pennywise wrote:pennywise wrote:pennywise wrote:pennywise wrote:pennywise wrote:pennywise wrote:max is gr8 wrote:pennywise wrote:max is gr8 wrote:pennywise wrote:TROLL FAQ.
What is a troll?
The term "troll" has several meanings on usenet. You have the
Real Life[tm] meanings as given to us by Merriam Webster:
troll (trol) v. 1.To fish for by running a baited line behind a
slowly moving boat n 1. A creature of Scandinavian folklore
variously portrayed as a dwarf or giant living in caves or under
bridges.
And then there's the usenet meanings - which are actually rather
similar to those above. In the case of the verb, the definition
is close - with one small twist; _you_ are the thing that
someone is trying to catch - and catch you they will if you
aren't wary. For bait, the troll will often take the form of a
derogatory post - one that is designed to incite as much
reaction as possible. For each person who responds, the poster
will consider that person "caught". The troll is considered to
have been a complete success if it disrupts the normal traffic
on a newsgroup. In extreme cases, trolls are posted by groups of
people and crossposted to unrelated newsgroups in an attempt to
destroy those groups by flooding them with flames and off-topic
ranting. Then, there is the noun, which again is nearly dead on,
but this type of troll has an e-mail account, a global bridge to
hide under, and a fishing pole to match - beware, for the hills
are full of 'em.
How can I spot a troll?
Most trolls take the form of blanket statements designed solely
to generate as many irate responses as possible. Posts with
subject lines such as: "Macs suck Worse than Amiga's!" or "Mac
Users are pathetic losers" Are most likely trolls.
Also, trolls love to generate mayhem by crossposting derogatory
statements to two rival groups and watching the sparks fly as
the groups flame each other into oblivion. That being the case,
it is usually a good idea to think _very_ long and hard before
responding to anything that is crossposted. If you must reply to
a crossposted message - edit the header to only include one
newsgroup; otherwise, take it to e-mail - or risk being branded
a weenie for life. Trolls can also pop up in existing threads.
These are usually the most distressing as they are unsuspected.
Suddenly, you are confronted with someone you believe to be a
mac user , who has taken a ridiculous position which just pisses
you off from here to hades. Remember, if you find yourself
thinking, "I can't believe this guy", it's a good chance that
the post is a troll. You'll know for sure if the same person is
consistently stupid and infuriating throughout the majority of
his posts to the newsgroup.
Are trolls made by real people?
Nope. Trolls are made by nasty little people who crave far more
attention than they deserve. Most of them are inadequate losers
with absolutely_no_lives_what_so_ever! Remember that, a troll,
by virtue of their lack of a life, will always have more time on
his hands than you - it's part of the inhuman nature of the
beast. Also, be advised that trolls will also band together.
There is a group of people known as alt.syntax.tactical who make
it their life's work to destroy as many groups as they can. They
consider a group destroyed when more than three quarters of the
threads on a group have been started by them; and the group is
unusable for normal traffic.
Why do trolls troll?
Ah, good question. While there is no way of knowing why all
trolls troll, there are some good theories. The general
concensus is that the troll is trying to build up a flaccid ego;
the troll sees himself as superior to anyone who responds to the
bait. The worst thing you can do, in the eyes of the troll, is
not respond at all - to absolutely ignore them. By not reacting,
you have completely defeated their purpose in life. In other
words, the troll sees his self-worth in how much of a reaction
he can inspire - ignore him, and you confirm his worthlessness.
It's your best weapon.
What's the best way to deal with a troll?
Contrary to most people's natural instincts, the best tactic is
to do absolutely nothing. In other words, _DO_NOT_ respond to a
troll. To do so is to play entirely into the trolls hands. I
cannot stress this enough. If left alone, the troll will usually
get bored and go away - leaving many happy Mac Users to ride off
into the sunset doing various backwards and forwards victory
dances. Read that last paragraph carefully. It is of the highest
importance if we are to keep trolls at bay. So, remember, a
troll's greatest joy is to piss _YOU_ off. Unless you deny him
what he wants, he will stay around for more - gleefully feasting
off your frustration, anger, indignation and vain attempts to
reason with him. If you look right through him like everyone
else in his miserable stinking life has, then he will usually
slither back into his cave and/or find his prey elsewhere.
I can flame with the best of 'em - shouldn't I just drive them
off?
