutral and accurate words such as "apparent" could be used in its place, if any qualifier is needed. Insisting on it is POV in action, as I can demonstrate from the edit summaries of the editors who insert it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Already discussed, and you lost that time as well. It is a 100% accurate way to describe supposed paranormal phenomena. Remote Viewing is not an ability, since there is zero credible objective evidence it exists, it is a purported ability. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To set things up as a "win or lose situation" is a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Rather, you should try to come to a consensus with other editors. That is the way Wikipedia is set up to work. There would be no reason to describe RV as an "ability" which actually exists, but if we did, it would fall firmly within the cultural artefacts section of the paranormal ArbCom. If you refuse to discuss the issues and continue to own and edit war against multiple editors, I'll have to ask for mediation. You're going against WP regulations, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE WP:OWN, WP:ATT, WP:RS, and also the decision of the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, silly of me to forgetL the way Wikipedia is set up to work is that you keep pushing the same fringe POV until everybody else has lost interest and you get your way. Oh, wait, no, that's precisely what you're not supposed to do. So I find myself wondering why you are, once again, requesting the same change with the same argument and hoping for a different result. No, hang on, I know why you hope for a different result: you don't like the scientific consensus and feel that the complete nonsense that is paranormal True Belief should be given parity or near-parity of esteem. Sorry, no. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no "result" last time- I find it disturbing that you, an admin, look at WP as a battleground. I just gave up on the article for a while. Now, even more editors (I think there were five last time) have expressed a problem with the POV, ATT status, etc. of this article. Further, as I said above, you're trying to violate some pretty basic policy and principle of WP. The arguments were not answered in substantiative form recently, nor were they last time. (There were a lot of very uncivil comments made, but those don't count as arguments.) That's because the arguments I made are valid, as are the arguments of others, also above. Please take a look at them. The closest thing to a substantiative argument was just that you like the word "purported" because it says what you believe, and that you happen to believe (without sources) that science has considered the claims of Remote Viewing, and formed a consensus against them, and therefore a skeptical online publication may be cited as fact- without attribution. I don't recall any arguments that the ArbCom didn't apply to this, nor that they should be ignored for some reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really incredibly simple. WP:WTA is a style guide, WP:NPOV is a core and non-negotiable policy. RV can rightly and accurately be described as a purported ability because purported means claimed and makes no judgment as to the validity of the claim. To describe it as an ability is in-universe and thus violates the guidance on coverage of fictional topics as well as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to the idea that it exists, when there is no objective evidence that it does exist. Now please stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there are other ways to say it, which involve neither claims nor the word purported. Also, that word is only a minor issue. The two major ones are ATT and what appears to be WP:OWN on your part. And if you are going to make statements like "no objective evidence" which are not supported by 1) known or sourced scientific consensus 2) the sources of the article 3) the main skeptical sources such as Ray Hyman, and also other skeptics like Richard Wiseman, both members of CSI; and if you are going to keep doing that after it's having been discussed at length and repeatedly above; then I'm really having a problem assuming that there is no issue of your own POV influencing the way you are editing. So I'll take it to the next level. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could another word be used instead of 'purported', for example 'supernatural'? PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, "apparent" (second meaning "Appearing as such but not necessarily so") would be fine, and completely accurate and NPOV. "Supernatural" is something which science cannot study, so that would be to dismiss it a-priori.

However, as I said, that little word is not that big a deal. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just filed a request for informal mediation, but did not include you as a party- you could include yourself if you want. [7] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would 'paranormal' be any better:

Leonard Zusne, Warren H. Jones (1989). Anomalistic psychology: a study of magical thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 167. ISBN 0805805087. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

At the moment purported is widely used in similar articles, so you could find an article content RfC more useful than informal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we went all the way through ArbCom, and got a ruleing on this matter. The problem is that editors, knowingly, ignore that. So I see no real reason to go further. Nor should we merely copy sources, especially if those are POV sources, as the book above obviously is (not a bad source, just POV). The real problem here is not the word, however, but the Attribution, and WP:OWN. I wasn't even going to bother dealing with the word now. But if you wish, then yes, "parnormal" is good, as is "apparent." "Purported" is not NPOV as it judges the matter from the start. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, about the book above, it says "paranormal?" I was in a big rush. Sure, "paranormal" is fine. That word was explicitly mentioned in the Paranormal ArbCom as being one with which to frame an article. They said [8] " 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.

See, that's why I don't really think we need more dispute resolution (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why request it? ;-)

Is the question over the use of "purported"? Would that word be acceptable if a source you found neutral were used? Or do I have the issues mixed up? For you, Martinphi :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the objective validity of remote viewing is not accepted by the scientific community since no demonstration of remote viewing has ever been successful in a controlled environment" entered by ScienceApologist. As far as I am aware the Theory of Evolution, Hawking radiation and a vast panoply of other matters have not "ever been successful in a controlled environment" either. Real science (as well as real scientists for that matter) is somewhat greater and more flexible than the "schoolboy level" of "you've got to do it in a laboratory by set methods". Besides there is enough evidence of remote viewing for Richard Wiseman to move the goalposts, it seems [9]. RichardKingCEng (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• We have credible evidecne to suggest that the theory of evolution is supported by 99.9% of scientists. Would you like to cite some evidence to show that the level of support for paranormal phenomena is of the same order of magnitude? I won't quibble about the decimal point. Any recent paper in Nature or a mainstream journal of equivalent impact demonstrating a paranormal phenomenon under controlled laboratory conditions will also be acceptable. We are not here to pretend, Richard, we are here to document facts, and the fact is that there are currently no experimental validations of this technique by non-believers. As a chartered engineer, would you stake your professional reputation on a safety monitoring system based on remote viewing? Guy (Help!) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Break, section too long

