Talk:Ganzfeld experiment

Fringe description

The article lead was changed from pseudoscientific to fringe by an IP [1]. The fringe claim is actually accurate. Ganzfeld experiments conducted by parapsychologists are very much fringe, this is not mainstream science. We have many references on the article which clearly discuss the fringe nature of these experiments. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You are begging the question. i.e. saying it is fringe because "it is an article about parapsychology". Saying it is obviously fringe and adding one reference (from 1987!) to the lead does not meet the guidelines for lead content. The lead needs to reflect important points from the article. The word "fringe" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, probably because it isn't a scientific term. See the Manual of Style lead section for more info. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "pseudoscience" was in the lead for over a year, I don't see any other user disputing pseudoscience or the newly added "fringe". You have no consensus for your edit. You are making a controversial edit so it is up to you to back it up, not the other way round. We have an article on parapsychology, the topic is considered pseudoscience by academics and scientists so you are arguing against the scientific consensus. The ganzfeld experiment is indeed a fringe experiment by default, are you claiming it is mainstream science? We have an article on fringe science, it is a scientific term, "Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted". Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Cited sources support "a pseudoscientific technique used in parapsychology" or "a technique used in parapsychology that has been criticized as pseudoscientific". Calling it "fringe technique" is clumsy, less specific, and would require adding additional explanation to the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited sources, I believe, seem to support a wording I tried to construct. But I could be wrong. So WP:BRD if you feel it a problem and let me know. jps (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Better! - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Great solution for replacement of fringe. But the claim that there is no scientific evidence for any parapsychological effects is not supportable. See The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Written by a paranormal loon Etzel Cardeña who is the editor of Journal of Parapsychology, so hardly a neutral source! Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

[2], c'mon man you need to behave, this sort of POV editing is not acceptable. You are not playing fair. There are many references, for example The Psychology of the Psychic is also cited in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A retraction-watch worthy paper if I've ever read one. I have contacted the editor about whether they got a physicist(!) to vet his claims that quantum mechanics allows for psi, for example. jps (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Quantum physicists have been collaborating with parapsychologists since the fifties. e.g. That time in the 70s when quantum physicists and parapsychologists held a joint conference and decided that there were psi effects and that they may well be quantum effects. https://www.proquest.com/openview/9d88460b42c1dfccba4adc157f5ee865/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1818062

In actual scholarshipland, as opposed to pseudoskepticaland, these two fields are working together to try to understand consciousness as we speak. I'd cite this work in the article but I know it is a waste of time because of the attitudes of people here who think it is OK to impugn actual tenured scholars peer reviewed published work purely on the basis that they are parapsychologists. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

In the fifties, parapsychologists still had lots of people fooled that they were on to something. That does not matter now. Of course, quantum mechanics is not a theoretical basis for psi. Can you please WP:FOCUS and stop telling stories from your tiny psi bubble? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha! Funny thing then that none of the best journals that publish quantum physics accept these papers. When was the last time PRL published something about parapsychology? It was easy in the 1970s drug-addled heyday of the Fundamental Fysiks Group to get a conference together that attracts a few of the "Hippies who saved physics" who are completely marginalized in their blinkered beliefs. But do go on how this is the actual stream of research and not a laughable backwater. Go right ahead. jps (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

AH! I see that it wasn't reviewed at all. It is a "perspective". Cop-out, APA, but whatever. I suppose the problem would be that if they did allow for proper review Cardeña would have balked. After all, the rejoinder is this harsh. jps (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We can agree that paper is a harsh rebuttal. It is also a stupid one which relies on the argument that "Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true." Seems Cardeña's paper that is a meta analysis based on actual data might be more like actual science. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a meta argument irrelevant to our discussion here, but, suffice to say, the rejoinder is clear. Believers in parapsychology are charged with a kind of magical thinking that is impenetrable to dispute because they assume that psi exists. This is made all the more clear that they reject the null hypothesis out-of-hand in spite of 150 years of poor showing from true believers. If you want WP to follow your acceptance of woo-woo, get a result published in Nature or Science. Good luck! jps (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder why I am not convinced by your an adhominum attack on a tenured professor? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether you could arrange a fair demonstration for us of psi. Maybe you could put your god to the test? Maybe you could write down the equation that allows for psi from QM? Seems Cardeña wasn't up to the task. jps (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would so love to jps. But sadly every time I try to show exactly how, for example, Cardeña is totally up the task his research papers keep getting removed because parapsychologists are persona non grata. How exactly should I proceed in this case? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Convince the scientific community that psi exists. If you succeed, come back here. At the moment, you are trying to cram psi in through the back door. But that is not how Wikipedia works. First, go mainstream. Then, be described as mainstream science in Wikipedia. Not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just trying to cite published research. Apparently that is a bridge too far for you guys to handle. You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia policy doesn't support your contention that parapsychologists can't be cited. Nothing to say on that? Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:PSCI Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight.. Is Cardeña's opinion any more relevant that other parpsychologists saying the same thing? We already say that parapsychologists believe they have something and that everybody else does not. So, what is gained by adding one voice from that choir? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The question was how do you justify your exclusion of works by parapsychologists given wikipedias policy that they don't have a conflict of interest?

