Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Apophenia again

I re-added the mention of apophenia as a possible cause, with two differences. Firstly, the definition is different: it no longer implies that it is caused by psychosis, which was not neutral in that it attached a stigma to observers of EVP. Secondly, the source is not the Skeptic's Dictionary but CSICOP, which is hopefully less contentious. SheffieldSteel 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that pareidolia is a type of apophenia this is not an "and/or" situation. Can we not just use one or at least just give one definition. The point being that EVP have also been called Rorschach audio, which also means the same thing, and we don't want to simply list all the different names by which the same basic phenomenon is known and give a definition of each. For examples, some have attributed EVP to discarnate entities, while others have attributed them to spirts, and some even to ghosts, souls etc....Davkal 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that pareidolia and apophenia were related but different. Admittedly the difference is a subtle one. Perhaps mention of it should be moved out of the intro (for brevity's sake, if nothing else) and into the "Proposed Explanations / Normal" list in the main article...? SheffieldSteel 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its very existence

Scienceapologist. To say "Its very existence is disputed" means the same as "its existence is disputed" but is just an more emotive and unencyclopedic was saying it, and is used here to try to emphasise a point and push a POV. Let it be, we are already saying that it's existence is not accepted, there is no need to over egg the pudding.Davkal 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. "It's very existence" is meant to illustrate that it is the ontology of the existence itself that is disputed rather than the phenomenonology. Would you prefer it to be written in this fashion? --ScienceApologist 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the ontological/phenomonological difference would, under certain circumstances, be a valid reason for inclusion, but I am unclear whether the functionality associated with the word "very" can fully clarify this essentially epistemic difference given the fragmentary nature of the postmodern.Davkal 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I replaced very with a statement on ontology. When one refers to something's "very existence" they normally refer to its ontological state. That's the general usage of the term. You can read about it in Oxford's English Dictionary if you like. --ScienceApologist 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how the ontological aspect of its existence can be disputed. by nature of ontology, evp would simply exist by virtue of the fact that there is a wiki entry. obviously that is a bit basic, but since there is media dealing directly with this subject, it does exist. is it supernatural? that would be the part in dispute. The undertow 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would mean that wiki entries only document things that exist. However, this is plainly not true in an ontological sense since wiki entries document lies, for example. The point is that electronic signals that are actually voices in reality. -ScienceApologist 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i think you are misreading an ontological argument. you are correct in stating that wiki entries document only things that exist - it is clearly impossible to have an article about something that does not exist. does a unicorn exist? ontologically it does, because you clearly would know one if you saw one. even easier, they exist in literature. that is the nature of the ontological argument. EVP exists. are they actually voices? i have not a clue. i just think it's cool. as far as the word 'very', it's a bit emphatic. The undertow 03:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A unicorn exists ontologically because it can be distinguished from non-unicorns. EVP does not exist ontologically because it cannot be distinguished from non-EVP. See the difference? --71.57.90.96 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Apologist, I seriously doubt whether you have the faintest idea what ontology means. That is, I doubt the very existence of your understanding of the word. Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary. And, while you're at it, look up "very" and "existence" and cite the relevant sections that support the distinction you claim exists between "very existence" and "existence". I also doubt the very existence of that distinction! (Or do I merely doubt its existence - I can't remember.) Anyway, on a lighter note, I hate to be the one to break this to you: but lies exist.Davkal 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep the comments above the board regarding content, not the capacities of the individual. Go ahead and read the entries in the OED for "very" and get back to us. Cheerio. --71.57.90.96 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanations

Scienceapologist. You're edit summary about why you need to add more words to the explanations paragraph is nonsense. The paragraph starts by stating that there are differeing explanations of X. It the lists one type of explanation of X, and then another type of explanation of X. To keep adding X is simply superfluous and is another example of you simply trying to add ther words "alleged" or "claimed" or "supposed" at every available (and not avaiulable) juncture. I think people get the picture, EVP has not been shown to exist. The article states this cleary almost immediately and so the constant hedging of everything wverywhere just makes for difficult reading. Even Skepdic has the line "the simplest explanation for EVP is that it is the product of our own wonderfully complex brain", without feeling the need to add "alleged cases of suggested possible examples of what might be percieved as..." before the word EVP.Davkal 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus in the real world as to whether the phenomenon exists, pretending that it exists in the article is unacceptable POV-pushing. You can't just say that we get the dispute out of the way and then can go on pretending as if it doesn't exist in the rest of the article. If you don't like the word "claim", "alleged", or "suppoed", then make a general or a specific attribution. As it is, however, we need to qualify these points because there is no neutral way of talking plainly about things whose very existence is disputed. --ScienceApologist 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending the phenomenon exists. Nobody is even claiming it exists. What we are trying to do is to find a way to write the article that doesn't hedge every line 50 different ways. The same way the author of the Skepdic article didn't feel the need to hedge EVP at the start of a sentence that ended by suggesting no such thing really exists.Davkal 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to avoid the hedge is admirable, but it should not be done by pretending that the shrubbery doesn't exist. In other words, just because we don't hedge doesn't mean that the prose is better than another set of prose that does hedge. The ideal is prose which makes everyone happy -- not just you. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor you.Davkal 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly a polite response. When people offer to work with you, it is a seeming violation of civility to throw it back in their faces, I'd say. --71.57.90.96 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

The problem with saying "EVP has not been considered or accepted by the mainstream scientific community and its existence remains disputed", is that this makes it look like mainstream science is disputing it. But maintream science can't dispute something it hasn't considered. That is why I think "unproven" is a better word. Or we could write, "EVP has not been considered by the mainstream scientific community and its existence has not been accepted."Davkal 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Science doesn't prove anything either. The dispute is with skeptics so maybe will attribute it to skeptics. --ScienceApologist 17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The last suggestion, the one you reverted, was obviously not even touched upon "science doesn't prove" point. So it is unclear why you thouyght that was a reasonable argument for reverting.Davkal 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything in science is "unproven", so the statement you proposed is meaningless. However, the existence itself is dealt with in an ontological sense by skeptics. We attribute it thusly.--ScienceApologist 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I suggested: "EVP has not been considered by the mainstream scientific community and its existence has not been accepted." In what sense is that meaningless. Davkal 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible suggestion. "EVP has not been considered by the mainstream scientific community" is a sentence that is not only ambiguous but meaningless since negation of the verb "to consider" is a pretense for ignorance which is clearly a POV-insistence regarding the scientific community. I have modified the statement to clarify what is verifiably true about the subject "not being considered". --ScienceApologist 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal is right. They don't know about EVP and they haven't studied it, and that is what we must say. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We can say that they don't study it, but to say that they don't "consider" it is a different matter. I can consider something without studying it. --ScienceApologist 02:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's probably the first edit I've ever seen you make to which I don't object (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way can a scientist, qua scientist, consider something without studying it. None, thank you.Davkal 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, he said "skeptics," not scientists. It was accurate, I believe. Why not compromise on it? Why not read it over? You are right that a scientist cannot consider something without researching it. But, SA said, basically, "scientists have not studied it and skeptics don't believe in it." And that's fine, no? Myriam Tobias 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read what is written above you will that it refers to the mainstream scientifc community. And, qua mainstream scientific community they have not studied, considered, looked at, investigated ior done anything lese re EVP. They may have looked at EVP in their private lives, ie non qua mainstream scientific community, but that is about as relevant as which football team they support. Scientists' views here, are only relevant in their capacity as scientists. Their hobbies are no more important than mine.Davkal 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the negation of the verb "to consider" means they know nothing about it, because if you haven't considered something you can't know anything about it. And that is exactly the situation science is in with regard to EVP. If scientists want to, they are perfectly free to conduct some science and set forth some conclusions in peer-review scientific literature. But if they don't do that, then their opinions are not the opinions of scientists, but merely the opinins of lay-people who happen to be scientists. And there is a very big difference.Davkal 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And, even if what SA said was right, which it is not, that would not make the claim that mainstream science has not considered EVP meaningless, but merely wrong. There is quite a difference - ontologically speaking or otherwiseDavkal 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you really really didn't read the last change SA made to the article. The one I just put back in. It is fine. Why not compromise on it? I'm with you on keeping the article accurate and NPOV. Try and read it again. It doesn't have anything to do with the quote at the start of the talk section. Here:

"EVP is not researched by the mainstream scientific community and skeptics do not believe that it exists as an observable phenomenon." See? That's fine. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While the above is true, it is also catch 22 situation. Even if 100 of the worlds top mainstream scientists researched it, proved that it existed (I'm speaking hypothetically here) and were then peer reviewed in mainstream journals, it still could not be counted as having mainstream support because all of their research would fall under the fringe category of parapsychology.

perfectblue 09:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also absolutely ridiculous to maintain that "skeptics do not believe that it exists as an observable phenomenon." The statement is extraordinary if taken to mean anything more that simply, "skepdics don't believe it exists and it therefore could not, in fact, be observed" (is the same sense that my dog is not an observable phenomenon because I don't have a dog). If that is what is meant then it is a very peculiar way of putting it, rather than simply saying sceptics don't believe it exists. As such, it is highly misleading and unnecessarily long-winded to write it that way. If, on the other hand, it means what it looks like it is sipposed to mean; that is, that EVP is, in principle, unobservable; then it is written correctly but it is extraordinary admission by/slandering of the sceptics. This is bcause what it would mean is that scpetics have an in principle objection to the very notion of the existence of EVP - an a priori rejection of the possibility of that type of phenomenon and therefore can/do reject any evidence that might support it. And while for many proclaimed sceptics this is probabbly true, it is something that sceptics vigorously deny because it runs absolutely counter to their alleged priciples and to the scientific method. It almost the very defintion of a pseudosceptic - ie. one who rejects the evidence on a priori grounds antecedent to inquiry. If that is what you want to say, then let us use the appropriate word: pseudosceptic.Davkal 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ScienceAplogist, it would be great if you could provide a source for the pseudosceptical claim about the unobservable nature of EVP - hopefully from CSI(COP). I could then go straight to the CSI Wiki page and cite it as an example of their pseudosceptical position. They're usually quite carefully not to let their ideologically motivated pseudosceptical guard down but if you've found a source then great, let's have it.Davkal 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"What the Raudive voices teach us is that intelligent people – for Raudive was no doubt an intelligent man - can come to believe fervently in phenomena which in all likelihood do not exist." [1]. QED. --71.57.90.96 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's Alcock's speculation from his armchair - so what? QEFD!Davkal 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is verifiably true that according to skeptics, EVP is not an observable phenomenon, which is why this conversation started in the first place. --71.57.90.96 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcock is not claiming the phenomenon is unobservable, he is simply saying it doesn't exist. To say a phnomenon is unobservable is to say something quite different. If not, then it is a highly misleading way of putting it - see the arguments presented above for why this is so.Davkal 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that should be considered is the tendency for mainstream scientific publication to not comment on unsubstantiated fringe claims. There has been much assumption that no mainstream scientists have studied or considered EVP. That's possible. But it's also possible that they have considered and studied the topic, and found the published experiments poorly done and the results completely invalid. In the case of a fringe topic, even publically disputing it just gives it more publicity and even credibility. We must be careful not to make the implication that mainstream science just hasn't got around to it yet. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that mainstream science has studied the experiments and found them to be first class science, and to have concluded that the phenomenon undoubtedly exists. But we musn't speculate on what we don't know. Or, you could argue, that mainstream science is only regarded as having studied a topic when literature appears detailing that study. If no such literature exists, then mainstream science has nothing to say on the matter because the place where they have to say it has no record of any such statements. That's why I think the current way of putting it is good. The bit about the sceptics though is nonsense and needs to go.Davkal 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of rhetorical argument does not belong here and it's a bit dishonest to be parading it around like this. The point stands that skeptics have dismissed it as a phenomenon and that said skeptics have defined phenomena as that which is observable. Ergo... you get the drift. --216.125.49.252 15:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Status of EVP

I've tried to reorganise this section for clarity & also in an attempt to reduce its disputedness. I know it's far from perfect, but hopefully this is a little better. Also, I'd just like to say, archiving WTF eek!? Seems like we lost a couple of ongoing threads. SheffieldSteel 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I archived too much- I have trouble loading big pages. Revert if you want. I like your latest changes- keep up the good work! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why try to pretend that the articles say something they don't. Baruss did record voices, butsaid that none were clearlly anomolous and concluded that ot was a possibility that other reserachers had nbeen misled. And Macrae did report EVP being recorded in a room specifically screened to prevent radio interference. These are simply facts about what the articles said. AS such they represent a fairer summary of those articles than the out of context quotes that currently appear.Davkal 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. You accurately represent what they say. Good job. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the screening of the room was not independently verified. We have only Macrae's word on the subject. It's a claim of Macrae's, not a fact. --71.57.90.96 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who would you like to have done it. The room is described fully in the experiment. The type of room, and it's location is dealt with at length. The type of room, it's location, and it's function, are well known. In any event, the claim that EVP was recorded inside a screened room is presented as MacRae's claim, so it's not clear what else you would like: "someone allegedly called Macrae claims to have conducted an experiment in what he says that what he calls EVP were reportedly recorded inside what is described as a room allegedly screened to prevent interefrence from so-called external radio sources." Do you want to see the guy's birth certificate and three other forms of ID as well.Davkal 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who I would have liked to have done it. It only matters for attribution. Properly attributing this point is to say that it was screened according to Macrae. It was not objectively determined that the room was properly screened. It's simply a matter of proper attribution. --71.57.90.96 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is, to be frank, bollocks. We cannot go through Wiki looking for experiments and then saying "X was placed inside what B claims was a test-tube" because there was no independent verification of the test-tube being a test-tube. The room and its location is described in the experiment. It is therefore subject to verificiation by anyone who cares to go and check it out. Macrae did not simply conduct his experiment in a cupboard screened with 3 layers of cooking foil. If you have any reason to doubt that the room was screened then let that be cited.Davkal 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We only attribute controversial claims. If you think that this article is anything but controversial you have another thing coming. Trying to compare this article and this source to a hypothetical article regarding the existence of a test-tube is absurd in more than one way. It is a plain fact that the methods and the standards of JSPR are not to critique or verify the controls that researchers place in their methodology. Therefore, to baldly report a researcher's claim in such a journal belies the fact that the source itself is of questionable reliability. It's a simple matter of attribution: we can describe the set-up in Macrae's words rather than stating as a bald fact that the room was screened. It's really not that big of a deal. --71.57.90.96 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By-the-by, the current article does a fine job attributing to Macrae the supposed screening of the room, so I don't even know why this discussion is taking place. --71.57.90.96 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it does, I've said that in every response to your nonsense (e.g. "In any event, the claim that EVP was recorded inside a screened room is presented as MacRae's claim"). The reason we are having this discussion is because you insisted above that it does not and kept on about what needed to be done despite the fact that you had been informed it was already the case. Or maybe you were logged in as ScienecApologist at the time and were simply arguing with yourself without knowing it.Davkal 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop appealing to the person rather than to the content. It is very distracting. --216.125.49.252

David Slone

David Slone is being quoted as a source, but who is he?

He doesn't cite his experience or qualifications on the page and his article biography shows that he deals with lots of different subject areas? Is he a parapsychologist, or a freelance writer?

People are disputing Macrae and Bauss as WP:RS and they at least have verified scientific credentials.

perfectblue 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae has "verified scientific credentials"? I've asked about them before, and all we seem to know is that he worked on speech tech for nasa, got one experiment published in a parapsychology journal, and has been self-publishing books since then. Baruss doesn't seem to be respected or even recognized in the field either. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

David Slone: "I am a web designer and I write for several websites other than my own." [2] Davkal 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd kind of hoped for more. "I'm a website designer with a degree in journalism", "I'm a website designer with a PHD in parapsychology". Does he have any qualifications to write on this subject, or as a researcher?

perfectblue 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining standards

I'm getting rather concerned about the standards of this page. It isn't so much to do with the content of the page, but rather the way in which it is written.

