Talk:Parapsychology

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Archive 4 March 05, 2007

APA Formatting

As I mentioned before, we really need to clean up the references and the further reading list in this and all parapsychology-related articles. Parapsychologists use APA style formatting for all of their publications, and I believe that Wikipedia articles on parapsychology should follow this trend. I surfed around some various psychology articles to see how they handle citations and noticed two things. First of all, the major psychology articles seldom cite anything, and second, when they do cite things, they tend to use APA format as well.

How many of you are already familiar with APA citation style? And what do you think the pros and cons would be for using this system here at Wikipedia?

It's probably best for us to err on the side of caution and when it doubt, cite, but I wonder if some of us might be going overboard with the citations, and what is the general policy on removing unneccesary references when/if I start reformatting things?

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't like the psychology articles, because every sentence and every word is potentially a subject of dispute and challenge. No one comes into a psychology articles and asks the authors whether they ever thought of the fact that every major experiment done in psychology has rendered proof that there is no psychology. Nearly every one of the citations here was requested, so I doubt you'd want to take any of them out unless you can replace them with something better. I know nothing about the formatting debate on citations. There are Wikipedia guidelines for citations, though.

The citations are indeed a mess, and a lot of them are doubled. You have to do <ref name="yourname"> put the rest of the citation here</ref> in the first ref, and then for all subsequent citations to that source it is <ref name="yourname"/> only.

The article needs a major re-citation, to take out as many non-peer-reviewed sources as possible, while having the citations remain. Really, the more citations the better. But take out personal websites. That much we can do. There are really never too many refs! And the best refs are always to people like Hyman. I've never had a ref like that challenged.

Say- what resources do you have for getting a history article written? The present one is a mess. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External Link

I took down http://publicparapsychology.blogspot.com because its a blog and not therefore a particularly acceptable link per WP:EL. Also, we are not a linkfarm and if we link one Blog we should link them all and that's certainly not acceptable. Also, reviewing the blog I thought there was too much advertising on it for it to be suitable link. For full disclose, I followed a request on the EL talk page asking for an outside view. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with this decision (and told Milo that I wouldn't be reverting the deletion before he make an issue of it at WP:EL). I am new around here, and after being kindly refered to the COI page, I understand why posting a link to my own site (no matter it's quality or authority) is unacceptable. That isn't to say that Public Parapsychology isn't an appropriate link for the article...just that it's inappropriate for me to put it there. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but someone else added the link back after it was removed. I asked for outside opinion based on that, not your original addition. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I really don't see why it shouldn't remain. But it's not my battle to fight, so whatever.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's arguable that the Skeptic's Dictionary site should be removed for having excessive advertising, per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. I'm not sure that's the case, but that's a valid issue. It doesn't appear to have excessive advertising in my opinion, but what I did want to address the other reason given for removing it, that it's not neutral. External links don't suffer the burden of neutrality like the Wikipedia article itself. Opposing sources should be linked to, especially if they are notable.

I'd put the Public Parapsychology blog back in if someone can show something reliable that officially links it to the Parapsychology Association. Without that, no matter who adds it, it will always be disputed per #11 of the WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Sadly, if it were just a website and not a blog, there'd be less grounds for removal.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well- why don't we keep both links? And why not link to the PA in your blog, Annalisa, and say how you are affiliated? Then it may be legit. And as far as taking out the skeptics dictionary, it will be added back- and anyway, it is a skeptical source, as legitimate as they come except for Hyman or someone. I would link to it even if some skeptic hadn't already. And anyone can tell by the way it is written that it is biased, so it isn't pretending to be a legitimate scientific source. Now, if it were written like a textbook or something, that might be different, because it would fool the reader. And we don't need to worry about this if the text of the article is right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I do appreciate your support on the blog issue, but I think that we should let it go for now. A few weeks ago, a PA member told me that they wanted me to be 'their' official blogger. I think I misunderstood what they meant by 'their'. Rather, it looks like I will be named the 'official blogger' for the Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology at Lund University, Sweden (this affiliation is just as good, if not better, IMO). The web site for the Center is in development, but I just sent them my picture and CV today, so some sort of documentation should be forthcoming. Additionally, I purchased a domain name for the site so that it can be reformatted as a web site rather than having the blogspot address. All this should come to a head in the next few weeks. So be patient and let the issue of Public Parapsychology go.

