Talk:Paranormal/Archive 2

Parachute and paranormal trivia section

I was strongly tempted to remove this, since:

a) it lacks a citation,

b) it is non-notable in the context of the article and

c) a Google search found nothing to back up this claim.

Unless anyone objects or provides a reference, it will be removed quickly. It may even be someone's attempt at a joke.--Ianmacm 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editor added that awhile back and I didn't really have the heart to remove it, so I moved it to a trivia section (it was in the etymology section). I generally only tag and remove unsourced controversial stuff, obvious vandalism, or spam, and it didn't seem like the editor was posting it in bad faith. I don't think anyone would object to a removal though, because the editor only made that one edit. I say go for it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with List of paranormal subjects

I created a spin-off of the main paranormal page's "subjects" so that I can summarize the more notable ones in a more encyclopedic fashion. I don't really have the time to work on the List of paranormal subjects page as I'm focusing on the main page. It needs sources and descriptions, better intro, and so on. If anyone wants to tackle it, it'd be much appreciated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of James Randi

Wouldn't it be better to use his current Wikipedia biography image at [1] rather than the book cover, which is not a very good likeness?--Ianmacm 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That works too. Done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Link and Book Spam

This is an encyclopedia entry on a topic where there exists thousands of books and websites on the subject. A further reading section should include Wikipedia articles in the form of a "See Also" section, not a list of non-notable books. Given the amount of spam that creeps into this article, it doesn't need any sort of external links section, per WP:EL. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My family is not happy with our home..

We been haveing lots of bad luck inor lives sience we moved in to our condo home. Our love has been going down and we, can't find happiness everything we do is going wrong. Sometimes I feel like someone is watching us or walking around us everyday...pls help us what to do.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.223.20 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a service that conducts exorcisms. Sounds like you are in a haunted locale. Powerzilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you got a subprime option arm mortgage.....you don't need an exorcist, you need a re-fi! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"...pls help us what to do.." I can't help self. I think, there can be a solution for your problem.

Disobedient Angels:http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010901/article_02.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020122a/article_01.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010901/article_01.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/archives/index.htm --81.214.110.130 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacremento, California

See http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50924&provider=top

Its like what happened in Chicago all over again, only there are pixes of the UFO this time. Local media has a UFO on the incl. video link. So far, only this link has been found. Powerzilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just what the hell is this thing?! Powerzilla (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Debunking" section unbalanced

I've flagged this section for balance / accuracy because it caricatures the position of skeptics. Key points to correct: this is stupid 1) Skeptics and skeptical organization typically do not use nor endorse the term "debunking." Most prominent skeptics explicitly reject it. In the current state of the literature, it is a weasel word used almost exclusively by critics of organized skepticism.

2) Skeptics do not typically advocate a "debunking approach" that "presumes that what appears to be paranormal is necessarily a misinterpretation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual anomalous phenomenon." This is a straw man. Skeptics advocate scientific investigation. Whether they embody ideal this may be contested, but it is a PoV bias to claim skeptics advocate an approach different from what skeptics actually say.

3) "In contrast to the scientific position, which requires claims to be proven, the debunking approach actively seeks to disprove the claims." Here, the article makes a PoV argument: that skeptics advocate an unscientific position.

4) No mention is made here that paranormal hoaxing in fact occurs, nor that skeptics have sometimes identified such hoaxing. (see for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff)

5) No mention is made here that paranormal mistakes in fact occur. It's dishonest to imply that skeptics are grinding an ideological axe when they suggest that a given case could have an natural explanation, when researchers on all sides of this agree that mistakes of this type are common. For example, the pioneering pro-paranormal author of the alien abduction literature Budd Hopkins asserts, "It has long been obvious to serious UFO researchers that the majority of UFO reports — some say up to ninety percent — are misidentifications of conventional aircraft, stars, and other natural or artificial objects.”