For example, there are several citations that are web addresses only. They should have titles, authors and dates where available. Equally, the introduction is being split. It starts off in one direction and then goes in another, then goes back again.

Regardless of what the page actually says, if it looks unprofessional people won't take it seriously.

perfectblue 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the intro, it seems to me it goes: definition, decription, scientific status, some possible explanations, brief historical detail, brief contemporary detail. I don't see how this goes in one direction and then back again. I think it simply proceeds through various different points about EVP in a fairly orderly manner.Davkal 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro starts off defining the term EVP is, then goes on to its scientific status and explanations, then goes back to defining the term EVP, then, in the same paragraph, branches off to pop culture in the same paragraph. This is unprofessional. You really do need to say everything that you are going to say about the term before you move on to the phenomena that it is describing.

A better starting passage would be

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by proponents to be voices of a paranormal origin which appear on recording media or through other electronic audio devices. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the phenomena had been known as “Raudive Voices” after early EVP pioneer Konstantin Raudive, whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject into the public domain. yada yada yada.

Now you are not only including the history of the term as part of its definition, but you are also including historical names in the definition too. It's much neater.

perfectblue 14:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We've gone through all this and nobody buys your argument that the history of the name is part of the defintion. It is simply a historical point about how the name came into being and sheds no light on the meaning of the term or the nature of the phenomenon now known by that name. Nobosy else thinks the current order is problematic, and few don't like your proposed order (me, Milo).Davkal 14:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Baruss

Re the Baruss experiment. Baruss didn't reprot finding voice-like sounds, he reported finding voices. I also can't see where he said that the failure to replicate those voices meant that the ones he did find fell outside the scope of the experiment. What he says is this: "while we have replicated EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audiotapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate baings. We have therefore failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense." I don't see why we can't simply paraphrase that finding as is, and thn add the conclusion about the possiblity of being misled.Davkal 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If I'd said voices, our resident skeptics would have jumped on "with a little imagination" and changed it to "voice-like". I was trying to avoid a confrontation over that like the last time.
2. The intro of his report describes them as "apparent voices"
3. Unlike Macrae, Bauss didn't preform more than cursory checks on the sounds to verify their status as voices (Macrae was an expert in the field of VR).
4. Outside the scope, means that there was no apparent correlation or interaction between the experimenters and the sounds on the tape. When he said "jump", no voice responded asking "How high?"

Feel free to change it, so long as you note that "sounds were heard which could not be explained, but the total amount of data was of insufficient quality", as opposed to "nothing was heard".

perfectblue 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you get "sounds were heard which could not be explained," from "none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous"??? --- LuckyLouie 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we get it from this Louie:

while we have replicated EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audiotapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate baings. We have therefore failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense."

The point being that they found unexpected voices and they don't know where they come from but nothing marked them out as neessarily paranormal.Davkal 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're paraphrasing again. They found voices. But they don't say they could not be explained, nor do they describe them as "unexpected". In fact, they give possible explanations for the sounds, which is the reason they didn't find it "in the strong sense". --Milo H Minderbinder 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Milo. Voices can be unexpected, yet not be anomalous. Having the article state that Baruss found "unexplained voices" is POV and misleading. --- LuckyLouie 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well let us simply say this, "while we have replicated EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audiotapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate beings. We have therefore failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense." followed by the conclusion about the possiblity of being misled.Davkal 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

sock/meat puppet

does anyone know how to request a sock-puppet check?Davkal 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. --71.57.90.96 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SA.Davkal 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Literature about EVP

There are those editors who want to include the claim in the article that there exists "scientific literature" which supports EVP. However, the status of the two journals that we list here is questionable as to whether they are really "scientific" or not. To be safe, it is good practice to remove the argumentative adjective. JSE and JPR are not "scientific journals" in the sense that most scientific journals exist. Therefore, it is inappopriate to refer to the literature published there as "scientific". --ScienceApologist 11:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Without this word, or without some word to qualify their status, the claim that "what little literature exists..." is plainly false since there is a vast amount of literature about EVP. The meaning of this claim, then, and whay makes it true, is only brought out by saying "what little scientific literature exists...", or some such thing. Also, please note that I do not say in the section we are discussing that there is scientifc literature which "supports EVP" (you are simply making this up to try to strengthen your hand). All I am saying is that in the context of the quote, where the status of the journals in question is immdeiately qualified from a sceptical point of view, it is perfectly reasonable to call the literature scientific.Davkal 12:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is manifestly unacceptable to call either JSE or JPR unambiguously "scientific". If you prefer, we can say that there is zero scientific literature on the subject. I'll change the wording accordingly. --ScienceApologist 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They can be described as being scientific because they use scientific methods and methodologies, not because they cover scientific topic. Please don't confuse the issue by suggesting otherwise.

perfectblue 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not being described as unambiguously scientific. That's what all the qualifications about fringe topics such as parapsychology are about that appear directly after the point about the literature. And the claim itself is contrasted with the previous point that mainstream science has neither considered nor accepted EVP. In that context, the clear claim that the literature in question is part of the fringe used in contrast to mainstream science it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the articles as scientific. And it is simply false to say that in that context anyone is trying to present the journals/articles as being unambiguously scientific. Davkal 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there another form of words that might satisfy everyone - some combination of the words paranormal, psychic, research, journal or literature? SheffieldSteel 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as "scientific" isn't the adjective, I have no problem. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Peer-review literature"?Davkal 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review status is debatable, so no. --ScienceApologist 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Both journals are peer-reviewed - end of.Davkal 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the JSE isn't really. They say they're peer reviewed, but if you read the fine print, they also say that they only peer review when the editor feels like it. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. They don't skip the peer review process and simply publish everything that lands in their mailbox, instead their paid editors can preform the reviews process themselves, rather than using external reviewers (though they can also use normal reviewers too). It's faster and means that the person conducting the review won't simply reject something out of hand because they don't want their name to be associated with it (having their name on a peer review for a "fringe topic" can damage a career scientists chances of getting future grants etc), or because they are a true-skeptic and simply won't give the piece a chance.

perfectblue 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what their website says, you seem to be jumping pretty far to that conclusion. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true though, grants are so important to research these days that some scientists simply won't touch certain issues in case it gets back to a grant committee and it colors their opinion. Would you award $1million in serious research money to somebody who once said "I can't fault this" in about a report on bigfoot mating habits? Or would you reword it to the guy who'd stayed mainstream his entire life?