Are you seriously asking why adding more peer reviewed published evidence for a thing you say there is no evidence for is necessary? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is irrelevant. What is relevant is independent notice and WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's at least admirable that other parapsychologists who argue that psi exists don't fall victim to the temptation to fall down the quantum flapdoodle rabbit hole. Misleading readers with an unreviewed jaunt through that sort of pseudoscience does no one any favors. jps (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I reckon being published by the American Psychological association counts as pretty good independent notice. And 250 journal articles and a number of books. And getting the outstanding career award is also some pretty good independent notice Cardeña given Outstanding Career Award. Oh but wait, that award is from the parapsychological association and they are bad so it doesn't count, that's what you were going to say right? Which takes us right back to, how you can justify excluding peer reviewed published papers by award winning parapsychologists in defiance of wikipedia policy, which is the actual question here.

You can't have it both ways. You can't ask for evidence and then exclude evidence because you say it doesn't count when wikipedia policy says it does. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes academics can get pseudoscientific nonsense published in peer-reviewed papers, it happens everyday. Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is reliable. You appear to be ignoring our fringe guidelines, I am not sure why we would be giving weight to Cardeña when his ideas are rejected by the science community. I am not sure if you have looked up Cardeña or not but he's actually written material claiming levitation and psychokinesis are real. I don't think you have done your homework, you are promoting someone with some very irrational and crazy views.

But this is all off-topic for this article. Cardeña's paper was not on the ganzfeld experiments. It is also irrelevant to what awards he has or how many books he has published. Even Nobel Prize-winning scientists are not immune from promoting pseudoscience, quackery or irrational ideas (look at Linus Pauling or Charles Richet). If you support Cardena then why stop there? Why not support John C. Sanford? He has better peer-reviewed publications than Cardeña and thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old! Do you think Wikipedia should be promoting Sandford's creationism? He is published in some good journals so Wikipedia should promote his creationism, right? Of course not. You are ignoring scientific consensus. But we do have an article on the Parapsychological Association Outstanding Career Award if you want to update it. Instead of wasting time putting rants on talk-pages you could update and improve parapsychology articles if that is your thing but something tells me you are not interested in improving articles in this topic area, you just want a debate on talk-pages. Your approach is not productive and you are ignoring both scientific and consensus from other editors, so I will not be further responding here. This is a waste of time sadly. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Cardeña's work has clearly not been rejected by "the science community" as he has been published in many journals and is in fact a tenured professor. The point here is that you just keep stating your personal opinion without saying why it should be the arbiter and not wikipedia policy, while I refer to policy and peer reviewed sources.

I think it is you who is not abiding by the WP:FRINGE policy as that policy states that "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field..." Clearly this means that Cardeña's, and any other published parapsychologist should be able to be cited here as they are, e.g. the aforementioned award, obviously recognized in their field.

Why am I having this discussion rather than editing the article? Because when I edit you guys always remove things stating this fallacious argument that parapsychologists can't be cited. So it seems that trying to get this sorted here is a necessity before editing.

Sadly though none of you will answer the simple question of why your personal opinions matter more than wikipedia policy. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"published in many journals" has nothing to do with getting one's ideas accepted.

"is in fact a tenured professor" has nothing to do with getting one's ideas accepted.

If you do not understand even simple and obvious truths like that, any discussion with you is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So, still no answer about why your opinion is more important than wikipedia policy. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly not just Hob's opinion. The most reliable sources we have on parapsychology identify it as completely corrupted by blinkered belief. Richard Wiseman, in particular, is an exemplar of such. He routinely defends parapsychology as an object lesson for psychology in general. It is true that parapsychologists have been subject to harsher criticism than psychologists when it comes to such matters as the replication crisis. Wiseman has made the case that for that reason alone parapsychology has done research psychology a favor. What that does not mean is that he accepts their evidence and, indeed, there are no people who accept their evidence except for those who believe in the paranormal. jps (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Morgan, I have only skimmed this conversation, but one thing you need to understand here, that most editors don't have the courage to say, is that although we as editors are obligated to live by Wikipedia policy as we understand it (after all, you can't understand things the way other people understand them because as soon as you do, it automatically becomes your own understanding), policy ultimately is a layer over raw numbers majority rule. While editors will quote WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, in practice we see WP:Of course it's voting. You can run through the dispute resolution process which is supposedly structured to be all policy based, and you can take it further if you think the close is unfair, but ultimately if you're the minority, it's your interpretation of policy against everyone else's interpretation of policy. You are outnumbered, and those of us who think pro-psi stuff should not be in Wikipedia are not outnumbered, and policy is almost infinitely malleable to people with sufficient levels of cognitive dissonance. MarshallKe (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Creationists, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, astrologers, homeopaths, covidiots, flat-earthers, holocaust deniers and many others agree with you. What you said is pretty much the same reasoning they use. According to them, their worldviews are also not rejected by Wikipedia because they are rejected by mainstream sources but because of all those biased Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am a very bad person. How dare I insist on evilly citing published works by actual scholars? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no similarity between what I said and what you portray me as saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a very telling reply from MarshallKe. Starting with, one radical skeptic doesn't accept the evidence so it must be bogus, and ending with, a bunch of editors with a stated bias against the topic know they are "interpreting" policy but there are more of them so they get their way.

I'm super glad you pointed out that the dispute resolution process is "supposedly" structured to be policy based, because that is the truth.

All in all this is just an extended version of the, our admittedly biased position is going to prevail over citing published work by actual scholars, argument. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)