Talk:Daryl Bem

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Describing James Alcock[edit]

An IP wishes to describe Alcock as an "anti-parapsychology activist", but no source was given for this change. Further, it doesn't appear to be a neutral labeling, seemingly intended to generate prejudice in the mind of the reader. Manul ~ talk 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess time has washed over that. It can be archived. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White flag[edit]

I've tried my best to keep this article unbiased. I don't think that the article is fair with Bem and his ideas, specially because I've cited a lot of mainstream peer reviewed papers. I'm not referencing parapsychology journals, but people are still deleting everything I post. It's nonsense to delete peer-reviewed papers published on Psychological Bulletim, Frontiers, f1000 and keep articles by CSICOP.

However, I understand that the topic is highly controversial and it's not widely accepted, but at least the Daryl Bem and other 'parapsychologists' are playing by the rules: they are publishing in rigorous peer-review journals. So, I'm proposing something: at least keep the references. There is nothing wrong with them. We can discuss a better way to word the text, but please don't simply delete everything I write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massless theory (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bem was admittedly p-hacking, a method with which one can "prove" whatever one wants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions[edit]

Re ganzfeld "still being debated", as I mentioned in my edit comment in February, this fails WP:PSCI because it presents a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the mainstream and fringe view. The sources for the 2015 paper are inadequate: one is a primary source, one is a blog, and the last is an (apparent) book in which the paper is briefly mentioned but not discussed in any detail. Coverage by independent sources is needed here. Manul ~ talk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the future controversy[edit]

I understood from Dutch Skepter magazine that Bem's methodology was as good or as bad as was common in social science in 2011. I think this should be mentioned. I also understood that his article was one of the triggers of the replication crisis. Andries (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC) See also https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html[reply]

(Personally I find it disappointing that scientists only seem to care deeply about methodology when the results do not fit into their worldview). Andries (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we have sources saying so, why not?

Maybe scientists' worldviews are so often right that bad methodology is the main reason for results not fitting into them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see negative selective citing from the slate article. Andries (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]