sees Posted January 5, 2017 #1 Share Posted January 5, 2017 If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.” This is unfortunate, because it distracts the reader from realizing that psychical research, also known as ‘psi’ (or parapsychology), is practiced by various scientists and reputable institutions all over the world.....(read on further e.g. a positive quote from Carl Sagan on reincarnation!) http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted January 5, 2017 #2 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Yeah I read through that out of context link. It's woo to the second power. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html http://www.theory.caltech.edu/classes/ph125a/istmt.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9904042.pdf http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07100-8/abstract?cc=y= http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html (institute for afterlife research) are you kidding me? http://www.noetic.org/research/projects/compassionate-intention-prayer These are most of the links I could pull up that didn't link back to the site itself. Plus I don't know how the consensus feels about Dean Radin. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted January 6, 2017 #3 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, sees said: If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.” Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra. Posted January 6, 2017 #4 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, sees said: If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.” @sees - I realise that you are 'right into' all this paranormal stuff. But doesn't 'parapsychology' generally come under the banner as being a 'pseudoscience' ? I'm not 100 percent sure....but even after a century or more of research and investigation into parapsychology....there has still not been any true and convincing data / validity put forth (that I'm aware of anyway) that psychic phenomena truly exists. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sees Posted January 6, 2017 Author #5 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, papageorge1 said: Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent. Ah yes - that figures! Thanks for that. Feels like a lot of them are here on this forum! I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature.... brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!" Edited January 6, 2017 by sees 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted January 6, 2017 #6 Share Posted January 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, sees said: Ah yes - that figures! Thanks for that. I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature.... brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!" Do you actually believe that or are you making assumptions again? If we had something more than poorly done testing then it would be a lot easier. Not include the sheer level of fraud involved in all those studies. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Butler Posted January 6, 2017 #7 Share Posted January 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, sees said: Ah yes - that figures! Thanks for that. Feels like a lot of them are here on this forum! I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature.... brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!" Did you read the Guerilla Skeptics link? They're a small group who target books. I'm not seeing the connection that you're implying. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted January 6, 2017 #8 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 hours ago, The Butler said: Did you read the Guerilla Skeptics link? They're a small group who target books. I'm not seeing the connection that you're implying. This is the top banner of their link Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #9 Share Posted January 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: This is the top banner of their link Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us. Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sees Posted January 6, 2017 Author #10 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience. By 'vandalize' you mean they don't outright destroy the topic? As opposed to altering its content with their bias? Question of degree? Edited January 6, 2017 by sees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted January 6, 2017 #11 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, Carnoferox said: Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience. Yes, they do. I have seen parapsychologist and related issues pages before and after. They removed what sounded like positive evidence and increased the 'Criticisms' page. In the opening comments from their website I provided to you, they refer to it as: providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #12 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 minute ago, sees said: By 'vandalize' you mean destroy? As opposed to changing the context with their bias? Question of degree? Articles like parapsychology and cryptozoology have always been labeled as pseudoscience, with or without the Guerilla Skeptics. Is calling something a "pseudoscience" biased? No. It's not like they have belittled or downgraded the subject, only categorized it properly. These subjects do fall under the criteria. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #13 Share Posted January 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Yes, they do. I have seen parapsychologist and related issues pages before and after. They removed what sounded like positive evidence and increased the 'Criticisms' page. In the opening comments from their website I provided to you, they refer to it as: providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages Removing unsourced citations is not the same as removing positive evidence. Removing unsourced citations happens all over on Wikipedia, not just on parapsychology articles. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sees Posted January 6, 2017 Author #14 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Carnoferox said: Articles like parapsychology and cryptozoology have always been labeled as pseudoscience, with or without the Guerilla Skeptics. Is calling something a "pseudoscience" biased? No. It's not like they have belittled or downgraded the subject, only categorized it properly. These subjects do fall under the criteria. Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory! It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #15 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, sees said: Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory! It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!! The prefix "pseudo' means "appearing like something else", not necessarily derogatory. What would you prefer it to be called? These topics do not fall under the criteria for science. Parascience (meaning "like science")? Edited January 6, 2017 by Carnoferox 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sees Posted January 6, 2017 Author #16 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) For those who still regard themselves as having an open mind towards the paranormal i.e. not totally biased/dismissive of it (but who still favour science), you may like to read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal-Bringing/dp/1572246456 Edited January 6, 2017 by sees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted January 6, 2017 #17 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Removing unsourced citations is not the same as removing positive evidence. Removing unsourced citations happens all over on Wikipedia, not just on parapsychology articles. We would agree people have different opinions on 'sources' and 'unsourced, etc. and I think we can see what is going on with Guerilla Skeptics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #18 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sees said: For those who still regard themselves as having an open mind towards the paranormal i.e. not totally biased/dismissive of it (but who still favour science), you may like to read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal-Bringing/dp/1572246456 I might check that out. I still do having a passing interest. 4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: We would agree people have different opinions on 'sources' and 'unsourced, etc. and I think we can see what is going on with Guerilla Skeptics. No, on Wikipedia there is a clear definition of sourced and unsourced. On Wikipedia, there is a reference section for citations. If a sentence or paragraph does not having a citation in the reference section, then it is unsourced. This should be accepted by all editors on Wikipedia, regardless of their personal bias. Edited January 6, 2017 by Carnoferox 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 6, 2017 #19 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 hours ago, Carnoferox said: The prefix "pseudo' means "appearing like something else", not necessarily derogatory. What would you prefer it to be called? These topics do not fall under the criteria for science. Parascience (meaning "like science")? I'm of like mind with you on this one. I use pseudo to mean almost, or approaching it, or appearing like it... but not actually it. Like alchemy. I term it as a pseudoscience. Some of it's structure and tenants are almost scientific in their approach, but not quite making it. However, out of the pseudoscience of alchemy came chemistry. The distillation of actual science. I don't think para is as applicable as it might be otherwise. Mostly because we pair it with normal- paranormal- to mean abnormal or outside normal. Pseudosciences cover paranormal things. I think there would likely be a bit of confusion if it were both parascience and paranormal. I think pseudoscience is a good thing. There's evidently things going on that haven't been explained yet. I do rather wish that some of those pseudosciences would start distilling better down into more actual science. But I guess give it time, and it will tell one way or the other. I know it's not in the OP, but since it is under the ghosts section.. I think that out of the pseudoscience of ghost investigating some true science could distill out. If more folks could figure out how to apply scientific methods to their pseudoscience to help it along. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 6, 2017 #20 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, rashore said: I don't think para is as applicable as it might be otherwise. Mostly because we pair it with normal- paranormal- to mean abnormal or outside normal. Pseudosciences cover paranormal things. I think there would likely be a bit of confusion if it were both parascience and paranormal. The prefix "para-" can be misleading, because it can be used to mean either "outside of or beyond" or "similar but not the same". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 6, 2017 #21 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, Carnoferox said: The prefix "para-" can be misleading, because it can be used to mean either "outside of or beyond" or "similar but not the same". I know, and that's what makes me think that since we already pair para with normal to mean "outside or beyond" more than "similar but not the same".. and use pseudo more often to mean "similar but not the same" more than "outside or beyond"... that switching that around now would only lead to more confusion than there already is on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted January 7, 2017 #22 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rashore said: I know, and that's what makes me think that since we already pair para with normal to mean "outside or beyond" more than "similar but not the same".. and use pseudo more often to mean "similar but not the same" more than "outside or beyond"... that switching that around now would only lead to more confusion than there already is on the subject. I was not seriously suggesting "parascience" as a replacement, but rather to highlight to sees that pseudoscience is not derogatory and is the best possible term. Edited January 7, 2017 by Carnoferox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted January 7, 2017 #23 Share Posted January 7, 2017 7 hours ago, sees said: Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory! It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!! It is accurately applied in these cases. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted January 7, 2017 #24 Share Posted January 7, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 4:44 PM, papageorge1 said: Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent. Here's a quote from their page: If you would like to join our project, we would love to have you. Open up a Wikipedia account, friend me on Facebook so I can add you to the Secret Cabal and write to me at GSoWteam@gmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra. Posted January 7, 2017 #25 Share Posted January 7, 2017 17 hours ago, sees said: I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature.... No - some people feel threatened/scared to take off their blinkers and face reality....it's called denial. I think as science replaces the supernatural 'with the natural' by explaining everything from thunder and lightning to the formation of planets - etc....well, sadly many people are still seeking another source of mystery and wonder in the world. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts