Talk:Parapsychology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parapsychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: 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.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Parapsychology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 31, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 11, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 22, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles

Paranormal High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Galena11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 October 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Annalisa Ventola (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here.)

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sense#Five classical senses|five classical senses]] The anchor (#Five classical senses) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Gost Arcologist

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the study of Spirit, monster, Alen are called what Arcologist 157.49.236.143 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Suggest deleting talk topic. This is not a discussion forum. LetoDidac (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion to include balanced and well-informed reference to the recognition of parapsychology by AAAS.

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As noted in the discussion following from @Luxnir(talk), it would be more neutral to provide information on both sides of the scientific debate on parapsychology at the get-go instead of solely references to its criticism. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which is the premiere scientific consortium in the world (as well as the APA), openly recognizes the exploration of parapsychological phenomena as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. I also added references to its criticism in the first paragraph and at the end of the relevant paragraph. Here are my suggested additions to the introduction; I welcome alternative viewpoints and discussion: LetoDidac (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the text you proposed is more neutral, balanced, and informative. Well written too.

The adjective "parapsychic" doesn't seem to get much use. Might be better to say "The most prominent research society in parapsychology today. . ."

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have to edit within the bounds of WP:PSCI: we have to state in the voice of Wikipedia that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

Parapsychology (or psi research) is the study of alleged psychic phenomena, such as (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and psychometry) and some other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.^[1] The findings of parapsychology are highly controversial and lack general acceptance in the scientific community.

The most prominent parapsychic research society today is the Parapsychology Association, which is a member society of the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), the umbrella association of American scientific professional societies. The AAAS recognises parapsychology as a legitimate field of study because it follows accepted scientific procedures such as blinds, double blinds, and other standard scientific devices; because of the highly controversial nature of the topic, the AAAS submitted the decision to a vote, which landed 5:1 in favor of recognition. ^[2] In 2018, a comprehensive review of the discipline was published in a peer-reviewed article of American Psychologist, a major psychology journal. ^[3] Despite recognition of its attempted scientific procedures, the actual findings of the discipline are still considered implausible by many, if not most scientists, and critics often dismiss them as pseudoscience.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

^ Schmidt, Joachim (2007). "Parapsychology". In von Stuckrad, Kocku (ed.). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1872-5287_bdr_COM_00339. ISBN 978-9004124332.
^ Dean, E. Douglas (1969). "Parapsychology is now a recognised science. How it was done" (PDF). Newark College of Engineering. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
^ Cardeña, E. (2018). "The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review". American Psychologist. 73 (5): 663–677. doi:10.1037/amp0000236.
^ name="AlcockSI">Reber, Arthur; Alcock, James (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.
^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman; Lewis, Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. p. 565. ISBN 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.
^ Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0813322001. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.
^ Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ISBN 978-0226051963. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.
^ Alcock, James (1981). Parapsychology – Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ISBN 978-0080257730.
^ Hacking, Ian (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. 32 (3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361. S2CID 170157379.
^ Bierman, DJ; Spottiswoode, JP; Bijl, A (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. 11 (5). San Francisco, California: Public Library of Science: e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs.
^ Carroll, Sean (May 11, 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. New York City: Condé Nast. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.

According to the Mertonian norms in science wins he/she who is able to convince most skeptics. This has not happened for parapsychology. If Albert Einstein had the success which parapsychology had till now, he would have been largely forgotten. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[Stuckrad_2007-1] Schmidt, Joachim (2007). "Parapsychology". In von Stuckrad, Kocku (ed.). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1872-5287_bdr_COM_00339. ISBN 978-9004124332.

[2] Dean, E. Douglas (1969). "Parapsychology is now a recognised science. How it was done" (PDF). Newark College of Engineering. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2024-09-11.

[3] Cardeña, E. (2018). "The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review". American Psychologist. 73 (5): 663–677. doi:10.1037/amp0000236.

[4] ="AlcockSI">Reber, Arthur; Alcock, James (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.

[5] Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman; Lewis, Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. p. 565. ISBN 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.

[6] Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0813322001. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.

[7] Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ISBN 978-0226051963. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.

[8] Alcock, James (1981). Parapsychology – Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ISBN 978-0080257730.

[9] Hacking, Ian (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. 32 (3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361. S2CID 170157379.

[10] Bierman, DJ; Spottiswoode, JP; Bijl, A (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. 11 (5). San Francisco, California: Public Library of Science: e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs.

[11] Carroll, Sean (May 11, 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. New York City: Condé Nast. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]