Besides, not all of the articles in these journals fall into the "other review" category. Many of them are reviewed normally from a pool of subject experts, just as in regular journals.

perfectblue 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

JSPR isn't peer-reviewed technically either in that the only people who serve as reviewers are members and they don't have scope agreements defining the technical field. It has the same problems as catch-all philosophy journals which accept submissions regarding physics. No one would pretend that those philosophy journals are peer-reviewing the physics that they include. Likewise, submissions to JSPR regarding, for example, signal processing of claimed EVP are not reviewed by "peers" who actually study signal processing. Therein lies the problem: peer-reivew for JSPR is solely at the discretion of the membership rather than being at the discretion of the community. --ScienceApologist 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But..... where would you find a recognized expert on "Bigfoot droppings", or "Things that go bump in the night"?

perfectblue 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be plenty of debate as to what these journals are - or rather, how they compare or fail to with the standards of peer-reviewed scientific journals. And of course no one wants the descriptive words in question to give too much or too little credibility to the journals.

so, why not use words that we can all agree on are neutrally descriptive? "Paranormal", "parascientific", "parapsychological", or "psychic" + (optionally) "research" + "journal" seems to be fairly neutral to me. SheffieldSteel 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --ScienceApologist 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done my best. I think it's neutral enough - it claims that there is research, but not that it is scientific, and that there has been publication, but not that it is peer-reviewed in the strict academic/scientific sense. Hope it's acceptable. SheffieldSteel 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The JSPR is peer-reviewed[3]. That you don't like the fact is neither here nor there. Davkal 13:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, JSPR maintains a peer-review standard, but calling them peer reviewed is contentious because it may mislead the reader into thinking that the standards of peer-review at that journal are the same as other mainstream journals when they are not. The people who review JSPR articles are not verifiable experts in the mainstream subjects the articles are written on: they are merely members of the society. --71.57.90.96 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source please. Davkal 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From SPR: "the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis." The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology." The point is that the journal's peer-review process is entirely less restrictive than the typical peer-review process for good reason: they are outside mainstream control. That's the whole point of "psychical research". You'll note that the Wikipedia article is careful to state that JSPR is peer-reviewed within the field of parapsychology. That's different than being peer-reviewed for scientific accuracy. --71.57.90.96 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I note that not one word from the SPR you quoted even mentions peer-review yet you manage to draw some very far reaching conclusions for the peer-review process from it. Are you psychic?

2. I note you have no source for the claim the only SPR members review the articles. I take it then that you just made that up because it sounded good.

3. The Wiki Article states: "The Journal is peer reviewed and respected in the field of parapsychology." This doesn't mean the journal is peer reviewed within parapsychology but that is is peer-reviewed. It is also respected within the field of parpsychology.

4. You also now appear to be suggesting that it is impossible for a parapsychological journal to be peer-reviewed because of the nature of parapsychology. Previously you seemed to be focusing on the issue of mainstream aspects in parapsychology articles not being reviewed by experts in that mainstream discipline. Which is it? Or is it, as I supect, any old thing will do!

5. From the SPR: "All papers submitted to the Journal are strictly peer-reviewed".Davkal 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, User:71.57.90.96, you should get to know ScienceApologist, you appear to have a lot in common. Every article you have worked on (about 5) have all been worked on by SA. Do you think it is a coincidence or is there perhaps a psychic connection between you?Davkal 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As we can see from the JSE, a journal can claim peer review but not really do it. Do we have any third party sources verifying that they actually do it, or how they define peer review? For all we know it could mean that a "peer" (however they define that) just flips through it before publication. I also note that the wiki article on the SPR's "The Journal is peer reviewed and respected in the field of parapsychology" isn't sourced. And if you are concerned about sock puppets, have it checked out. Article talk pages aren't the place for accusations. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's turn it around. Do you have any evidence that it's peer review status is false? Have any accusations been made by other journals, or have any of it's publications been exposed as lacking by a more reputable source?

perfectblue 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perfectblue makes a good point. We have a clear sourced statement that the JSPR articles are "strictly peer-reviewed". We have so far had nothing but speculation and opinion that attemps to cast doubt on that process from a variety of standpoints. What we do not have is any clear indication of why the JSPR's claims of strict peer-review should not be taken at face value. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we are surely bound to go by what we sound solid sources for.Davkal 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review has connotations like it or not. We need to be aware of its connotations as responsible editors. Using it as a designator to describe fringe journals is not a neutral nor is it an honest characterization in terms of how the subject is viewed in the real world. Turning the question around is ridiculous because no one here is demanding that we say that the journals are not peer reviewed, we are merely asking that we not attach the unqualified adjective to sentences about these reports. Getting around controversy is done by acknowledging that it exists. It would behoove those paranormal believers to begin doing this if they are to work as responsible editors here. --216.125.49.252 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement is self-sourced. Couldn't any journal claim to be "strictly peer reviewed" whether it is or not? In fact, that's what the JSE does. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course any journal could claim this, but that doesn't mean that the JSPR is such a journal. And so once again I ask if anyone has any evidence indicating why we should not take the JSPR's claims at face value re this point.Davkal 15:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Also, the talk-page may not be the place for accusations of sock-puppetry, but neither is it the place for examples of it.Davkal 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So I take it your accusations have been confirmed? Link? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it that Davkal is angry with IP signatures. However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that one must log in or have an account to edit or respond on talkpages. It certainly is allowed by all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --216.125.49.252 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against IP signatures. But I don't like sock/meat-puppets. And one good guide for identifying sock-puppetry is when a new name (or IP address) suddenly appears on a page and takes over from another editor with edits and points that are indistinguishable from those the other editor was making. Then, when you look at the user contributions for that new name (IP address) you find that the only articles they have ever edited have also been edited by that other editor.Davkal 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Davkal. Nice name BTW.Kaldav 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --216.125.49.252 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed to dislike "sock/meat puppets" as you put it, but just because you dislike something doesn't mean you don't have to deal with it. You will have a hard time doing anything about IP users who choose not to use Wikipedia accounts. --216.125.49.252 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yaaaaaaaawn!Davkal 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all we can agree on is that the JSPR claims to be peer-reviewed. We have a source for that, which is the journal's own website. So I suggest that that is exactly what should go in the article: JSPR claims to be peer-reviewed. Anything else would be a contentious statement and would have to have a reliable source. Sound fair? SheffieldSteel 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just laughable. We have a reliable source for the JSPR being peer-reviewed. We have nothing to suggest it is not. This is not some extraordinary claim that, sceptics delight in telling us, needs extraordinary evidence - it is a simple straightforward claim for which we have a perfectly reasonable source - and about the only way the source could be wrong was if some major academic fraud was being perpertrated. The membership of the SPR includes a number of distinguished academics, including sceptics, and if such a fraud was being perpetrated I think we would have heard about it. Now give us the evidence or give it a rest.Davkal 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"We have a reliable source for the JSPR being peer-reviewed." Which is what? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The SPR itself, which is one of the oldest and most respected parapsychology society it the world, whose members include, and have included, a number of distinguished academics (including many sceptics), nobel prize winners etc etc. And the sources for the JSPR not being peer-reviewed are (drumroll) Milo H Minderbinder, SheffieldSteel and ScienceApologist. Evidence gentlemen. Davkal 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to add me to your list of dissidents. Longevity is no measure of accuracy. Neither is "respect" which is limited to a small subculture. Are there any objective third-party sources that vouch for the JSPR? --- LuckyLouie 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, what would you accept as evidence of it being peer-reviewed, so that when I get that evidence you can't say "I still don't accept it" and then make up some other ludicrous argument to push your POV.Davkal 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP policy, we're generally not supposed to use primary sources, which the SPR is. And the way wikipedia works is we need sources to support claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. As I've said already, is there a third party source? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, as I understand it, we can use primary sources with proper attribution, e.g. "According to X,..." --- LuckyLouie 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there no level to which you will not stoop, Wiki rules eh. The burden of proof (for the proof). Dear oh dear oh dear. Any way, here is an excerpt from Richard Wiseman's homepage. The page lists what Wiseman calls "Papers in peer reviewed journals", and as we go down the list we see the following: "Wiseman, R. & Smith, M. D. (2002). Assessing the role of cognitive and motivational biases in belief in the paranormal. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 66, 178-186." Davkal 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dum-be-dum, time passes, long beard.Davkal 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I note you still object to peer-review in the article Milo, why don't you just accept that the JSPR is peer-reviewed. We now have the SPR stating it plainly, and a third party source (Richard Wiseman) confirming it. How can it be more accurate to to remove the term "peer-review" when, as pointed out a zillions times, this renders the claim false. Ther is not a little amount of literature, or a few published studies, there are hundreds. What there are very few of, are articles published in peer-review journals. The point being that the claim as it is in the article now is straightforwardly false. Only the addition of a term like scientific, or peer-review will make it true.Davkal 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are outnumbered here, Davkal. The point is that the peer review status of JSPR is contentious to the point of a bald inclusion being clearly spoonfeeding the reader. Just saying that the research was "peer reviewed" is misleading because the standards of peer review at JSPR are different than other journals due to its specific inherent bias. Without the adjective "peer-reviewed" the sentence is neutral. With the adjective the sentence is biased. --216.125.49.252 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only outnumbered because I haven't introduced a whole load of sock-puppets. And, where is the evidence that the peer-review system at JSPR is different. Requests for this evidence have been made on numerous occasions and nothing has been provided other than the claim that it is. The question is: is the JSPR peer-reviewed. The answer is yes. Davkal 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my main concern which is the JSE, which doesn't seem to peer review all articles: "Manuscripts will be sent to one or more referees at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." It doesn't help that they also admit to using a different set of standards from other journals as well as publishing articles even when the "peer review" doesn't agree with the article. I'll see if I can find a way to reword. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If your main concern is the JSE then let us throw that article out, let us get rid of it. It supports your sceptical viewpoint and so clearly couldn't have gone through a proper peer-review process anyway.Davkal 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how a list of publications without annotation can serve as a source for the editorial standards of the journals to which Wiseman submitted his work. --216.125.49.252 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate for you. The question was whether the journal was peer-reviewed. The list of publications in peer-review journals including publications in that journal clearly supports the contention that the journal is peer-reviewed. It's not that hard.Davkal 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit removed a reference used elsewhere in the article