However, there has been some discussion about the blog at the talk pages for WP:EL, and there I was told that no matter my supposed authority as a blog owner, the link would not be permitted because it contains advertising and because a blog, by its very nature, does not present a neutral point of view. If those are the rules, fine...but I think that everybody should have to play by them. By that reasoning, I don't think that the link to the Skeptic's Dictionary belongs there either. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck yeah. If they're going to be that strict about it, remove the Skeptic's Dictionary also. I think they are both informative in some sense, but we have to delete one if we delete the other. I mean, he's linked to amazon right at the top in the middle, and he's selling his own book, first things you see. And all the other links in all the other articles, also. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They either didn't read the guidelines in WP:EL or misinterpreted them if they told you all that. The guidelines say "objectionable" amounts of advertising. Neither your blog nor the Skeptic Dictionary has objectional amounts of advertisements in any real sense. The neutrality issue was totally misinterpreted. The guidelines permit non-neutral websites, but a neutral amount of them. That is, websites can be non-neutral, but if you have several external links you should try to have equal amounts of links to the differing views. One pro-paranormal + one pro-skeptic = Neutral. Even blogs are alright, but the guideline has a special requirement that they should be a "recognized authority". It's all a little funny because here we have an encyclopedia that is predominantly text-based, but no one reads anything : )

Of course, it should be said that these are just guidelines. There's no hard-set rules. The real reason your blog was contested is most likely because a lot of blog owners spam Wikipedia for links and promotion. That's a no no and blogs are always looked on with suspicion first.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL

The "undue" advertising are simple links off to the site, quite in common with a lot of resources on the internet. As for "undue", this is drawing a rather long bow at what is only two links off to one side. This meets EL not to mention V and RS. Shot info 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but this article probably should have a tag given the number of "many" and "some" and the low quality of RS sources used. There are some (many) oddball references which suggest a strong OR environment. Basically the article doesn't really read like an explanation of Parapsychology but a defense of it. Something that WP shouldn't do (NPOV). Looking forward to discussion. BTW, somebody should archive the earlier discussions. Ta Shot info 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the earlier discussions and the points you raised are currently being worked on. While lengthy, they are current. It really only needs the one totally disputed tag it has since that superceeds all the others.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that SD doesn't have that much advertising, the blog was removed mainly because it's a blog, and this removal seems like making a WP:POINT. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty heavy acusation to level against my removal of a simple link, not to mention pretty dismissive of the points that I raised. It would be more helpful to weigh in the discussion of whether or not Spartaz was accurate in telling me that external links should be free of advertising and promote a NPOV. I'm trying to learn the ropes around here, and as far as I can tell, they are looking a little uneven. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This problem is solved. The blog is gone, the links are balanced to NPOV. Annalisa is right that if external links shouldn't be POV, or advertise, then skepdic has to be purged from Wikipedia. I conclude that some advertising is OK, but blogs are very iffy, because they are one person's opinion. Oops. Funny thing. So is Skepdic. The most relevant passage I can find is here, on number 11. But I think if your site becomes affiliated with an institution, it should be acceptable. WP:EL says that you should include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material," but it says nothing about not including POV sites. So the POV question is not relevant. One could try and add to the article that we should not include sites which are almost purely POV- but then we'd have to delete more than half of all the links in Wikipedia. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists

You're right "Ta Shot info". This article needs a lot of work. It's making a little progress but not as much as I'd like to see. I'm too busy to actually do editing myself but I will help by pointing out another problem with the article. The section titled "Parapsychologists and critics" seems more like a competition list to see which side has more supporters. I add more supporters on the "Skeptic" side and then Martin or someone else adds more on the "support" side and the list keeps growing. I suggest we simply limit each side to 12 supporters and critics of parapsychology. Here is my list of 12 for the "Skeptic" side.