Unfortuantely, no. The above assumption is based on the premise
that trolls are actually like real people. They are not; they
thrive off of negative input. Input in any form makes them feel
more important and will only cause them to stay. Sure, you may
be able to successfully spank a troll here or there if you are
good - and we mean DAMN good. Flaming is an art that many, many,
try, few master, and nearly all think they are good at. As a
rule, DON'T flame 'em, it does NOT work and will only prolong
the agony for everybody else.
But they make me so mad I want to scream - can I?
By all means no! If you must scream, do so at your neighbors cat
or the PC at work. It will be much more effective than screaming
at the troll. If you absolutely must respond due to some
personal neurological disorder, please do so in email and not on
the group. Admitedly screaming at the troll via e-mail isn't
always possible because of certian troll tactics, but it is your
only recourse. To respond to the troll on the newsgroup will
only invite alt.mac members to flame you and beat you about the
head, - and not necessarily in that order.
The troll won't go away - there must be *something* I can do?
YES! Some trolls just don't know when to give up. These can be
referred to as "klingons" - as they keep "clinging on" to the
notion that their continued presence his going to eventually
make somebody snap. You have several lines of defense at your
disposal. The first, and possibly the best, thing that you can
do is learn how to use a killfile. A killfile is a list of
people and places that you want your newsbrowser to ignore.
Thus, if you add the troll to your killfile, you'll barely know
they exist. It's like magic (amazing, eh?). The second major
thing you can do is complain to their postmaster. The postmaster
is the person who has the job of making sure that everything
runs smoothly at a given news/internet provider. Since a
postmaster is often overworked, the last thing he wants to deal
with is some weenie on his site causing all kinds of problems.
Thus, the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of the
source. That's right, enough complaints to the postmaster, and
the nasty little trolls are gone - tossed onto the streets and
looking for another cave to be miserable in. -BUT- and this is a
big but, if the troll is using a forged account, your complaints
either won't mean a thing, or will get someone else (other than
the troll) in hot water. So, be careful and don't do try it
unless you know what you're doing.
Okay, then how do I contact a postmaster?
It's easy! Just send e-mail to:
postmaster@troll's_originating_orginization Let's say some guy,
who's e-mail address is klingon@flaccid_manhood.com, really
pissed you off for the last time and you feel it's time to
complain. To complain to his postmaster you would end it to:
postmaster@flaccid_manhood.com. It's that simple! One problem
with this, though, is many trolls use fake addresses or anon.
remailers; so getting the trolls real address is impossible. If
the address is fake (rather than a remailer), checking the
header can often give you the originating site Also, a good
letter to a postmaster should start with a brief and polite
comment, saying that the troll in question is causing trouble on
the newsgroup with his off-topic rantings. Most postmasters will
not yank accounts just for offensive behaviour (thank goodness,
since anything you say has the potential to offend -someone-);
but they will yank accounts for persistent off-topic posting.
Lastly, the letter should then include the -entire- text of the
offensive post, WITH HEADERS INTACT. Do not edit.
But, I want to rip the troll's throat out so hard it makes his
whole family hurt for years - what else is there that I can do?
Well, while I don't officially advocate it, you _can_ engage in
"A Slight Case of Overbombing." That is: The Mail Bomb- a nasty
weapon usually reserved for the nastiest of trolls and is best
when done by many people working in concert with one another.
Mailbombs _can_ blow up in your face, even if they are
successful. Once a "person's" mailbox is full, all mail sent is
often reflected back at the sender. There are also other
nastinesses that can transpire, but they are beyond the scope of
this.
What's a flame?
Well, the following is taken from the EFF's Guide to the
Internet, v.2.21 - it seems to sum it up the best:
"A flame is a particularly nasty, personal attack on somebody
for something he or she has written. Periodically, an exchange
of flames erupts into a flame war that begins to take up all the
space in a given newsgroup (and sometimes several; flamers like
cross-posting to let the world know how they feel). These can go
on for weeks (sometimes they go on for years, in which case they
become "holy wars," [-usually on such groundbreaking topics as
the relative merits of Macintoshes vs. IBMs]. Often, just when
they're dying down, somebody new to the flame war reads all the
messages, gets upset and issues an urgent plea that the flame
war be taken to e-mail so everybody else can get back to
whatever the newsgroup's business is. All this usually does,
though, is start a brand new flame war, in which this poor
person comes under attack for daring to question the First
Amendment, prompting others to jump on the attackers for
impugning this poor soul... You get the idea." Just in case
you're thinking this might be agood idea: DO NOT FLAME TROLLS -
IT DOES NOT WORK.
Some lame-headed Mac User is responding to this troll. What
should I do?