Hi Xavexgoem (:

There are a couple of things. First, we need an adult. Most everyone who comes and edits this article gets driven out. There is an issue of ownership, which prevents fixes- even minor ones [10]. The two current content issues are the word purported, which could be replaced by other words, such as my suggestion of "apparent," or PhilKnight's suggestion of "paranormal" -or just write around the issue entirly perhaps ("purported" is intrinsically POV, as it decides things from the start; as JzG/Guy says, the word is intended to "make clear from the very outset that this *is not objectively real*" [11]). The second one is ATT, as you see in this diff and it's summary: [12]. In most articles this could be solved by editors, but not here. I have to go now, will be back tomorrow (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of ownership just because cruft fails to make it into the article. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm 20, although for the record I've met some very nice 15 year olds ;-)

Humm... I think paranormal works, since it works for "both sides", so to speak (paranormal the phenomenon & paranormal the haha whatever; I myself don't have a solid perspective, since I like a simple universe, but I'm incredibly nervous that it isn't ;-)

What say you all? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, actually. And the wikipedia article does that right now, pretty well, for the most part. I know Martinphi has a religious objection to the word "purported", but I chose it with great care. It is deprecated in certain circumstances (e.g. X purported to prove that he was innocent), but it is a properly neutral way of describing an "ability" which is claimed by some, disputed by others, lacks any objectively provable existence, and is not supported by mainstream scientific thinking. You can't say it's the ability to do foo, because as far as most people are concerned it is not, it is hokum. You can't say it's defined by believers as the ability to do foo, because there are a few non-believers who would still call it that and because it's a weasel phrase. You can't say this article is about a paranormal topic and then use in-universe descriptions, any more than you can for any other fictional topic. A purported ability is an ability whihc is claimed, making no judgment as to the validity of the claim. I did think very hard about that wording. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point about paranormal. However, the next paragraph of the lead does go on about its validity. How about "paranormal belief", could that strike a semantic middle ground? I don't wander into the non-mainstream very often, so I'm a little new at this myself... Xavexgoem (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Pink thing

Although we should ideally write the same article whether we believe it or not, does anyone want to remote-view with me as I read this computer monitor? What is the pink thing underneath? What is the blue thing at the lower left corner? In other words, does the emperor wear any clothes? Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is positively the strangest post I've seen....(: 0= What are you talking about?? I use Mozilla. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The pink thing is underneath my monitor, on the shelf, hence neither your browser nor mine is relevant. Some participants here claim to be able to perform remote viewing, so here's a simple chance to settle that issue one way or the other. Can they see my pink thing or can't they? Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the relationship would be to the article. Nor who claims that. What's your point? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not making sense, I must be missing something very simple. The article's first sentence says, "Remote viewing (RV) is the purported ability for a person 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..." My computer monitor and its surroundings are an example of something "hidden from the physical perception" of the rest of you, and "separated from the viewer at some distance". Thus, "Remote viewing (RV) is the purported ability for a person to gather information on" the pink thing under my monitor, for instance. So can Mr. Smith or Steve B110, for instance, remotely view my monitor and its surroundings, and describe them? If not, then what does remote viewing mean if it doesn't mean viewing that's remote? Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, I pretty well got that. But what does it have to do with editing the article? I mean, we aren't here to judge. I don't know that much about RV- very little. If CSI member Richard Wiseman says it has been proven to the standards of other sciences, I just have to take his word, and the sometimes less positive views of the other sources. What are you trying to do besides WP:OR? Nice experiment, but as far as the article, could it matter? Even if I told you that you had a pink birdy on your shelf, and you did, would you accept RV? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think anyone wants to see your pink thing under your monitor. Could you perhaps ask for something above the belt? Especially if "the emperor" isn't wearing any clothes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's OR - the first half of the first sentence of this section admits that, although this isn't the first comment on this page on how seriously we should take this stuff. It isn't a birdy. Would I accept RV if it were? If you identified about ten comparable items around the room, I guess I'd have to. RV sounds more plausible than you spying through my second-story window just to prove it. Of course I would quickly devise a tighter experiment to apply for my million bucks. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could rouse me from my unawareness more effectively if you had perfected remote viewing yourself. Try remotely viewing my face more closely this time. (The answer to my real age is on my user page). Art LaPella (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pink thing? Computer screen? Obviously it's Spam. That was too easy, you have to be wary of giving too many clues... Guy (Help!) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a dry pink washcloth, for wiping dust off the screen. You knew that all the time, right? But I'd rather not name the blue thing; doesn't it matter if anyone can really do this stuff? Art LaPella (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No- it doesn't matter. Let's assume that RV is 100% bullshit. Ok. Now, we still have to attribute. We still have to write the article:

with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially. [13]

You see? No, it does not matter at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated a little, but I've often made the same argument myself. Remember I thought I was contributing 4 sentences. Art LaPella (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC for pseudoscience infobox

Archived on Talk:Remote_viewing/pseudoscience infobox rfc. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 19 June 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

Archived on Talk:Remote_viewing/pseudoscience infobox rfc. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 19 June 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 [14] (; ——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)