6) Contrasting skepticism with "anomalistics" may be Marcello Truzzi's idiosyncratic PoV, but it is not a standard distinction. Nor is anomalistics notable in this context. (I just tested its prominence on google: "anomalistics" gets a mere 2,630 hits, as opposed to 127,000 for "CSICOP," 629,000 for "james randi," or 23,200,000 for "paranormal.") Loxton (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Verbal's edits address my concerns, but I wonder if they may have overshot the NPOV goal? I wouldn't want to suggest that nothing in parapsychology is "scientific investigation." I may re-title the section again as "skeptical investigation." The language here is all contested, but I submit that may be as close to a NPoV as we'll be able to find. It is certainly how skeptics characterize their own activity.Loxton (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps other scientific investigation, or move them closer together. Parapsychology does seem to have fallen away at the moment. The current version is a "neutralization" of what was there. It should probably be marked for a rewrite. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'd really be happier bumping this whole "approaches" section over to the parapsychology article. It seems like a pretty major digression from the topic of this one. The whole section could be collapsed here to a couple sentences, like "Several groups attempt to perform research and investigation into paranormal topics, including UFOlogists, cryptozoologists, skeptics, (etc)…"Loxton (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe start a new section here/there on that. It needs a rewrite if it stays or goes elsewhere, but I'm not too sure about the best way forward. Perhaps a "Paranormal investigation" article fork, which could perhaps subsume parapsychology, or keep both separate as parapsychology was once a big field (even Peter Venkman had a PhD in it). A new article would leave room and scope to more fully address your points above. However, a problem with investigating the paranormal is that once you've explained it, it's normal - and hence was never paranormal... so you've not explained "The Paranormal"! But right now I need to sleep... Good night, Verbal chat 22:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology is pretty big already, so moving there would probably be a mistake. Verbal chat 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the "skeptical investigation" vs "skeptical scientific investigation" question, I might mention for consideration that many skeptical investigations are not strictly "scientific," but historical (or involving other relatively rigorous academic areas). Randi's Million Dollar Challenge is explicitly scientific and experimental, but many skeptical investigations are (while informed by science) really historical sleuthing or investigative journalism. Loxton (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This structure is still very flawed. The article needs to stop mixing up the study of the paranormal itself with the study of belief. "Skeptical scientific investigation", while better than "Debunking", implies that it's some special kind of scientific investigation going on- what about a "scientific investigation" subsection that examines how the paranormal is treated in mainstream scientific journals? Also, alphabetical ordering is inappropriate for conveying the weight of different "approaches", since in the current structure, all the mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journals go under the fourth subsection, way under Charles Fort who gets the first subsection to himself.

A better ordering would be 1) the scientific mainstream, 2) parapsychology 3) anecdotal or subjective approach. In the article at present there's no mention of the very productive line of research in using cognitive bias (such as illusion of control) to explain paranormal belief (Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So", Vyse's "Believing in Magic", Sutherland's "Irrationality", Susan Blackmore's research etc.). To have nothing on this, and yet a whole subsection, sparsely referenced, on a "participant-observer approach which" is arguably not a research method at all but something people do for fun - note it's mention in the context of reality TV - is a real problem with this article. Are we going to say that riding a "ghost train" at a fairground is an approach to the investigation of ghosts? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with supernatural?

According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. I've posted the same question at Talk:Supernatural#Merge_with_paranormal?, which is where I would suggest posting any discussion on this question to avoid confusion. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1st Sentence

Currently:

"Paranormal is a general term that describes unusual experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation,[1]"

I am going to remove the word "obvious" because it implies that there are non-obvious scientific explanations for the paranormal, when, in fact there are no scientific explanations, and the citation does not use the word "obvious".Desoto10 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the word paranormal describes things that lack scientific evidence. For example there is evidence for dark matter, but it does not have a scientific explanation (I know of). Scientists say it could be this or that, maybe. Nevertheless it is not commonly called a paranormal phenomenon. – Lakefall (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference #4 from the NSF states, in no uncertain terms that this field is pseudoscience and causes harm. I know that there are some issues on Wikipedia about labeling something as pseudoscience, so I am asking for comment before editing this paragraph a bit. If this reference is reliable, then we should give a full account of the NSF opinion on paranormal.Desoto10 (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

arbcom redux

I have filed a request for amendment related to the Paranormal arbitration case. All interested parties are invited to respond. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC) – —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.202 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good site(s) for research?