I request that User:Davkal reinsert the reference he deleted in this edit: [4]. It has orphaned other citations.

Thanks, --216.125.49.252 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put it back, but since its not from a reputable source it probably shouldn't be used.Davkal 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the list of sources on this article? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

YesDavkal 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I think it's time we did request protection and mediation for the article. It is currently going nowhere. The intro is constantly changing and slight/full consensus edits are being reverted and replaced without discussion. There is also the strong suspicion that sock/meat-puppets have now been brought in to bolster various arguments and edits. Comments?Davkal 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO this article needs a lot of work. It spends the lead section trying to decide if EVP is real or not based on the pedigree of journals used by Baruss vs. MacRae. Then that is followed by a "status" section trying to decide if EVP is real or not based on Baruss vs. MacRae. Then we have a "history" section which ends with...you guessed it: trying to decide if EVP is real or not based on Baruss vs. MacRae. And then there the "Paranormal" vs. "Normal" section which, thank god doesn't mention Baruss and MacRae, but is trying to decide if EVP it real all over again. Nowhere in any reliable source have I ever seen an article which balances the legitimacy of EVP on the papers of Baruss vs, MacRae -- yet this WP article has synthesized that POV and published it. Mediation, yes. Protection no. In it's present form, the article is not really much of an achievement. There's not much to protect. --- LuckyLouie 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anything there is trying to decide anything- it is just saying the exact status of the research, which is why I put the status section back in. And if no one is going to write is as popular culture, it should be deleted. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The "exact status of the research" is covered in the intro and history section. I agree with Louis, we can probably merge it into the intro and the Baruss/MacRae sections (if there's anything that isn't covered there already). --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could probably be merged. We need to keep a full disclosure somewhere (as now exists in the status section), about exactly what the findings of the two studies were. But these sections aren't trying to "decide if it is real or not", so far as I can see. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear what the section "Status of EVP" is intended to provide the reader. Is it the "official scientific status" of EVP? Is it the "current status of peer-reviewed research efforts"? Is it "the status of EVP in relation to mainstream science"? Honestly, I'm not being a wiseass here, I really don't get what the section is trying to tell the reader. And to me it comes dangerously close to spoon-feeding when it singles out two papers and focuses the entire "status" (whatever that means) on those two papers. --- LuckyLouie 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the sections on the two studies say what the findings of the two studies are? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, at present, they do just that. The MacRae section even has its findings highlighted in quotes broken out of the text for added emphasis. (OK, now I'm being sort of a wiseass). --- LuckyLouie 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Claimed "scientific" research

If the research of Baruss/MacRae really is going to be entertained as scientific, we will need to subject this article to the standards of scientific notability. --216.125.49.252 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about the scientific status of EVP but about EVP. As such, Macrae's scientific paper published in a reputable peer-review journal clearly passes the test for inclusion and discussion within the context of the wider article. Baruss' paper may or may not pass such a test but it is sceptical anyway so you can decide amongst yourselves whether you want to include it. The threat of/appeal to/clutching at scientific notability is nothing more than one further example of what has been a long line of disruptive red herrings, straw men and wild geese (apparently the only fish, flesh or fowl in these particular pseudosceptical woods).Davkal 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Status of EVP"?

I'll ask the question here more formally. What does this section describe? Status of acceptance in the scientific community? Status of fringe research findings? Status of...? Seriously, it needs clarification. --- LuckyLouie 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what it actually does describe is the status within scientific journals. Thus, it is really the formal scientific status of EVP. So we could rename the section "Scientific status of EVP." But that would invite references to the Skeptic's Dictionary, so you might be right about merging it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're going to have a tough job getting Wikipedia to vet an article in which the "formal scientific status" of EVP is (subtly or not-so-subtly) implied to be undecided, using the fringe-ish Baruss/MacRae papers as implied evidence. One of the hallmarks of Pseudoscience is that it often pretends to be one side of a legitimate scientific controversy. i.e. pseudoscientists like to pretend that “the jury is still out,” and that “further research” is needed to clarify the validity of their beliefs. This is essentially never the case, e.g. there is no controversy among astronomers concerning Astrology, no controversy among biologists regarding Intelligent Design, or physicists regarding Time cube, Dowsing, Face on Mars etc. I don't think anyone intended to set up Baruss and MacRae as representing a 50/50 split in "the scientific status of EVP", but that's what happened. And it's a page right out of the pseudoscientific song book. IMO, this is why the article has become so contentious, and will probably continue to be. --- LuckyLouie 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's of little consequence whether the section is merged with another, or what we call it. The problem, as I see it, is that about the only seriously conducted research into EVP we have found supports a paranormal hypothesis. The pseudosceptics on this page want to pretend that that research doesn't exist, or want to lower it's status to that of the armchair speculation of Carroll and the like. The problem this creates is that there are only so many times you can write radio interference and pareidolia and given that Macrae's research appears to have refuted both hypotheses (the sealed room refutes the radio, and the blind testing of the sounds refutes pareidolia) the only way to get round this is to try to sully Macrae's research with a lot of unsourced Wiki editor speculation. For example, we only have the SPR's word for it that their journal is peer reviewed. We only have MacRae's word for it that the room was sealed. We don't know what the peer-reviewers said about MacRae's article, etc etc etc. Anyway you write it, however, it's going to look like MacRae's research has a significant impact for the viability of the sceptical "explanations". And since the pseudosceptics here find this an intolerable situation they will continue to insert unbounded speculation, attempt to qualify every statement to the extent that the article becomes (by default) a pseudosceptical hit-piece, and they will wrangle endlessly over every single point.

The solution, as I see it, is to request mediation and protection. The reason, contrary to some of the panicked attacks from pseudoseptics here, is that there isn't actually anybody here (maybe not counting Tom) who is trying to push a heavy line for the existence of EVP. What the vast majority of the so-called "supporters of the paranormal" want, is merely to write a good article about EVP (the history, the pop-culture aspect, the theories about it, the research that has been done, the sceptical views, the lack of scientific study etc) from an agnostic (sceptical rather than pseudosceptical) standpoint re EVP's existence. In that respect a genuinely sceptical (as opposed to pseudosceptical) article will deviate significantly from the kind of thing you find on Skepdic, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, a load of complete shite.Davkal 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending that research doesn't exist. I just don't think one study published in a purportedly peer reviewed journal of the paranormal, done by a guy who doesn't seem to be recognized by the scientific community and has had to self-publish his books, is grounds to say things like radio interference and pareidolia are "refuted". Publishing a study in a journal doesn't make the information contained in it fact. MacRae's results haven't been reproduced by anyone else. Without verification from any source, we have no way of knowing if MacRae fabricated his results or just simply made mistakes, either with his methodology or with the logic he used to draw his conclusions. One experiment that nobody has been able to reproduce has no impact on viability of any explanations, much less the State of EVP in Science. It's just material that we can present as the conclusions of one man doing one experiment. The burden of proof is on those making claims, and there's very little "proof" in this case. Because of NPOV, particularly undue weight, we need to be cautious in writing the article that we don't give the impression that one guy "proved" EVP and nobody has "disproved" it.