There is nothing in this discussion which is not useful, and I see no personal attacks just requests to follow a progressive discussion on major edits. Such an perspective might allow for smoother editing practices.(olive (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

and if there are massive changes being made which other editors object too, the appropriate method of proceeding would be to discuss and reach agreement... that would seem to be the most civil step to take, whatever personal opinions are, and would improve the collaborative environment here.(olive (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Acting as a shill for Martinphi's disruption is unacceptable. We can have a discussion, but making unfounded accusations such as that I did not "[check] the talk page first" is an attempt to derail the discussion into personal invectives. It in no way moves the article towards a more reliable, verifiable, and neutral state. I will not tolerate this level of disruption. There are no "massive changes", as you would have it, and moreover your adoption of wording is needlessly emotive and fails to shed any light on this conversation. In short, your attempt to act as referee has not only failed, you have succeeding in making things worse. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing more that can be said here that will not further aggravate the situation of an article being dominated by fringe proponents who seem to be content to drag their feet and refuse to make substantive critique of legitimate edits that are reliably sourced and conform to the mainstream academic understanding of the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in acting as a referee. I am however an onlooker, and since I have copy edited this article, although I am not knowledgeable in this area, I did want to comment. Emotive seems pretty far fetched given the tone of my post, and given that you took my comments to referee material, however poor, and no I'm no meatpuppet ... MartinPhi didn't ask me to comment here. I will reiterate my own opinion, and that is, I don't see disruptive behaviour, and I will say that anywhere, in any environment. That is my opinion having watched this discussion. I do believe there are ways of moving a discussion forward if the editors can agree to discuss and come to an agreement, and that is what I commented on. I am not commenting on the edits and I am no fringe editor. That's up to the two editors who seem to be involved in this point. I an commenting however, on the accusations that do not seem to help aid in the ongoing progress of this article. As an editor that's what I 'm saying, that's what I have the right to say, and that's what I believe. The rest is up to you and the other editors involved.(olive (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks olive, yes, I agree we need to 1) discuss changes first and 2) come to a consensus before inserting material. As noted above, there was no consensus for the edits, the principles of them have been discusses and rejected before, and other editors objected. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that demands we do 1), and further you have not discussed the edit at all. False claims of consensus either in the affirmative or the negative are simply disruptive. You are consistently flouting your restrictions. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please get consensus on this controversial article before inserting controversial edits. If your edit are reverted, please do not edit war them back into the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

seems I've missed a good part of this discussion. well, let me just say this: I have been opposing the current lead in the article because of words like 'pseudoscientific' and 'anecedotal', and the particular way used of constructing phrases so as to impose a negative impression. the fact that the scientific community "accepts none of the alleged instances" (compare with the more neutral 'no claims of remote viewing have been accepted' - the latter is a historical fact; the first implies a firm position) is not grounds for using wikipedia to try and debunk remote viewing. not that I believe in remote viewing, mind you, but I do believe you should allow every idea to put its best foot forward, so that people can evaluate it for themselves. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are still major problems with the lead, like you say. For example, critics only found some minor potential for sensory leakage not "that clues inadvertently revealed by researchers explain how purported remote viewers can obtain information on remote viewing locations." We could work on a better version if you like. You going to be around?

It's correct in the crit section, however: "According to Dr. David Marks in experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. Dr. Marks concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[25][26]"

I don't see the phrase you mention in the article, where you say "accepts none of the alleged instances". ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be in and out - I do have a life, but I often have strong urges to avoid it.  :-) and the reason you don't see the phrase is that I reverted it. check the last diff. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. On that one I was focused on the "As with all pseudoscientific claims of extra-sensory perception." This is merely wrong because if interpreted in terms of the impression it gives it means "all claims of ESP are pseudoscience," which is wrong to say in that there is no source for it. And if interpreted literally, well, duh: of course all pseudoscientific claims of ESP are not accepted. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase does not say "Since all claims of extra-sensory perception are pseudoscientific...." That's one that gives the impression that all claims of ESP are pseudoscience. The phrase is clearly worded to discuss only the claims of ESP that are pseudoscientific. There clearly are claims that are pseudoscientific. We have RTC to show for that one. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring. More POV pushing. Another page protected because of you. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...>don't let it get you down. dealing with true believers is always difficult. I think we may have to opened this to RfC before it gets any more uncivilized. it's such a minor point that getting turned into such a major debacle - maybe they need the general community to convince them that they're out of line. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. RfC's usually don't get much response around here. We already asked for informal mediation. We could ask for formal mediation if we wanted to. You could do it. Maybe people don't like hearing from me, I'm not sure. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist... [snip] Oh well. You are really portraying yourself in a negative light here, and MartinPhi is being pretty reasonable. Are you familiar with the TV show "The Big Bang Theory"? False claims of consensus are "disruptive"? Ok, maybe they do violate a policy. [snip] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I snipped part of the comment above, per WP:RPA. Please don't make derisive comments on other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for a week - sort it out. And please focus on the content, not on other editors - comments about POV pushing and true believers aren't really helpful. Vsmith (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

my apologies, I hadn't thought 'true believers' was an objectionable term (partly because it has been used at least four other times on this talk page, but mostly because I have a great, if sorrowful, respect for faith).

at any rate, despite the fact that the issues are clear, no one seems to actually want to discuss the matter, and that's certainly not going to lead to any resolution. so let me just spell out my objections.