• Ray Hyman
• Richard Wiseman
• Carl Sagan
• Michael Shermer
• Isaac Asimov
• Penn & Teller
• Joe Nickell
• Bill Nye
• James Randi
• Arthur C. Clarke
• John Stossel
• Philip Plait

If someone cam come up with some other names that could replace some of the names here then post them. But I think each side should be limited to 12. Otherwise it's nothing more than a competition of names and if I wanted I could come up with literally hundreds to add to the list in the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Toss it altogether as not really necessary. You don't list all the people working in biology for example. If the issue is resolving competition by limiting it to 12 per side, then a competition can open up over who gets to be in the 12.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is competing. I don't think I've added any names you didn't first delete for months. If you want to come up with hundreds, do it. Then we can split off a separate section (I'm certainly not concerned: if there are that many notable critics, the reader will think, parapsychology must be a phenomenon very worth noting). But no grown-up reader is going to say "more and bigger is better." It is just the more notable skeptics and parapsychologists. No reason for a limit and no fuss.

However, looking at your list, I hate to say it, but it contains a a lot fewer credentials than the notable list for parapsychology. I'd say that we surely don't want the reader to come away with the notion that Nobel Laureates and other scientists study parapsychology, while entertainers, comedians, pundits, and science fiction writers and CSI members criticize it- do we? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be fine with me if the lists were limited, perhaps to 20. But I don't see how we'd enforce it. And you even forgot Alcock! I suggest just seperating the lists, so that if there is anyone who thinks "more and bigger is better," it won't be so easy to count. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much a reason for the lists, actually. Any notable parapsychologists or critics should be mentioned in the article (or an article about skepticism, etc...) and those who don't make the article (and have Wikipedia articles of their own already) could be mentioned as a term in 'see also' section. There's a few people in that 'list of parapsychologists' who don't qualify as parapsychologists (if you really get strict about it), and a number of others who might not appreciate the label either. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If we don't cut down the size of the lists then we need to get rid of them all together. Anything above 12 each is just too many.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that a list isn't necessary, any notable figures can be mentioned in the text. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone remove the list then.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Member or Affiliate?

"member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969.[6]" Also the reference doesn't link through to any source explaining the AAAS association. Any ideas? Shot info 07:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed as an "affiliate" of the AAAS.[[1]]Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate. That is what they are called, and we need to change the text:

Criteria for Affiliation of Organizations with the AAAS

"The objectives of the AAAS are: "to further the work of scientists, to facilitate cooperation among them, to foster scientific freedom and responsibility, to improve the effectiveness of science in the promotion of human welfare, and to increase public understanding and appreciation of the importance and promise of the methods of science in human progress." There are many membership organizations and professional societies which have similar aims or have interest in supporting these objectives. Association with each other can be a mutually useful way of furthering these aims. The AAAS has established affiliation of organizations with AAAS as a means of furthering these common purposes. Criteria for such affiliation are set forth below, but final judgment as to whether or not an organization sufficiently satisfies these criteria shall rest with the Council.

• 1. Its aims are clearly directed toward, or consistent with, the objectives of the Association.
• 2. Its program and record of activities demonstrate interest in or substantial support of research, publications, or teaching in science or the advancement of science.
• 3. It is committed to the principle of equal opportunity as stated in the AAAS Statement on Discrimination in the Workplace.
• 4. It has sufficiently large membership (usually at least 200) and has been in existence for a sufficient time (usually at least five years) to give promise of continued support and worthwhile activity.

Approved by the AAAS Council, February 21, 1976; revised May 29, 1986."

From here and listed here Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this, Martin. Some if this might make good material for the history section that I am working on. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deltion

"Parapsychology has made significant contributions to other fields, in such areas as the mind-body problem, the transformative effects of parapsychological experiences, and the psychology of OBEs.[26]" I think that quoting a paper that says so, is not equivalent with the fact that this is true. As far as I know parapsychology has not produced even a single interesting repeatable observation, and the only purpose is to destabilize conventional science. Parapsyshology as defined in the articles of its proponents is not what it actually is. Parapsychology searches for experimental disproof of normal science and not for explanation of what has been observed, thus parapsychology is useless. Danko Georgiev MD 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say because the research exists, an entry should be there. It's likely true that "no significant" findings have been produced, etc, etc. People still have devoted time, and energy to it and if one wants to know "what is parapsychology" and what have they done, an encyclopedia is a valid place to look. It is a valid part of our culture at the very least. Simularly, the "flat earth society" existed and should be mentioned in a reputable encyclopedia, so should the "ether" which was proven by modern physics not to exist. Any good article on the subject should most definately reference skeptics. (Of course, the small list given is a tip of the iceberg. Most people are likely skeptics. That another story.) George Jost, 01:14, march 12, 2007