I'm not sure if mediation would help, but give it a shot if you want. I think a RfC would probably be more effective, it would be good to get some neutral outside opinions (if anyone is willing to wade into this muck). --Milo H Minderbinder 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The journal is not purportedly peer-reviewed. It is peer-reviewed. I have provided a third-party source as requested and you still refuse to accept this. Why?

2. Nobody is asking that we say in the article that "radio intereference and pareidolia are hereby refuted". You simply made this up for some reason.

3. Some "guy who doesn't seem to be recognized by the scientific community and has had to self-publish his books" is wrong, of little consequence and ad hominem in turn (and sometimes at the same time).

4. To say that nobody has been able to replicate MacRae's experiment suggests that somebody has tried and failed. Nobody has tried (Baruss was before MacRae so stop before you start). This is again a misleading way to try to bolster your argument.

5. I say above, numerous times, that I want to write the article from an agnostic position re the existence of EVP so the mantra of proof/burden of proof (yaaaaaawn) did not need to be trotted out again.

6. You are trying to pretend that the research does not exist by, amongst other things, trying to pretend that the journal is not peer-reviewed. That is, the research and its status is a package. By refusing to accept any amount of evidence re the simple point about peer-review you are trying to downplay the fact that proper research exists and thereby put it on a par with Carroll's armchair speculation. We have also had significant discussion in the past (and probably will have again in the near future) concerning whether the JSPR is a reputable enough source to use at all.Davkal 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source for MacRae's credentials, please share it. And again, nobody is pretending that research doesn't exist. We simply should present it in the proper context. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae is a former Nasa voice recognition specialist, and has had articles published in peer-review scientific journals. Also, what sources will you accept - I provided the requested third-party source for the peer-review status of the JSPR and you simply ignored it and carried on regardless. You have also failed to provide a single source casting doubt on that staus despite repeated requests. And please spare me the burden of proof mantra again, the claim "the JSPR peer-review process is a lesser process than normal scientifc journals" is a positive claim (albeit a negative oine in the sense of being detrimental) and as such, the burden of proof falls on you to put up or shut up.Davkal 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Other articles in other journals? What are they? At this point any source for his credentials would probably be better than what we have. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MacRae also says he has knowledge of something called "designer bodies"(?) in the afterlife, and that he recognized the voice of L. Ron Hubbard in an EVP telling him, "I'm gone". The burden of proof for such things (as well as his resume) is on MacRae. It's not on the public. --- 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How would one distinguish between an agnostic approach to EVP, and saying "the jury is still out?" In any event, should we even try to take an 'agnostic approach to this article? Is 'agnostic' an official or recommended policy or guideline of Wikipedia when dealing with fringe science or pseudoscience? SheffieldSteel 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if the jury has come in a reached a verdict, let's hear it! With sources of course. I also have no objection to summarising the default scientific position re such topics when there no mainstream acceptance due to no mainstream consideration. I would object, of course, to the default position being described wrongly as one of positive non-existence.Davkal 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP says we should present the level of acceptance, and present material on each side of the disagreement proportionally to that level of acceptance. In this case, there is a small group who believes this is a genuine phenomenon, and no evidence that the concept is accepted by mainstream scientists at all. So that's what we need to present. NPOV doesn't mean giving both sides equal time, or trying to make both sides sound equally possible. Doing so would violate undue weight. WP:NPOV covers this in detail, particularly the section on undue weight, as well as the NPOV faq and WP:FRINGE. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a disagreement. We have mainstream science saying nothing. WE have a few peer-review research papers with some different findings. And we have armchair speculation by believers and sceptics where, if anywhere, a disagreement exists. Our job is to present that information fairly without pushing, for example, the armchair speculation of Carroll into the mainstream science seat just because the mainstream science seat happens to be empty.Davkal 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing to present "positive non-existence". With mainstream science saying nothing, we need to present that, and we need to present the article in a way that doesn't misrepresent the state of the topic because one side has published info arguing for the topic (in publications of varying reputation) and the other has published little or none. In other words, the article can't give the topic false validity simply because scientific publications haven't had articles disproving or refuting the idea. I think the current version of the intro does a pretty good job of saying that.

As WP:FRINGE says: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." --Milo H Minderbinder 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's why I wanted to write "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science" and then contrast that with the mere existence of non-mainstream scientific consideration that has taken place in non-manstream journals like the JSPR. But you won't allow the JSPR stuff to even be noted for what it is. You also assume that there two sides and that the mainstream science view, even though you accept there is no view, in some way tallies with Carroll's positive statement of non-existence. If there is no view then there is no view. Davkal 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only am I fine with "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science", I believe I was the one who first added it to the article. I have no objection to noting the JSPR for what it is, I just feel that a number of recent edits haven't done that (mainly since they've been general statements and not about the JSPR specifically). I'm not sure why you think I equate the mainstream science view with Carroll. The article doesn't say that EVP doesn't exist. It doesn't say that science says it doesn't exist. It does say that there are people who believe it doesn't exist, and Carroll is one source cited for that. In addition, the proposed explanations are not attributed to "science". Those all seem accurate and neutral, so what's the problem? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You, and others, are not fine with contrasting mainstream with non-mainstream science. You won't allow the word "sience" or even "peer-view" to appear prior to anything that is not mainstream. Even though that renders the notion of "mainstream" science meaningless.17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Davkal

That's not true. My objection has been to using those terms in statements that have included the JSE. A generalization about the journal articles about EVP is fine only if it is worded accurately. What's your objection to the current wording? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, so all the stuff about the SPR was really about the JSE now that we have sources for the JSPR. Anyway, the current wording is not too bad but I think it could be better. It lumps all the science, literature, sceptical explanations and paranormal explanations into one para and as such is a bit of a muddle. Davkal 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

eh, that's my fault. I was trying to get the paragraph to flow from paranormal explanations, through the topic of published research, and on to scientific hypotheses. Maybe that was just a bad idea. SheffieldSteel 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Status is gone

I have removed the contentious "Status of EVP" section. It really wasn't doing the article any good. All the material that was in it is believed to be duplicated in the History section. If anyone sees anything I missed, it should go in there. SheffieldSteel 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the section but the write up of Baruss in the history is hardly NPOV. It says, for example, "Several events which could be interpreted as voices "with a little imagination" were recorded". This is so out of context. The "with a little imagination" quote refers to one specific "voice" and the actual conclusion of Baruss is that they did find voices but they were not clearly anomalous and so while EVP in the weak sense (voices on tapes) was found, EVP in the strong sense (definitely paranormal voices on tapes) were not.Davkal 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That wording does seem a little suspicious. I'll peruse the source and see if I can come up with a better summary of its spirit. SheffieldSteel 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Baruss own conclusion are pretty good and succint and could be used almost verbatim. On that point, if anybody know how to copy and paste from an adobe document let me know because it's pissing me off big time.Davkal 15:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this attempt any better? SheffieldSteel 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine.Davkal 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we got away from using words like "alleged" a few months ago. I could go with "what proponents believe are" That would be equivalent unless you really do intend "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved" (American Heritage). Either they are examples or they are not.

The Status of EVP section is probably best deleted because it did not represent the status of EVP. I will make the following comment knowing that the following references are not allowed in Wikipedia, so don't start! I am just illustrating a point. The listening experiment at http://aaevp.com/research/research_evp_listening_experiment1.htm is one that can be easily replicated and we are offering to host similar well designed experiments on the web site. The fully blind experiment shows that EVP can be correctly understood at least some of the time (32%)--and that the skeptical community was organizing to disrupt the experiment. (It is understood that the experiments are not under the care of a doctorate.)

