Talk:Retrocognition

Necessary?

"Retrocognition, like all forms of psychic functioning, is said by critics such as Robert Todd Carroll to be, in all probability, illusion or fraud."

Is it necessary to include this line? It is not 'encyclopaedic' and sounds more like this man's own promotion of himself to make as many links to his own articles and personal site as possible. Forgive me, but I am skeptical about 'qualified skeptics'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.245.7 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, This Is Detailed

Note the sarcasm, and then please expand this article. 64.180.93.200 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coathanger

Appears to be yet another coathanger for references to "Robert Todd Carroll," and his book, within the pages dealing with parapsychology. As R. Carroll appears to be a very recent entrant into the literature, it will be best to provide alternative sources. Rodgarton (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow I really needed to know that bit of trivia !

For a stub nonetheless ! What next, a list of cartoon characters who got esp?Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The sources are all unreliable linked to 'psychic' books or journals. I found another book from 1971 entitled "Psychic Visits to the Past: An Exploration of Retrocognition" by Gracia Fay Ellwood but this also seems to smack of paranormal POV. We need reliable sources that discuss this subject or the article should be merged with time slip. A little angry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge to Extra sensory perception

Lack of independent sources that discuss this concept and its relation to mainstream scientific thought. Since retrocognition is a subset of Extra sensory perception it makes sense to merge it to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed section described by its author as "Here comes the crazy train."

Section was POV, anecdotal, subjective, etc.

(talk to) Caroline Sanford 10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)