1. the use of completely unnecessary and distinctly pejorative words: i.e. 'pseudo-scientific,' 'purported' and 'anecdotal'.
2. the use of sentence structures designed to overstate or mislead. e.g.: 'the scientific community accepts none of the alleged instances' as opposed to something like 'the scientific community has not accepted any of the alleged instances' - the first phrasing imputes an ongoing attitude to the scientific community; the second, milder, statement merely states that no cases have been accepted to date. the second statement is unarguably true, while the first makes implications about current and future beliefs of scientists which violate wp:crystal ball

I welcome any discussion on these points. --Ludwigs2 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Since this subject is verifiably 'pseudo-scientific,' 'purported' and 'anecdotal' we will continue to use these words as the sources indicate.
2. Your example is weaseling. What we need is to be clear and concise about the lack of scientific backing to this subject.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

• is your 'verifiabilty' point intended to counter the fact that the term is pejorative, or to counter the fact that it is unnecessary in the context of this article? your understanding of neutrality seems to be confounded by your personal beliefs concerning objective truth. don't get me wrong, I don't believe in remote viewing any more than you do, but I do believe that (as a topic) it deserves a fair and unbiased presentation.
• you have completely misrepresented the policies on weaseling. There are no weasel words in my statement; in fact, my statement merely presents the objective facts of the matter, without trying to shade their meaning one way or another. let me be perfectly clear. it is an undeniable historical fact that 'the scientific community has not accepted any...'; it is arguable, however, whether 'the scientific community accepts none...' since that seems to impute that they could never accept, which is clearly something we have no knowledge of.

also, please take care with your language. using phrases like 'we will continue to use these words...' in a discussion about content might be interpreted by some as a statement of ownership of the article. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I'd prefer to keep this conversation above reproach. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's beautifully put, you're a good writer (: One might also note that accepting "none of the evidence" is different from "accepting the evidence" in general. One might accept some of the evidence (as Richard Wiseman, member of CSICOP does) without accepting the thing itself. In other words, one can accept evidence without accepting the claims. Thus, there is a big difference between

"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, no claims of remote viewing have been accepted by the scientific community."

and

"the scientific community accepts none of the alleged instances of remote viewing as being actual evidence of psychic perception."

[15]

A huge difference, now that I come to think of it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The first version is clearer and more to the point. Claiming that is is biased misses the point that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. You might think it is biased, but the best sources we have on the subject treat it as such. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sources are you talking about? Have you read above, where we are talking about stuff like the Skeptic's encyclopedia, which does not treat it with so much disrespect? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources we have for the statement are summarized appropriately in the current text of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that these sources are not new, and their use has been adequately covered in the discussions on this page. The consensus was to use them as they were being used "As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, no claims of remote viewing have been accepted by the scientific community." If you have other arguments which might serve to help change this consensus, it would be good if you were to tell them here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, ScienceApologist, no. your version is neither clearer nor more to the point. allow me to quote myself, because it seems you didn't actually read my last post. I said:

it is an undeniable historical fact that 'the scientific community has not accepted any...'; it is arguable, however, whether 'the scientific community accepts none...' since that seems to impute that they could never accept, which is clearly something we have no knowledge of.

this shows that my version is both clearer and more to the point, as well as being less biased. now are you going to make me type this passage yet again (it would be the fourth time, I think), or do you think you could manage to respond to it this time?

also, you have once again misconstrued wikipedia policy. first you apparently assume that I am trying to Right some Great Wrong, rather than simply produce a reasonably neutral article (I have no idea where you got that idea). then you gave me a link to wp:not where there is no mention whatsoever of righting wrongs. if you're going to provide policy links, please make them accurate and comprehensible, because I can't make heads or tails of the way you're using them now.

and I'll point out in passing that you also failed to respond to my question about your use of 'verifiability.' in fact, I haven't yet seen you engage in reasoned discussion about anything, and that's beginning to pique my curiosity. is that a tactic, or is it just the way you argue? --Ludwigs2 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

---

it seems that ScienceApologist has no further comments to make on this debate. since the comments he has made to date have failed to respond to my concerns or raise any valid points, and the policies he has cited are at best confused and misconstrued, I feel justified in asking that my revisions be implemented. may I ask if we have consensus on this point? --Ludwigs2 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My version is better. It is sourced appropriately and explains the situation in the most WP:NPOV way. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

particular attribution

Just to enter the discussion: the underlying point to all this dispute is the paragraph is not fullfilling Wikipedia:FRINGE#Particular_attribution. That's it, it doesn't say "it's pseudoscience" "it's generally considered pseudoscience" instead of "some claim that it's pseudoscience". Can you solve that, and then edit war over the rest of the minor points, please? (See WP:PSCI for the wording) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the fix on this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

that works for me. also, what do you think about the reliability of "the skeptical enquirer" as a reference? there's three mentions of it in the lead, but I've never heard of it before. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is published by *gasp* the evil guys at CSICOP :D It's peer-reviewed (so there should be little factual errors) and probably very reliable for a) what skeptics think of certain topics b) which topics are considered pseudoscience by a good part of the scientific community and which are not (since it's the first journal where scientists will go to publish rants about what they consider pseudoscience, and, of all journals related to science, it's the one most likely to accept those rants).

Basically, it's the more likely place where peer-reviewed analysis of fringe topics by scientists will be published. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be pretty good. Sometimes it is a mere debunking organ, but when you get a good author you can get some good analysis. The particular article is by Hyman, who, though a debunker, is about the nearest thing parapsychology has to a responsible critic. It is not peer reviewed, as far as I know, where do you get your information? But it is a highly partisan source, so must be attributed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The wikipedia article claims that it's peer reviewed, seems like it's wrong so I changed it, see Talk:Skeptical_Inquirer#not_peer-reviwed.2C_and_not_a_journal.