The 4Cell EVP Demonstrations described at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_4cell_experiment.htm are double-blind recording exercises in which the Receiver only knows that a question has been put to whoever is causing the EVP. (It is understood that the experiments are not under the care of a doctorate) The experiments are showing that it is really hard to keep people organized and working as a group to follow a protocol and that around 68% of the time (latest figures), the communicator can answer specific questions with correct, specific answers that were previously unknown by the receiver.

Dr. David Fontana of the SPR and Anabela Cardoso have received a grant to research the mortem-postmortem voices of EVP.

The Italian Il Laboratorio (http://www.laboratorio.too.it/) has received a grant for similar work, and are using forensic-quality software to compare mortem and postmortem voices and the nature of the voices. For instance, the article by Daniele Gullà at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp10.htm points out that the voices of EVP sometimes lack Formant 0 and are formed of background noise.

The story goes on and my point is that the EVP article is already becoming dated. You would be far better off to just saying what EVP is defined to be and stop. One thing that I find especially objectionable is your attempts to elevate conservative skepticism to the same level as the study of EVP. All you are doing is glorifying your skeptic leaders with misleading text. It is beyond logic to understand how you can work so hard to discount serious attempts to study currently unexplained recording events while seemingly validating the comments of people who do not have the intellectual integrity to let us ask the questions. Tom Butler 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, almost all of the points above should be in the article. If funding has been provided for study then sources should be easy to get that cannot be disputed. These things should be in the article.Davkal 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You said the magic word: sources. Without seeing those sources, I'm not sure what part of the post above would be appropriate to add. If the article is dated, it's only because the reliable sources available to us are. Wikipedia isn't the place to bring unpublished theories to the world for the first time. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How does Skepdic come to be a reputable source. A self-published website which can (and does) say any old thing it likes without any editorial scrutiny whatsoever.Davkal 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo H Minderbinder, That is something of an illogical statement. I am not disputing the accuracy of the reference. The subject of the materials referenced are increasingly unfounded in view of more current work. I would expect a logical person to minimize the damage by saying less so as not to expose the lack of evidence. Should the proponents simply discard evidence so as to keep on a par with the skeptics?

Here is a page containing more info about one granting body. [5]. The SPR has let a grant to MacRae and to Cardoso-Fontana, but the SPR has unfortunate not learned the value of the Internet for communicating these things. It may be possible that I can solicit a report which we can put on aaevp.com. I will try, but I really think the route to go is to say less not more. As some have pointed out so many times, Wikipedia is not the place too make the case for fringe arguments and continuing this discussion only keeps skeptical beliefs in public view. Tom Butler 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added an article about SPR grant and one about a Bial grant to that link. Tom Butler 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, see Parity of sources. And like most sources in this article, it's only used as a source for what various parties say about the subject. Tom, I'm not sure what you consider illogical. I do agree that there's much info in this article that is either poorly sourced or not particularly encyclopedic and could come out. As for new evidence, it needs to be published by a reliable source to get included in the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, you said, "As for new evidence, it needs to be published by a reliable source to get included in the article." I agree 100%. So now lets us reach agreement on what constitutes a "reliable source." I know the following is a lame argument, but somehow, we need to get a rational base for this article or dump it. Much of what we have been arguing about is due to this double standard for a "reliable source."

EVP has both human and physical characteristics (etheric not withstanding). As such, a psychologist can comment on the human side of EVP, as Alcock has, but not on whether or not a recorded sound is EVP as Baruss has. A technologist, such as myself or MacRae cannot comment on human potential to be self-deluded, but we can comment on areas of technology in which we are trained. For instance I am going to speculate that I have more understanding about the nature of cross-modulation than Baruss. Since we do not know who wrote the Skeptic Dictionary entry, that will have to go. I am sure there are others. For instance reference 19 is for a book that I can almost guarantee you doe snot address how EVP might be formed from stray radio waves. Most all electronic circuits have those components. Silly! The reference is not on point.

I can see that this can get pretty ugly and you will probably trump this plan with another wiki rule about original research. But do you see how absurd this argument is becoming. You are claiming your reliable sources are more reliable than ours because they are spoken by some mainstream person who is simply unqualified to speak on the subject, yet you do not want to write the article so that just the facts can be presented because most of your references might have to be eliminated. Every direction we have turned for compromise has been trumped by wiki rules making it painfully clear that the article should not be here. Tom Butler 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The point about skepdic not being a reputable source was not whether Carroll has said these things, but whether scientific sceptics have said these things. Everywhere Carroll is cited he is taken, with unbelievable credulity, to actually be a sceptic. Many people, however, think him a pseudosceptic. If you want to label views from skepdic as sceptical (rather than pseudosceptical) then we need reputable sources identifying Carroll as a sceptic and an absence of reputable sources identifying him as a pseudosceptic. If we don't find the necessary sources, or if we find both, then we will have to conclude that the issue is contentious and say things like: according to self-proclaimed/alleged/purported sceptic Robert Carroll... Remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and you claim Carroll is a Skeptic, so where is your evidence. Sauce for the goose and all that.Davkal 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical sources are reliable because they have a reliable reputation. Paranormal sources, such as Tom's site, are unreliable because they have an unrelialbe reputation. --71.57.90.96 16:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

I suggest that we only edit versions of the article which are the last by an editor who is not a sock puppet. Thus, all sock puppetry will be useless. Also, let several sock versions pile up, then revert or edit in the responsible version. The sock will be wasting his time. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is really sock puppetry going on, the solution is to get it investigated and admin action taken, per WP:SOCK and WP:CHECK (please read these if you haven't already, and note that editing via IP or even editing under different logins isn't always forbidden - what's the objection here? Avoiding a block? Avoiding 3RR?). Suggesting ad hoc "policies" on a particular page is a bad idea. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the objection here is one user (allegedly, I may add) using IPs to make it appear that two or more users have the same opinion, when in fact they are the same person.

perfectblue 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you investigate sock/meat-puppetry. There are 5 internet cafe's within 300 yards of my house and I have friends with computers throughoput the length and breadth of the UK. I could sign up to Wiki on all of them (or get someone else to) and demonstrate a supported view on anything of my choosing. It is clear that ScienceApologist has at last one sock/meat-puppet in use here. What is needed is integrity. Davkal 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easier than that. As those of us who live/have lived under totalitarian regimes which ban wikipedia or track its users can testify, there are a million and one ways to disguise your IP address using a proxy server or onion router that you can achieve without ever leaving your desk.

perfectblue 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't propose a way to deal with a disruptive editor? Excuuuuuse me. And yeah, like Davkal said, what's gonna happen? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Milo entirely here. Jim Butler^(talk) 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies in place to deal with disruptive editors. I recommend you follow them instead of declaring your own "policies". While it is possible to evade detection of sock puppets, it still makes sense to take the steps recommended at WP:SOCK or WP:CHECK. Could one of you explain why you're so reluctant to file a report at either of those pages? --Milo H Minderbinder 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I'll do as I please. You act like there was something wrong with suggesting this. If I want to suggest my own policy, I'll do so. You also can do as you like. Funny that you took it so seriously. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page Etiquette

ScienceApologist, I do not think it is a good idea to delete posts made by others in this board. If you are in fact using unsigned identities, then that would appear constitute a deliberate deception in an effort to establish a majority, which was a hard pressed point brought by one of the unsigned editors. I have a hard time thinking you are involved with that, but please address the point. Tom Butler 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Three points:

1. Consensus is not based on a majority.
2. Accusations of sockpuppetry do not belong in the talkpage. They are an incidental metadiscussion.
3. Removing the personal attacks of another user is permissible. User:Davkal was warned earlier to state his case in the appropriate location. He chose not to do this. His personal attacks against my account have therefore been removed.