Whats a good, objective site for researching haunted buildings/places? http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/ has a fair amount of material but some of it needs updating, and there's no contact information on the site so ther's no way to report updates. Thanks --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight inaccuracy pertaining to James Randi in this article

The article says that James Randi is a member of CSICOP. This should read that he was a member of CSICOP. He resigned from the organization after one of Uri Gellar's lawsuits. Anyway, I added the word was into the article to reflect the correct tense of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Cheers, Verbal chat 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Randi is no longer a member of CSICOP.[2] There was a difference of opinion about Uri Geller and the potential for lawsuits, if memory serves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal culture section?

I am trying to find a fitting home for the many lists that arguably litter parapsychology-related articles by referring to the exemplification of the phenomena under scientific question to certain TV shows, pop books, etc. This info, while always interesting, offers no particular informativeness within the articles under discussion; see, e.g., Precognition. Would a new section under this page be happy to house such information - but not using such terms as precognition to head them; instead using "fortune-telling, prophecy" as the heading, referring to cultural practices and beliefs from which the scientific researchers of such phenomena have earnestly tried to extract their enquiries (just as, for instance, psychologists prefer to more succinctly speak of "self-efficacy" rather than "confidence" or "valor"). Rodgarton 09:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Cryptozoology

Im just spit balling here but shouldnt Cryptozoology be included in the list of paranormal subjects?

paranormal kids

A Group by 3 kids by age 12 had made a paranormal research for hunting spiritual life . We have made several researches about the death of the famous and powerful medium (Harry Price),as we have searched for answers we have found out he has been buried alive in 1937 by an arabian man . When another research is confirmed we are going to be adding more and more stories please dont forget to comment .Any visual contact please look at the sentence down below.

if you have experienced paranormal and have no idea what you should be doing please contact us at (PHONE NUMBER REMOVED). sayde was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.2.57 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Written by:Imran

Wikipedia does not conduct original research. If this is not a joke, I advise you to employ the scientific method as you conduct your research, and be careful not to stray into the realms of pseudoscience. If you do indeed find something of interest, it would be inappropriate to publish it here, as you would be citing yourself.

Also, please improve your grammar. I was once twelve, and I realize that it feels as if people just aren't taking you seriously, but articulating in that manner will do nothing to aide your cause. Please take note that scientific papers refrain as much as possible from saying "we".

Robert macphail (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Belief Poll Edit Please

Under the section "Belief Poll", there are no numbers as to how many people were polled. One of the reasons this subject keeps its para-normal status is that poll size matters. The larger the numbers, the more accurate the poll.

There is nothing disproving that all polls were taken by ten people in a hotel room who were paid for each answer they gave.

If there is no objective number of people who took the poll, the poll is irrelevent. So too, if the poll was targeted at [eg.] "Pagans, Witches and Psychic's Fairgrounds", the poll is irrelevent for this article. 2010-04-03T1405Z-7 76.90.227.163 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The atimology has to be in the bagining of the article and not in its end.

Dispute on related article

I am inviting other Wikipedians to this discussion where there is a content dispute. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They Are Here.

Some people think that I'm insane, but I strongly believe in Ghosts, Spirits, Demons and everything else that falls into that category. Personally, I have experienced their power and encountered their presence. Others may not believe they exist, but I know for a fact they do.

I've seen beds get flipped over, lights cutting on and off by themselves, TVs and radios flipping through channels on their own, windows and doors being slammed shut, objects being moved, water faucets turning on and off all at the same time, dark figures, demonic entities in my dreams, shadows, lights emerging from walls and corners.

I've looked in the mirror and saw a black figure building up behind me enough to make a faint reflection. Once I look behind me, however, it vanished just as quickly as it revealed itself. I've stood in certain spots that felt extremely cold while other spots felt normal. I've received goose bumps and chills through out my body as if something has entered through my veins and spread itself out ever so rapidly.

