Telepathy

[JDlugosz]

I'm trying to improve the "Telepathy" entry (and subtopics) in Wikipedia. It seems that most scientists believe that this actually exists, at least according to the references cited.

I need more primary references, and counter-references that criticize a reference that is being used to imply that psi exists.

Read the articles and the talk page... I feel like I'm floundering here.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm trying to improve the "Telepathy" entry (and subtopics) in Wikipedia. It seems that most scientists believe that this actually exists, at least according to the references cited.

I checked the reference list myself and I don't at all agree with that conclusion.

4 of the 14 references are from the "Parapsychological Association",
2 of the 14 are from Randi's own SWIFT,
1 is a news article that shows "scientists" clearly against telepathy,
1 is an article about technology someday enabling telepathy-like abilities,
and the rest are not particularly notable.

Can you explain how your own reading of those sources led you to an opposite conclusion? I'm baffled.

I need more primary references, and counter-references that criticize a reference that is being used to imply that psi exists.

It is my understanding that there is no hard scientific evidence in support of telepathy. Until there is, I see no reason to treat telepathy any differently than astrology, numerology, or the pseudo-science of your choice.

 

[JDlugosz]

It is my understanding that there is no hard scientific evidence in support of telepathy. Until there is, I see no reason to treat telepathy any differently than astrology, numerology, or the pseudo-science of your choice.

I agree. But read the replies to my edits to the article toward the bottom of the comment page. "...Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary." and "Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site."

--John

 

[DiskoVilante]

I did research on ESP and telepathy once and used an argument that the brain/body contains no organs suitable for transmission/reception of signals as the thesis. I'll post some of the links and upload some .pdf's for you as some good references tomorrow once I find my old files.

 

[Cosmo]

I agree. But read the replies to my edits to the article toward the bottom of the comment page. "...Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary." and "Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site."

--John

I read that discussion, but I'm not so sure I understand what you want from this thread. This whole situation is very clearly a consequence of Wikipedia policy and practice, especially with respect to trying to avoid POV editing. It's also somewhat of an edit war between you and someone who comes across as sympathetic to telepathy.

 

[Beerina]

I agree. But read the replies to my edits to the article toward the bottom of the comment page. "...Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary." and "Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site."

--John

Who decides that? To quote the title of a Dilbert collection, When did ignorance become a point of view?

You could load the page up with study after study reference demonstrating no effects when telepathy is tested rigorously, "suggesting powerfully its non-existence".

 

[DiskoVilante]

PM me with your e-mail if you want me to e-mail you the .pdf article.s

 

[JDlugosz]

You could load the page up with study after study reference demonstrating no effects when telepathy is tested rigorously, "suggesting powerfully its non-existence".

Do you have any reference citations for those studies?

--John