Well, in a perfect world this would not happen, but with the
constant influx of newbies there will always be somebody who
will give the troll the satisfaction of a reply. If this
happens, the best course is education - i.e. kindly direct the
infractor towards this FAQ or alert them to the error of their
ways (then beat them). If the newbie persists, and is convinced
that he or she is a net.rambo who is up to any challenge, beat
them first, then ask yourself if the person is who they seem. In
such cases, there is the slight chance that the respondant is
not just a clueless newbie, but a fellow troller - or even the
troll himself in disguise. A favorite tactic of organized troll
groups is to plant a "mole" into the group - someone who looks
and acts like a regular. Often, the mole is planted a few weeks
to a month in advance of an attack. That way, it looks as though
the invaders were attacking "one of us." Be wary of it, as it
lends to the mischief as unsusspecting do-gooders are sucked
into the fray as they come to the defense of the the "attacked."
What is all this talk about Spam?
Spam is a message that has been needlessly crossposted to
several different groups or it is a message that is posted
multiple times to the same newsgroup. Both methods are
frequently used by trolls to overload a group and make it
unusable. A post is generally considered spamming if it is
posted more than two or three times, or if it is posted to more
than about 4 or 5 groups. Generally, spamming is considered very
rude because spams waste bandwidth in a big way, as they result
in a bunch of off-group posts from idiots who have yet to
discover the secrets of editing subject headers in their replys.
This usually degrades into morons throughout the country having
arguments about the Bee-Gees on multiple groups, while other
morons blather back and forth about how a discussion of the
Bee-Gees has nothing to do with alt.save_my.chickens_please and
alt.white_power. It's a vicious circle, and one which
sophisticated trolls love to use. The moral of this story? In
short, DON'T respond to the spam on the newsgroup - do so in
e-mail. And again, if you _must_ reply publicly to a crossposted
message due to weird hairs making their way through your anatomy
- edit the header to only include one newsgroup; otherwise, you
run the risk being banned to alt.fan.bill_gates for eternity.
Are there other places that I can go to get info?
Well, this is the internet, after all. Give these a try:
Net Abuse FAQ:
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html and Bill's
WWW page "Everything You'd Rather Not Have To Know About
Net-Abuse" : http://www.tezcat.com/~haz1/netabuse/netabuse.html
What's a killfile?
A killfile is an "editing" device that allows you to essentially
shut out articles and people who you don't want to hear from or
about. That is to say, the killfile is a list of people and
places that you want your newsbrowser to ignore. Thus, if you
add a troll or spammer to your killfile, you have sort of
"rubbed them out" electronically - at least as far as you're
concerned. Think about it, the possiblities are nearly endless.
If you're having trouble setting up, read the help files and
documentation on your particular newsreader for more info; or
ask if anyone using the same newsreader can help you set up a
killfile for a specific troll.
How can I spot a troll?
1. Off-topic. A large number of trolls are wildly off-topic and
have nothing to do with the newsgroup. 2. Highly inflammatory
language. Of course a non-troll can be inflammatory, but blatant
flamebaiting when combined with other tell-tale troll signs
should give you a clue. Be especially alert if the post targets
the entire group: "This is a stupid newsgroup" or "You are all
stupid. Get a Life!" are most likely trolls. 3. Obscene
language. A large number of trolls are sexual in nature. Think
before you respond to a post about people's sexuality or body
parts. 4. Claims of inside info from brand new posters whose
names you have never seen. Wait and see, especially if the info
seems too fantastic to be true. It probably is. 5. Fake
accounts.Many trolls are smart enough not to use their real
accounts .They may make up a fake account, or they usually get a
free one from hotmail. They may make up a new identity on an ISP
which allows for multiples, like AOL. This doesn't mean that all
people on those accounts are trolls!!! People may have many good
reasons for using a fake name, a free acount or a multiple AOL
id! But if a suspicious post comes from such an account, be
careful. Also be aware that the troll may be using somebody
else's account. 6. Crossposting to non-mac binary groups along
with mac-binary groups (especially to alt.flame, alt.bigfoot,
alt.syntax-tactical, alt.religion.kibology) and re-routed
messages. Sometimes a person has a good reason to crosspost; an
item may be of interest to more than one group (like the
different x-files groups, or maybe sci-fi groups.) But if the
crossposting seems to make NO sense, it may simply be for
trolling. Some groups are dedicated to trolls and flaming (see
the groups noted above) and posts crosslisted may be for
trolling purposes.
Remember: None of these signs, in and of itself, makes a troll.,
But if you see several put together, you should be suspicious.