Ray Hyman is a partisan source? He's an expert of the field, which is exactly what the particular attribution part of WP:FRINGE talks about (see my comment elow about the guideline). He's not partisan just because he examined the evidence and found it to be totally flawed, and is now basing his opinion on that examination. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an excellent source for skeptical opinion (and often with references to good research sources) and can be obtained (along with Skeptic and The Skeptic magazines) at book stores like Barnes and Noble. The editorial boards and authors include high profile scientists and experts on various topics related to the subjects dealt with. Their POV is based in the scientific POV, but since scientists don't write POV in scientific research, it is in such magazines (and skeptical websites) that they express their POV. -- Fyslee / talk 04:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right, excellent source for skeptical opinion. The reader should know it is such, or be told the source. But an excellent source, and some of the articles are very good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SI tries to present the scientific POV, not just the skeptic POV. From its website "(this website) tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal (instead of sensationalism by the media)" --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording objection: I changed the "scientific analysis" title to "scientific debate," because it lists the opinions of high profile skeptics and their explaining away the data, not actual analysis. This section could use some balancing out, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.16.198 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

wording change: further studies necessary

I find that this change is, like, well, totally wrong once you examine the sources for confirmation, it's based on a proposed change for WP:FRINGE and not on its current version, and it misleads the reader on several ways:

1. "further conclusive experiments" is highly misleading in that none of the two authors considered the past experiments to be conclusive at all
   1. Richard Wiseman found huge flaws on the experiments, "Fifth, the question arises as to why this experiment was poorly recorded and incorporated design flaws that had been discussed in the literature before the SAIC research began (...) All of these factors should have led to a properly conducted and well written up experiment. (...) It is important to place this re-analysis in perspective. Compared to many other published free-response ESP studies, Experiment One is not badly conducted." and calls to refine the methods on the next experiments that are done to try to show empirical evidence of the effect, which is a bit far from saying that "more studies are necessary for acceptance of the effect", since his wording implies that no study has yet shown empirical evidence that can't be explained by leakage "'Although we may differ in our evaluations of the SAIC work, (...) the same goal of wanting to determine whether it is possible to show empirical evidence for a remote viewing effect under conditions that rule out information leakage." analisys of experiment one
   2. Ray Hyman did not find the experiments to be conclusive at all "I do not believe that "the current collection of data" justifies that an anomaly of any sort has been demonstrated, let alone a paranormal anomaly. (...) a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated." [16]
2. "further (...) studies are necessary for acceptance of the effect" is also misleading:
   1. I don't see where Wiseman says that further studies are necesary for acceptance of the effect or implies so, "acceptance" is misleading since he isn't even sure that the effect exists on the first place- I quote: "If their results do in fact reflect a genuine remote viewing effect they have also given those researchers a head start in achieving success in their studies, by means of their proces soriented approach." analisys of experiment one
   2. Ray appears to think that even if further studies were done and were reported succesful, that still wouldn't be enough "(even if) we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated." [17]
3. the sentence misleads in that it implies (probably untentionally) that the experiments are enough proof of existance of the effect, but that more studies are necessary for acceptance. However, all the sources of the paragraph dismiss that the experiments actually proved any effect at all.

So, the former wording was better, and should be reverted to that.

Optionally, maybe it can be changed to substantiate better the pseudoscience claim (altought this probably makes the lead too long, and it's detail that should probably go into the criticism section, and a point or two needs to be included also in the article body since the lead it's supposed to be a summary of what is already on the article):

Generally considered as pseudoscience, due to flaws on the methods of the experiments, the need for the evidence to be solid enough to overcome fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles currently held by the scientific community, and the lack of a positive theory that explains the outcomes.

with the flaws part backed soundly by the Ray Hyman and Wiseman sources, and the fundamental ideas and positive theory parts backed by Ray Hyman source. This also helps to explain encyclopedically (lol) to the reader why it's considered as such in a concise way. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

not applying particular attribution here

About applying or not Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution here:

1. discussion on the talk page of WP:FRINGE is still ongoing (see section proposing it, rewording proposal, ongoing Rfc asking to remove particular attribution, a rewording proposal and proposed rewording of second paragraph), and we should use the current version of the guideline, not a proposed version that is still trying to gather enough consensus.
2. And for course, we shouldn't dismiss guidelines just because we think they are wrong (a different matter is how to interpret them).

--Enric Naval (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following along, what part of this article is particularly attributed? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

this was the part that was attributed, but Martin reverted it here implying that we shouldn't use the particular attribution section of FRINGE because "that section at FRINGE is right in the middle of being reformed" (which I don't agree with for the reasons stated above).

And then he fixed the attribution conundrum like this. Basically, this edit negates the need for ever applying the particular attribution by asserting that there is not a a generalized opinion to attribute because there is a controversy among skeptics. Unfortunately, this controversy doesn't really exist, and also it relies partially on a misquote of Ray (not of Wiseman, like both Vassayana and Martin erroneously say, altought I think that Wiseman was also misquoted), with the misquote causing Martin's topic ban from this article, see User_talk:Martinphi#Topic_ban --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a basic consensus that particular attribution should be avoided, despite the wording of the guideline still being up in the air, but the intent behind it is to be clearer about the size of the group that holds the view, not to be vague on who says what (avoiding attribution altogether). If the sentence were, "Such and such is generally considered to be pseudoscience" it would naturally be followed with a "by whom". Any ideas on how to supply that part of the sentence? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what the sources on the paragraph say, the answer is "by the scientific community".... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. For factual accuracy, the entire scientific community? Is it verifiable that it's a general feeling? To explain where I'm going with this, even when avoiding particular attributions, we have to stick with policies such as verifiability. There's several ways to do that. If we want to say "generally considers" and avoid vagueness, we have to say "generally considered by the scientific community". To say that, it must be verifiable. If not verifiable, we simply rephrase until it is. Our options are to quote the reliable Gardner saying something to the effect that the scientific community generally feels that way, find another source, or rephrase so that what we do end up with is verifiable. Any of those options are fine, but not doing that leads to disputes, and that leads to other problems. See my "This is good..." section[18] for policy-compliant ways of avoiding particular attributions while also avoiding disputes by providing concrete facts instead of attributed opinions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to verify the claim yourself, that would be original research. You have to verify that it's claimed by reliable sources. And WP:FRINGE reduces the thresholds due to fringe theories not having many reliable sources. And WP:PSCI says "generally considered pseudoscience" are theories that "have a following (...) but are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", which implies that it's not considered pesudoscience by the entire scientific community since some scientists will be following the theory. Soooo, where is the vagueness there? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I must have missed where the refs[19] and [20] even contain the word "pseudoscience", or where Gardner says remote viewing is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience in his book. I was the one who added the Gardner source orginally. When I added it, it was to source the statement that someone, somewhere mentioned the word pseudoscience in conjunction with remote viewing, not for the statement that scientists as a group generally consider the topic to be pseudoscience. Somewhere along the lines someone decided to do their own bit of synthesis here, and either didn't bother checking the sources or misquoted them. Like I said, the other ones don't even contain the word. So you tell me, when "generally considered" is completely unsourced, how's that apply to WP:PSCI's section on "generally considered"? Like I said above, you'll either have to find another source, or rephrase the statement until you end up with something verifiable if you want to say "it's generally considered pseudoscience". What's in the article now is verifiable (it's loosely what I wrote in the first place). My comments were about your use of "particular attribution"[21]. I'm not sure which version of the particular attribution clause you based it on (since it was caught in an edit war), but at no point can WP:FRINGE (a guideline) supercede WP:VERIFY or WP:OR (core policies).