As such, this is the last I will say with regards to this distraction, except to remind you and the rest of the users here that there is no requirement for any Wikipedian to login before contributing to Wikipedia.

--ScienceApologist 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I think we now need to go down the mediation route. It is clear the User 71.57.90.96 is simply going to appear everyday and insert (not necessarily only in the Macrae section) his own POV and absurdities, e.g., "the paranormal community" without the slightest source in support. I don't see that an edit war is the way forward, but I'm not prepared to sit back while someone (who has a login but won't use it for some reason) makes anonymous changes to reflect his paranoid (see above)POV.Davkal 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All my edits are well-founded and explained thoroughly on this talkpage. No one yet has shown one thing wrong with them. I doubt mediation will work with people who are as unable to explain themselves as those who believe in EVP nonsense. --71.57.90.96 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. All edits are well founded.

1. "Some studies with limited editorial review have been published". Studies don't have editorial review! Who would do it, the editor of the study? I think not.

2. "the paranormal community". Which is?

3. Changing the Raudive point about the 200 voices from "observers" to "paranormal believers" with no source provided and, clearly, no undrestanding of who was present at the time and constituted the observers as described in the source that is provided.

4. The Macrae stuff, not a single source provided for any of the criticisms of MacRae, just unsubstiated speculative points about methodology from User: 71.57.90.96. Can you show me where "the thoughts of User: 71.57.90.96" appears on the list of reliable sources.

5. "A room designed as a faraday cage" with the clear implication that there may be something amiss about it but without a single source to support this and threfeore no reason not to take that straightforward point at face value and just say "a faraday cage".

6. The suggestion that all of Macrae's voice-testers are "paranomral believers" (sources???).

7. The unsubstantiated claim that someone who believes in the paranormal has an "inherent bias" alongside the notion that those who do not believe in the paranormal have no bias the other way and are therefore "neutral". And the notion that this is somehow important. Oh, and no source again for any of it BTW.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As to the "all throughly explained here" point. Where is there even mention of the Raudive change let alone explanation let alone let alone thorough explanation of it.

In short, you have simply waltzed through the article aligning everything and anything with your POV without paying the slightest heed to the need for sources, accuracy where sources do exist, and NPOV. And you have done all this, ScienceApologist, behind the sock-puppet of User:71.57.90.96. Davkal 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

1) Editorial review is supposed to be independent.

2)People who believe in the paranormal.

3) observers is entirely too vague. Those who don't believe in the paranormal were not asked.

4) All the MacRae "stuff" is taken directly as a summary of his paper or even direct quotes!

5) a roomd designed as a faraday cage is entirely neutral, you are just expressing sour grapes.

6) All of MacRae's testers were hand-picked by MacRae for this purpose. It's clear in the paper itself.

7) You obviously have an inherent bias. You can't edit civilly with those who dispute your pathological beliefs.

And so on...

Therefore, I declare that you are a disruptive editor who is also a POV-pusher.

Good day,

--71.57.90.96 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Whether ditorial review is independent or otherwise, it it not something that happens at the study stage, but at the publication stage. That's where editors do their work.

2. So the claim "The paranormal nature of EVP is generally rejected by those outside of the paranormal community". Which means, the paranormal nature of EVP is generally rejected by those who do not believe in the paranormal. Ya don't say! Generally????

3. Made up nonsense - this is merely your wild imaginings and nothing more. Sources please.

4. The MacRae stuff, particularly the "did not do this" stuff is, in virtue of being "did not do this" stuff clearly not mentioned in his paper. It is therefore your unpublished and speculative analysis and that only.

5. If so then it is an odd way to put it. And odd ways of putting things should be changed to normal ways of putting them, ie. a "faraday cage". Unless they are odd for a purpose (which in this case it is - to cast doubt where none really exists) and that purpose need validation.

6. Where in MacRae's paper does he say his voice-testers were believers in the paranormal. What he says is that were picked on account of their score in a previous test.

7. Civility: "bufoons", "freaks", "shitty" etc etc etc. All used freely to support arguments that have almost no merit even if they were to be possess some degree of logic (which they do not). And all from your sock-puppet.

I therefore declare you something-or-other.

Peace and beads.

Davkal 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No argument there or in the prose. Hmmm.... 2. Yep. The only alternative I saw was Baruss, and that can be termed mild agnosticism perhaps. 3. Not made up at all. Present in the paper -- he asked his fellow paranormal investigators. 4. Nope, it is clearly explicated in his paper what he did and did not do. 5. Not an odd way at all. But this is a style dispute and is basically irrelevant. 6. Who are the people he e-mails? 7. So, WP:KETTLE?

I suggest that you stop editting this page.

--71.57.90.96 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. There is an argument, it goes like this: editors don't edit studies (as you claim), they edit publications (as I claim). 2. A meaningless tautology when clarified, put there for rhetorical effect and POV pushing. 3. See below, wild imaginings. 4. What he did not do is not clearly explicated because he describes what he did. Your take on what he did not do, and it's importance, and therefore it's relevance to the article, is based on your speculative and unpublished analysis. 5. Disingenuous, if it really is just a matter of style then indulge me and use mine. 6. Who are they? Exactly. Where do you get the notion that they are believers in the paranormal and that this is relevant to the task at hand. 7. No abusive language, no sock-puppet used. I may be the Kettle but by making an issue of this point in the first place you're clearly the Pot - and it's the pot the proverb is aimed at.

I suggest you come clean about your identity.Davkal 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Irrelevant to the initial point. 2) I disagree. Seek a Wikipedia: Third opinion. 3) See below. 4) No, I describe what he did and make clear that this is a design flaw: it's patently obvious. 5) Why not indulge me and use mine? 6) MacRae is clear as to who he contacts. 7) You use abusive shite language and you haven't made your WP:SOCK allegations stick. So WP:KETTLE? --71.57.90.96 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Hardly irrelevant to the intial point given that it is the intial point. 2. see a third opinion on whether it is a tautology to say people who don't believe in the paranormal don't believe in the paranormal. Why, but if you insist. 3. Yes see below, sources please not speculation. 4. Design flaws identified by you in your unpublished speculation. 5. Because I'm not the one saying it is merely a matter of style. I am making another quite different point. That is, that the odd way of putting it is meant to imply doubt where none exists. 6. Where, source, cite. 7. I haven't used abusive language here, you have. And I think the sock-allegations are pretty much nail-on-the-head stuff. Look at what has happened recently, for example, ScienceApologist has come here and used abusive language as User:71.57.90.96 and then goes to the user page of User:71.57.90.96 and tries to pretend that it has been "compromised by another person" but confirms that it is an account used by ScienceApologist. Now, I think, we see the purpose of the sock-puppet: to abuse and goad editors into (hopefully) return abuse followed by a ban at which point ScienceApologist can re-emerge and edit unhindered. What a sad state of affairs. Note also the following from 71.57.90.96's account: "From this timestamp onward, all edits done by User:ScienceApologist that are anonymous will not be from this IP, though User:ScienceApologist may still use this IP." Which means, as afar as I can see, that all anonymous edits by ScienceApologist will be made from yet another sock, although he might still use this one for some of them even though he has just said he won't. Dear oh dear oh dear.Davkal 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As for not being able to make the sock allegations stick: here is what ScienceApologist (in his guise as Science Apologist) has to say on another page: "I do use the two IPs in question to log into Wikipedia," and the IPs in question (drumroll), 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252. [6] Davkal 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Choosing not to login to one's account is manifestly not sockpuppetry. Are you accusing me of engaging in such an activity? If so, can you present any evidence in the form of diffs in the proper location? --ScienceApologist 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been editing this page using three different user names, and while you never flatly denied that all three were your responses previously certainly did not suggest someone who was being open and honest about the fact (as is recopmmended by Wiki rules). I don't know what else you would like as evidnce - smoking gun and all that.Davkal 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)