Talk:Paranormal

Extraterrestrial life and UFOs

IThe above header is misleading. I popped in here looking for a quick definition, and the incorrectness of that header has just completely stopped my day. As it stands, the header implies that UFOs, etc are being included as paranormal activities. Both "paranormal" and "extra terrestrial" may well be included under the blanket of speculative fiction (if one is speaking of writing) but I do believe it is confusing and misleading to entitle that section in such a way as to imply inclusion. Why not change it to the obvious: "Extraterrestrial life and UFOs are not considered paranormal." The term "paranormal" generally refers to that which can not be perceived by any of the "normal" five senses. And as far as I know, there's no mythology about a "seventh" sense devoted exclusively to UFOs, except perhaps on some forgettable episode of the x-files. I would recommend the header be changed. Official definition from http://dictionary.reference.com is: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena." Says nothing about your UFOs, etc.Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read that section, you'll see that it makes exactly the same distinction that you made. Extraterrestrials and UFOs, by themselves, are not paranormal. It's the aspects that defy scientific explanation that do (UFO going incredibly fast and yet it makes a 90 degree turn, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.14.182 (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote from de Boer and Bierman

Hi, the quote should remain clearly identified as a quotation. It is used by Wikipedia according to the fair use doctrine. It is in fact a fair used quote inside a fair used quote, i.e. the quote from de Boer and Bierman includes a quotation from Radin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work, thanks for fixing that. Fodor Fan (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Brain theory of the paranormal

There is an interesting paper here, I was wondering if anyone can help summarize it and add it to the article. See here. Fodor Fan (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hit Piece on Paranormal

This essay on the Paranormal is nothing more than a prejudicial hit piece on the subject and provides numerous negative misleading statements, some of which are not even factual in content. It is not scientifically balanced nor does it provide authentic information regarding the research done in psi. This essay is not fact or science based, it is the work of fundamentalists most likely material dogmatists from the Skeptics Society. Reader beware. Jamenta (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you perhaps give some examples of misleading and non-factual statements? It'd be better to improve the article than to settle for a dramatic warning on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, please provide some specifics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph that sets up the entire article, makes this statement,

"In contrast, the scientific community, as referenced in statements made by organizations such as the United States National Science Foundation, maintains that scientific evidence does not support a variety of beliefs that have been characterized as paranormal."

This is a misleading characterization of paranormal research, since those within the "scientific community" such as psychical researchers William James, Frederic Myers, J.B. Rhine, James Hyslop etc. were all scientific men. Others in the field of psychology which is an established science, such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung (both founders of still practiced analytical schools), and several in physics & biology confirmed and researched psi - some even leaders in their respective fields. Both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung observed and wrote papers regarding their observations of telepathic dreams in their psychological patients. Both were highly esteemed scientific men in their field, especially Sigmund Freud.

Therefore the article begins with a disingenuous misleading statement as if the entire "scientific community" has dismissed paranormal research. This is simply not true. A good deal of paranormal research has been done in a scientific manner using empirical means. This is not even acknowledged in the opening paragraph of this highly prejudicial article.

Further down the article then makes the false and misleading claim that collected evidence of paranormal experiences based on collected testimony lacks a scientific basis. If this were true, than one would have to dismiss wide swaths of scientific research in Psychology and Social Science, since a good deal of empirical research in both these scientific fields are based on collected veridical testimonies of observations of human beings. Science does include repeatability in the laboratory but it is not a necessary attribute of the scientific method. If this were true, one would have to somehow repeat a supernova in a laboratory which is obviously impossible. Astronomy is based on repeatable observations of a good deal of phenomena that cannot be repeated in a laboratory. So here again, you have a misleading and spurious accusation against paranormal research.

The claim that Psi research has waned since the 1970s made me laugh. There is a good amount of research still going strong. This is just a biased opinion not based on any substantial evidence at all.

The James Randi one million dollar prize has never been a serious scientific objective test of the psychical phenomena that presents itself. The test conditions and requirements are offered as some kind of specious proof that no psi phenomena has been observed or repeated in the laboratory. This is by a Skeptics Society that has proven itself to be a radical group of individuals with an atheistic and reductive materialistic ideology - some of whom are connected with FOX news and secularistic right-wing sponsored hate groups. Jamenta (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)