(Edit note: I mentioned that there was only one section of Gardner's book that mentioned "remote viewing".[22] I'm retracting that having clicked the "view more" link at Google Books : ) He mentions several people's work on the topic. However, at no point does he mention that a large "general" number of scientists share his view or that it's anything other than his own opinion.) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in his introduction, he refers to the demarcation problem and how that creates a fuzzy distinction around pseudoscience that has "no sharp boundaries" and mentions there's a spectrum of beliefs ranging from stuff all scientists consider preposterous (Hollow Earth, Young Earth, etc.) to "slightly less weird" to "more respectable science" and further points out his own biases and how he departs somewhat from mainstream thought. He, himself, says he's not impartial on the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, damn, we are going back to the same argument that was done on Water Memory article here. Basically, the counter-argument is that we don't need the sources to specifically say the word "pseudoscience" to call it like that. It should be enough for the sources say that it goes against scientific principles, it's not accepted by the scientific community as other thing than a outlandish claim, it's backed only by flawed studies, the studies have not been reproduced in a consistent manner, it's not falsiable has no chance of being falsiable on the future (even some cosmological theories can be falsified by observing current conditions of the universe and checking it they are coherent with the theory), it doesn't have a positive theory explaining why it works (which would allow to falsify it), etc. Otherwise we would be removing the pseudoscience category from this article, from water memory, and many other articles, all because of a technicality. Aditionally, WP:PSCI talks about pseudoscientific topics and links to the pseudoscience category and says "about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?" which would be the case here. It also helps to the counter-argument that scientific journals don't carry any of the studies and they have to publish on alternative journals like Journal of Scientific Exploration (ref 16, on PEAR section), that the PEAR has received lots of criticims and has to close now after their studies failed to be reproduced on other places, which would be additional side evidence of not being accepted as serious science and having problems with proving that it's based on sound scientific foundations, aka being pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that discussion (3 people talking amongst themselves does not constitute wiki standards and practices). The conversation was about the use of the category tag, so I probably wouldn't have commented anyway. As I mentioned in the RfC on the pseudoscience infobox, I don't care about the category tag (as a tool for navigation and "related info" tag). I do care about factual accuracy and verifiablity in prose, which is what we're talking about here. That's a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It's important for quality articles, and (why I'm here) it's important for avoiding unnecessary disputes. Prose is something that requires verification, and the ArbCom didn't say anything to the contrary.

There is no radical new policy change in WP:PSCI. It doesn't say to ignore any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It only clarifies them. Where does it say that if someone out there calls it pseudoscience, you can skip all the other policies and guidelines and say there's no need to source a claim of consensus? It doesn't tell you to ignore WP:RS#Claims of consensus. It says, specifically, "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience" (my emphasis). Properly is just that, properly. The arbitration was over what is neutral and what isn't (some said just saying someone said pseudoscience is not neutral), what is notable and what isn't (some said these topics don't deserve mention), what is reliable and what isn't (non-scientific isn't as reliable as scientific), and user behavior (who did what). It wasn't about skipping sourcing, ignoring verifiability, claiming consensus, or any deviation from the other policies and guidelines. What's in the article now is an example of "properly contain[ing] that information".

If you'd like to get clarification from ArbCom on this, I'd be more than happy to pursue that. There's a lot of disputes going on all around Wikipedia because some are fact-claiming the word pseudoscience, skipping the sourcing, and pointing to WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE for justification. It causes disputes because it's contrary to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Clarification is definitely needed because 1) there's no place in the ArbCom ruling where they say to ignore other policy and 2) I don't think that was their intent. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second this, and be more than happy to pursue it as well, particularly since I've been noticing that the 'pseudoscience' label is usually applied by figures outside of the field that would normally be responsible for criticizing a theory. for instance, the claims of remote viewing might be expected to run afoul of principles in physics or psychology (depending on how you view it), and statements from physicists or psychologists would certainly be applicable. However, someone like Gardner is not an expert in either field, but rather a mathematician and writer - i.e. an intelligent and knowledgeable lay-person with respect to the topic. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is a science writer and more than qualified to present his own opinion and his commentary on the topic from the outside. What I'm talking about is what I feel is a mistaken "skip-normal-policies" approach that I think leads to unnecessary disputes, and wasn't said or implied by ArbCom anyway. Listing Gardner's relevant opinion is appropriate. Saying there's a consensus and sourcing it to Garder (who in his own introduction says there's not a consensus) is not appropriate. That's what I think is problematic and needs fixing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

well said Neal... --Ludwigs2 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, please review Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. Quit being tendentious about this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

if by 'tendentious' you mean "avidly pursuing neutrality and facticity" then I don't know why you'd want me to quit. if you mean something else by it, however, you're going to have to show it to me, because I just don't see it. If in fact I am being 'tendentious' about something, please explain it to me in a way that I can see it, and I will happily quit. --Ludwigs2 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Neal, of course that I know that they don't contain the word "pseudoscience" :) Then again, it's considered, not called. There is no need for the sources to explicitely say the word "pseudoscience" for the reasons I explained above. Complaining that the exact word is not said is discussing about the sex of the angels. WP:OR and WP:V ask us to follow the sources, but they don't ask us to disconnect our brain.