I would tend to agree not because I agree or disagree with the purposes of the article subject, but because we are writing an encyclopedia and we aren't here to whitewash what the subject has achieved in the recognised literature. BTW, I think the article[[2]] is pretty good but probably should be in the "background" section rather than in the lead. Shot info 08:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, because it is only the opinion of one man. He is also has very good credentials. Here is a link [[3]] Myriam Tobias 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing

There is some discussion going on at User talk:Annalisa Ventola/Sandbox about eventually switching the referencing system for this article from footnoting (WP:FOOT) to Harvard referencing (WP:HARV). If you care either way about which system we use, you are welcome to come over and discuss it with us. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics opinion re science and reason

I've re-removed the suggestion that 'skeptics' (who? how many?) fear psi because it will undermine science and reason, ie they're afraid it might be true. The reference provided is obviously inadequate, as its ultimate source is the Noetics Institute, an pretty dodgy-looking organisation. This is just a strawman; instead of relying on what the Noetics Institute thinks, how about a source from one of these 'psi is dangerous' people? The second sourced statement is a non-sequitur that just serves to provide misleading support to the 'psi is dangerous' strawman.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any such suggestion- there is no mention of "skeptics." I could give you quotes- for instance, Arthur C. Clark (sp?) -a notable skeptic- said he didn't believe in it because he thought it was creepy that someone could read his mind.

The passage now includes parapsychologists, so it is entirly NPOV.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It says specifically "Skeptics wonder if this would undermine science and reason", 'referenced' by a FAQ entry, of all things, from the Parapsychological association, taken from the Noetics Institute, an organisation with an obvious religious and political agenda. The Arthur C Clarke quote seems to orginate from there as well, there's no independent confirmation of it. I detest overuse of quotes anyway, they're almost always used to advance a specific POV. This article should have most of its quotations removed.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as you say. The article, as the template on it might suggest, is in the process of being re-written. Why don't you wait and see what you think of the new version? I mean, anything we do now is just going to get un-done. Anyway, this article is about parapsychology. That means we work from inside the field, and that means that sources inside the field are good. So it is well sourced for this article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a license to promote strawman arguments like this. FAQ entries derived from an agenda-pushing organisation like the Noetic Institute are not reliable sources, period. Your 'sources inside the field' notion appears to be an idiosyncratic policy of your own invention, not based on any wider Wikipedia policy.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first- we could take it out. The article is being re-done anyway. The "sources inside the field" thing is a very important principle on Wikipedia. See this for more. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

To those who keep putting this article in the pseudoscience category: please submit a WP:V source for this, something which trumps the AAAS, Alcock, Hyman, and Randi. Otherwise, this cannot be called pseudoscience, no matter how much anyone here would like to do so. It can, however, according to those sources, be called a science; revert-warring over this is not right, as our own personal opinions are not at issue. Whether we personally think parapsychology is a science is WP:OR. I can ask for mediation over this if you wish, but why bother? The sources are too good in this matter. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Randi thinks it's a science? AAAS affiliation for the PA, doesn't necessary make it's subject matter "science". Psychology doesn't need to have the category "science". Why does Parapsychology need it other than as blatant OR? The use of pseudoscience seems to be in conjuntion with the general 'rubbery' nature of the subject inasmuch as it may be explored in a scientific matter but it will viewed non-scientifically until key mechanisms underpinning the theoretical explanation(s). Mind you, this is science 101 and shouldn't need to be explained. Shot info 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

O found it, I see the article has misquoted Randi in thinking that he supports it as a science, prehaps it needs to be read through its conclusion where it says "What Professor Stanovich is asking of us, is to not tarnish the psychologists with the peccadillos of the parapsychologists; these are two very different sciences. The former has a rich list of confirming and supportive experiments, the latter has none except for the popular miracle-of-the-moment. In the same breath, I'll assure my readers that there are indeed responsible and capable parapsychologists; those are the ones who have no positive work to report... ". It's an example of Randi's sarcastic wit [[4]]. Shot info 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience it is not wrong to categorize a subject as pseudoscience if it is obvious pseudoscience (which parapsychology obviously is). --ScienceApologist 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the same guide, and I would say that parapsychology would fall under the category of 'questionable science' much like psychoanalysis. Unlike astrology (described as a 'generally considered pseudoscience'), there are roughly a dozen university labs that have active research programs incorporating parapsychology, there at least as many mainstream publications that have published the results from such labs, and then there is the AAAS affiliation (which for some reason, you guys like to deny). This is not 'obvious pseudoscience', as you would say, obvious pseudosciences or even generally considered pseudosciences could not possibly maintain as many academic ties. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, Randi is on record as saying parapsychology is a scientific field. You found the wrong Randi quote. The proper one is used in the article. Look at the citation there.