At times, I find myself feeling extremely depressed and suicidal. Other times, I'm filled with rage and anguish. Nothing in my life causes me to be this way. There's no reason for it which is why I beliieve it's all Paranormal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanDieCannibal (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts are a clear example of what Wikipedia calls original research. We cannot make use of such observations. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Psychological approaches to paranormal belief

Hello, I'm new to the actual editing of Wikipedia (I've used it for quick reference for five years now, but just started doing major edits). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone thought this article could use a brief section exploring why certain people hold paranormal beliefs? I am not a psychologist by trade (I hold degrees in Creative Writing and Philosophy), but I would still consider myself an expert on the issue of psychological explanations for paranormal belief and I have over twenty peer-reviewed articles and studies on the subject on my computer, which I attained through EBSCO and JSTOR. (I am the founder of a skeptics' group and we believe in understanding why people believe the irrational, so I do a lot of reading on the subject.) I just thought I'd put it out there; I find the topic very interesting, but I wasn't sure how relevant it would be to this article, so I wanted to get some discussion going to see what others thought. Let me know what you think. Arekusu (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Wiseman has done a good deal of research in this area, and one of his papers is here. This is called the misattribution hypothesis, and the article could say more about this subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've actually read that one and was thinking of drawing on it if people were interested in the topic. Wiseman has done several studies on paranormal belief; I'm a fan of that one and his later follow-up. Arekusu (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Some confusion might arise from the claim that the scientific community rejects paranormal explanations. This does not imply that every member of the scientific community who ever lived individually rejects those explanations. We can't base an article on opinion and rumour. Please provide reliable sources that contradict or add to the content of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The waning-since-1970s line is sourced to a 2007 Nature article which says "The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs." and goes onto mention Britain having a healthier amount of (still private) research in university psychology departments, so sure, I agree that the article could be clearer about that, I'll edit that now.

The article only says that the James Randi prize exists, and that nobody has won it - the article draws no conclusions from this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions the James Randi prize along with a number of intentionally unchallenged statements that would lead anyone not familiar with the amount of credible research in Psi to believe that no empirical data has been collected. This is misleading and intentionally disingenuous - it is dogmatic fundamentalism being displayed as scientific truth. This kind of self-righteous deceptiveness harms the advancement of Science enormously. Jamenta (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm continually astounded when 'official' classification of deceptive/flawed pseudoscience vs. unconventional/dubious areas of research is consistently attributed to a career stage magician and an activist philospopher. These 'challenges' and 'prizes' and other publicity stunts Randi et al have performed are in fact more pseudoscientific than most of the targets of their 'debunkings', as they posture as bearers of some kind of authoritative scientific status, unlike the majority of fortune tellers and UFO witnesses. This kind of irony is pervasive throughout Wikipedia articles in this category, commonly featuring absurdities such as:

"The paranormal aspect of extraterrestrial life centers largely around the belief in unidentified flying objects...";

...a term originally designated by the Air Force to classify unusual reports of flying objects that hadn't been satisfactorily identified, as the linked UFO article clearly states. In contrast, the fundamental belief in the non-existence of anomalous phenomena that evade simple explanation, and based on this unquestionable truism the dogmatic dismissal of all such reported experience as childish fantasy or gullible ignorance, is simply confirmation bias much like that found in the cited study. Rhetorical classification of the falsity of other's claims and views is not required by Science or Nature, they simply publish or don't, and peers review and all generally reserve judgement as a matter of course. Belief and doubt both have virtually nothing to do with scientific tradition or true skepticism. ("Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who 'asserted nothing'"). Just because reports of ball lightning and meteors were once declared to be spirits and demons doesn't mean our ancestors didn't sometimes experience some profoundly 'para-normal' things that were otherwise inexplicable in their era. Equating interpretations and conclusions with claimed observations and investigations is straw man reasoning and decidedly unencyclopedic. I apologize for ranting instead of doing something to improve these articles, but there's likely a lot of work needed in this 'controversial' area. AveVeritas (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

James Randi's background has nothing to do with his work on the subject (ad hominem) and Freud's background doesn't necessarily make him more credible or right (appeal to authority). James Randi has, by using the scientific method, given the world clear evidence that none of the people he tested have any of the powers/gifts they claimed to have. Doriphor (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Gallup 2001 and 2005

"Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results."

Two of the surveys covered --two of the three covered in most detail-- are Gallup polls of 2001 and 2005. According to our coverage, altho we don't say it, the 2001 surveyed people about belief in 13 items; the 2005 repeated 10 items and dropped the other three (psychic/spiritual healing, demonic possession, extraterrestrials visited). We give percentages that are uniformly lower in 2005; the differences range from 3 to 9 and represent about 10% to 40% of the 2005 believers. --P64 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)