Also, for the category it was argued that it merited inclusion because the topic was generally considered pseudoscience, and the same for the infobox, and that's exactly what the sentence says, so I don't see what difference you are finding.

And, anyways, I just went to google books and made a search [23] and I found, among others, a book on how to teach philosophy using Remote viewing as an example to show how to teach a pseudoscientific claim, if that's not an indication of what remote viewing is usually considered by the scientific community then I don't know what it is :P Not to mention a guide on how to learn remote viewing that happens to define it as being considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists right before starting to teach it, doh, even the manuals to learn RV accept it. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! That's another way to resolve disputes, better sourcing. I'm here because over on the FRINGE talk page there seems to be some who argue that we can either ignore or skip other policies and guidelines when faced with a "particular attribution" case. It's a relatively new clause that's seldom used (besides ScienceApologist, I think you're the first to use it). When I saw that it was used here, I thought, great, perfect time to see how it's being used. As I mentioned in my comments, including my proposal, there are few ways to resolve the issue. The first is to not be lazy in sourcing. The second is to rephrase so that it's not a particular attribution (rephrase it so that the single attribution is an example like "such as..." rather than "so and so said", implying only he says it). The third is to substantiate it with facts rather than attributing at all. All three of those approaches are well within policy, so there's no reason to skip or ignore policy. It sounds like the first -- provide better sourcing -- would have worked here. My sole issue is resolving disputes by following the Wikipedia process instead of just editing from the hip in the "heat of battle" so to speak. So, here we have sources, how can we take those sources and resolve the dispute so that particular attribution isn't even an issue? Because, that was my first argument over at the FRINGE talk page: Rarely are there no sources for something that seems apparent. Let's write and source this properly so there's no dispute. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this sentence is on the lead, I was going to start by adding to the criticism section some stuff from the Ray source, like the lack of a positive theory. Once I had done that, I was going a paragraph like the one on the section above here which would summarize those facts. I reproduce it here:

Generally considered as pseudoscience, due to flaws on the methods of the experiments, the need for the evidence to be solid enough to overcome fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles currently held by the scientific community, and the lack of a positive theory that explains the outcomes.^{[Gardner source][Wiseman source][Ryan source]}

This would be equivalent to what you were saying of backing the statement with facts. For using "such as..." and "so and so said" I'd like to use your proposals, I am not sure of how to attribute the list of reasons to Ray.

Also, this statement is a bit too long for the lead, so I was going to add those facts to the criticism section (most of them are already there, but I was going to see if they can established clearer) and then reduce the list on the lead to "several problems with the studies, conflicts with established scientific theories, and the amount of evidence needed". What do you think of it? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would drop these words: "due to flaws on the methods of the experiments, the need for the evidence to be solid enough" and replace it with "due to the need to". Because what they're basically saying is that it conflicts with scientific models, and you're wanting to shorten it. The overcoming experimental flaws and collecting more evidence is actually a part of science. It's normal science. The fact that what they're suggesting flies in the face of what is generally accepted models in science is the part where the theory parts ways from science. I would redo the sourcing a little bit as well, and substantiate in the body.

Here's what I suggest for the lead:

Remote viewing is generally considered as pseudoscience^[1] due to the need to overcome fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles currently held by the scientific community, and the lack of a positive theory that explains the outcomes.^[2][3][4]

Source 1 is that "manual" that explicitly says "generally considered pseudoscience",

Source 1 is:

Heretical science - Beyond the boundaries of pathological science

Bennett, Gary L. (NASA, Washington, DC)

AIAA-1994-4003

IN:Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 29th, Monterey, CA, Aug 7-11, 1994, Technical Papers. Pt. 3 (A94-31838 10-44), Washington, DC, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994, p. 1207-1212

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1994/PV1994_4003.pdf

(I think NASA and this laundry list of science bodies[24] kinda cinches it)

2,3,4 is Gardner, Hyman, Wiseman as supporting references.

In the body, I would substantiate with scientific facts, and attribute the opinion that remote viewing deviates from those facts to Hyman. Hyman says "What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful." So, the facts you present are summaries of the model of causality and the model of time, something along the lines of...

"In science, one event (effect) is the direct consequence of another event (cause), and time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events in order moving forward."

Then you put in the facts about remote viewing...

"Proponents of remote viewing contend that viewers can traverse these structures of time and causality and perceive events that haven't happened yet."

Then, because we're neutral, you let Hyman point out that the problem...

"Ray Hyman says, 'What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful.'"

Here we presented the scientific models (or facts) according to policy, the pseudoscientific idea (or conjecture) according to policy, and left the synthesis that one conflicts with the other to an authority on the subject, according to policy. Everything's copacetic. The "solution to particular attribution" here is that we take the weight off Hyman and put it on the scientific models themselves by supplying facts about those models.