Martin, I did look at the link, found it, read it and read beyond the "sound bite" used to foster an (in)correct opinion onto Randi. The quote is factual, but if you keep reading, about two paragraphs beyond it you end up with Randi's conclusion I quoted above where he in effect says "Yep, science, but a different science from what everybody else calls science". So it is disengenous to believe (or infer) that this sarcasm = an endorsement. Shot info 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, there is nothing wrong with the quote, and it does not mis-represent Randi's position. Randi thinks Parapsychology is different because he thinks it doesn't have any results. But he nevertheless says it is science. Different, and I'm sure inferior in his view, but science. That's all the quote is saying in the article. It is a fair quote, because it includes his view that parapsychology has no results to report. Yet, at the same time, Randi considers parapsychology a scientific field and that is what we are talking about. He refers to parapsychology as a scientific field, both in the quote in the article and in the quote you are talking about: "What Professor Stanovich is asking of us, is to not tarnish the psychologists with the peccadillos of the parapsychologists; these are two very different sciences. The former has a rich list of confirming and supportive experiments, the latter has none except for the popular miracle-of-the-moment. In the same breath, I'll assure my readers that there are indeed responsible and capable parapsychologists; those are the ones who have no positive work to report." (emphasis added) So he says it is science twice there. That's two fair quotes I could have used in the article. I sum up- Randi believes parapsychology to be a scientific field, with no positive results to report. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't really recognise Randi's sarcasm which is dripping from the quote. Randi is calling parapsychology a science unlike science. ie/ Not a science. Again, it is disenguous to suggest that Randi believes paraphyscology is a science, or rather a science that has results and doesn't rely on miracles. I guess I will just have to mine JREF for a clarification of Randi's position as you are clearly taking his quotes waaaaaay out of context. Shot info 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like that is all I looked at. I also looked at the forum. Here is what I found (and I read it a few weeks ago, so it may have changed). As you see, they are taking it the same way I did, Randi, as far as I see, is not correcting them. That is, they are debating, and mostly agreeing with Randi, that parapsychology is a field of science. So, I suspect that, as with the other critics of parapsychology, Randi does indeed recognize it as a science, because it follows the method, even though he thinks it doesn't have results. The forum is very good proof, at least, that Randi's readers took it at face value. I know Randi's sarcasm. I grew up on Flim-Flam!- I can remember laughing so hard! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology, unlike psychology, is nearer to a hard science than psychology, as it deals more with matters of physics than psychology (the name is misleading). Parapsychology does not necessarily have to be in the category science, as far as I care; but it shouldn't be in the pseudoscience category, unless you can source it in a way which trumps sources to the contrary. General rubbery natures, whatever that means (= ummmmmmmmmmmmm I dunno what that has to do with the category. The analysis and scientific methodological rigor of parapsychology are very high- so rubbery could at best be applied to the results.

The "obviousness" of whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience is only OR- you need sources for that, as per Annalisa. The ruling said that the threshold for "obvious" pseudoscience was Time Cube. That is extremely important, and we must follow it here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT"This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." We need to see the sources for calling it pseudoscience. We already have sources which call it science, and a scientific field- and they are the best kind, critics of the field and the AAAS. We need to see the WP:V sources that trump the sources given. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decission on pseudoscience says that:

"Questionable science

17) 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." Emphasis added. And parapsychology, because it uses quantification much more, is much more "scientific" than psychoanalysis. The current article follows this standard. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox version

Is the version in progress in a user sandbox open for all to edit or will it be proposed here when those working on it think it is ready, seeing if there's a consensus to switch over at that point? I'm just wondering because it hasn't had much mention on this talk page. --Minderbinder 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be posting a notice here when it's closer to being done. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)