(The above is just a template. You can tweak it if you'd like. I'm sure someone can substantiate the scientific models further than what I have here. I just grabbed the first lines off the time and causality articles.) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your proposal good. You are specially right on not having need to mention the flawed experiments on the lead (altough it still needs to be on the criticism section, for the flaws on the SAIC experiments, and many critics talking about them).

However, I'm very wary of the sentence "Proponents of remote viewing contend that viewers can traverse these structures of time and causality and perceive events that haven't happened yet.". I'm not sure that they actually propose that. On which of the sources does it actually say that? That would be a positive theory, aka a falsiable theory, and the experiments didn't ask to view future events.

I thought that what the RV proponents say is that current scientific knowledge doesn't have an explanation, and that none of the experiments listed on the article ever try to give an explanation, they just test for the existance of the effect. Also, they try to test for seeing events that have already happened, I think that they never asked to see future or past events, just things existing phisically on the present like houses and places.

The only source mentioning a RV proponent that talked explicitelly of breaking time barriers was the Barker source, which talked about a total quacky/wacky variation of RV with claims to see milenia into the future and the past, and some other really wacky claims. See my removal. I think that none of the serious studies ever makes such claims (at least, not directly, to avoid being ridiculized for using a bad theory)

If you don't have a source saying that the SAIC, AIR and PEAR experiments that are mentioned on this page were explicitely claiming to have falsified time and causality, I would rather use Ray's wording as the wording preferred by an expert on the field to explain what the problems are. A different matter would be to restore the Barker reference to source that there are wackos out there making outrageous theories using RV as an excuse, but probably every scientific theory has wackos like those and I'm not sure it's notable enough to include it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Details : ) The point was an outline. 1) Present the scientific facts that are contrary to their position (whatever they may be), 2) Present their position (whatever it may be), and 3) Present the source that draws the synthesis between the two and says one contradicts the other (so that it's not original synthesis to substantiate with the material in #1). That's the extent. Beats me what the specifics were that Hyman had a problem with. I'm sure they're in his paper somewhere. I think what Hyman was saying (without reading his paper as a whole) is that psychic abilites as a whole conflicts with causality and time (and other principles). It's information transfer outside what is known about information transfer. It's really simple to source that remote viewing is about extra-sensory perception. The scientific facts, then, would be what science knows about sensory information. The synthesis bridge would be someone saying ESP is contradictory with what we know about sensory information. We already know that the scientific community considers it pseudoscience, that's sourced, the next step towards a quality article is to fill in the blank of why do they feel that way? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My OR:

Remote viewing conflicts with causality because events at a remote location are known (effect) without the person seeing it, hearing it, tasting it, touching it, etc. (cause).

That's just my OR. Source someone saying something specific. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's most probably what Ray wanted to say.

Well, since it seems that it was a detail, I have started preparing the addition.

I just added the lack of a positive theory [25] and the time and causality mention [26] to the "Scientific analysis" section (formerly know as "criticism", lol :D) so the sentence on the lead will be summarizing them. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the paragraph with the sources [27].

Now I just need to source your OR and add it :D but I'm too tired to do it today. Let's see if you or someone can find a source meanwhile so I don't have to search it :D. Also, I just noticed that the new paragraph we made looks so good that the third paragraph now looks bloated with detail and lame in comparison, lol. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the lead looks like body material. Ideally the lead would summarize key points and that's that. In an article of roughly 30KB, we don't need too much lead material. The first paragraph covers the main info, the second the history, and the fourth the analysis. I would say the third is redundant. In fact, the scientific analysis section is pretty thorough. I don't know how much more substantiation it would need either in the lead or in the body.

Substantiation (in my "particular attribution" handling proposal) is for cases where there's only one or few critical sources. Here we've said that most of science as a community feels critical of the topic, sourced that well, and provided several examples of where notables are critical and why. It's not surprising that it's ultimately not a particular attribution issue, since the topic was even written up in Time Magazine. A lot of people have developed opinions on the subject. I think the only thing left to do is summarize the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics paper in the analysis section (maybe one more short paragraph at the bottom), drop the third paragraph from the lead, and call the issue resolved. Some editors may feel that the article is overly critical (which isn't an attribution issue), but they couldn't say it isn't well sourced. The folks on the other side of the aisle couldn't say it's misleading as to how many people feel that way. It's well sourced as a "general" sentiment.

I think you did an exceptional job developing and sourcing here. It's proof that the Wikipedia process works and that the various policies and guidelines don't have to be set aside to accomplish what needs to be accomplished to create a better article. In fact, though it's obviously more critical than before, it's a better quality article for it. It's also not distractingly critical. The critique is in the scientific analysis section, leaving the rest of the article as a pretty damn good history article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

just a quick note (I haven't read all of your comment, only the first paragraph), the third paragraph covers the flaaws found on the SAIC experiments. The first sentence is redundant to the fourth paragraph, but the sentences from the Randi source are not redundant. They can, thought, be compressed a lot, and the third and fourth paragraphs fusioned in one. Gotta go. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just read the rest of your comment. Thanks for your kind words :)

I rewrote the third paragraph to make it way shorter [28]. I made a summary of Randy's claims and I complemented them with a paper from Wiseman about how "experiment One" was really leaking information all over the place due to several problems . That paper from Wiseman can be considered a followup to the paper we used to rewrite the fourth paragraph, addressing certain points raised by someone called "May" who worked with the SAIC team. I think it might be the same person as "May, E.C" from reference #13.

Since the lead should be a summary of the article, I added the info also right below the paragraph quoting him [29]. I can't find any other paper on remote viewing made later where he changed his statements, so that would be enough for his ideas.

Now the third paragraph is short, but I don't know how to fusionate it with the fourth one or shorten the lead on some other way. I still need to search a source for the causality explanation. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)