---------------- Protocols for Safe Troll Handling:
First, identify the troll from a safe distance. You may find
yourself tempted to respond, but do not. In most cases, Do
NOTHING!!! Remember the troll wants your attention and postings,
needs it, craves it. Some may appear cute, but most are rabid,
so you must be careful! If you do not feed it, it will not take
up residence. Most of the time, the best response is to IGNORE
the troll.
Consider the needs of the newsgroup. Will your response add to
an already tense situation? A light-hearted joke might help more
than a flame. If the troll is tying up lots of space already,
you might actually do harm by adding to the confusion. Remember,
the troll is not after you personally; he/she has targeted the
whole group.
If you feel you must do something, consider doing it behind the
scenes. You can look up the troll's posting profile on Deja News
and see what other mischief it has been up to. You can e-mail
or post an alert to Troll Trackers on the newsgroup if you are
really concerned. You can E-mail the newservice provider of the
offending Troll. You can e-mail the troll if you feel you must,
but most trolls will not bother to respond in any helpful and/or
intelligent manner. This is not generally recommended, as it
might draw the troll's attention to you and your e-mail address.
(The troll may be using a fake address, or even someone else's
address, anyway.) Remember, the troll WANTS public attention.
Resist the urge to give it!
Above all, keep your sense of humor. Or at least, your sense of
scientific detatchment. The troll can actually be a humourous
little entity, with its strange world view and its dim little
mind. You may learn to chuckle at its frantic attempts to draw
attention. You can also view the troll as an interesting
scientific specimen, a sort of study in Usenet psychology and
sociology. Whether it knows it or not, the troll walked into the
laboratory when it began its mischief. View it as an experiment,
if nothing else.
Responded to a troll, eh? Don't feel bad. They are seductive,
for some reason. The best thing to do is to pull back, calm
down, and call the thing for what it is: A TROLL! Stop replying
IMMEDIATELY. Do not read any of the troll's responses to you. It
is trying to draw you further into its lair. Remember: your
ultimate weapon is your refusal to play the troll's game! Kill
file the troll if you can. Do NOT respond to its baits.
The troll is usually a solitary creature, but gangs of trolls do
exist on Usenet. In fact, entire newsgroups are dedicated to
breeding trolls. Some troll invasions are carefully plotted by
more than one troll. You can learn more about trolls in general
at this excellent FAQ: regarding Trolls and Flames:
http://digital.net/%7Egandalf/trollfaq.html
Your best weapon against Trolls is your refusal! (and don't
forget your laughter....)
Ok, couple of more questions?
What is the meaning when a Troll goes HA! HA! HA!? Or HE! HE! HE!
Answer: When a troll goes HE! HE! HE! , That is warning that he is on
the attack. You might call it a fair warning. When a troll goes, HA!
HA! HA!, that means he/she has got you caught.
What is a FAKE FLAME WAR?
When the troll is trying to create a flame war, he will fake one yy
arguing with him self. He will change his identity and post messages
to himself. You think it's two people going back and forth;
it's actually just one person. Let's say "Monkey
dung" has a flame war with "Boner-head" . Eventually
one of them will win the flame war, making one of them a hero.
That's what the troll wants, to show the newsgroup that he is a
swell person.
What can a Troll do to you?
Some can do some basic computer hacking, and post your personnel
information on the newsgroup. Like posting your address or telephone
number. At worse, they can send you a virus to your E-Mail. Or do an
E-Mail bomb. Most like to accuse the victims of being Child Molesters
and spread the rumor all over usenet.
Anything else?
Yes there is: Trolls like to impersonate other posters. If a Troll is,
let's say of a conservative bent, they like to pretend they are
Liberals. The reason for this is to the discredited their adversaries
by making outrageous statements. They choose names that are very
imaginative. Like characters from a Hollywood movies. There are times
they are so transparent. They do take time to research their
adversary's rhetoric. One troll was trying to pass himself as an
American Conservative. He used British slang in his posts. Then there
are the "Gender Benders". Most of the time, they are males
pretending to be Females. Some times it is vis-à-vis. Those Trolls are
found on chat rooms, message-boards or chat rooms. But you do find
them on newsgroups.
In conclusion, some trolls have a political agenda. Some are just
mental cases. It does not matter. A Troll is a Troll. Just ignore the
bastards. Do not let them intimidate you. They want to scare you off
newsgroups. That's the whole idea. Newsgroups are a great place
to meet people and have interesting discussions.
Happy posting!
I always wanted to know that mike
Well you know, they're not paying me to sit around. I thought I'd do some good for the world!
That's interesting you know its fun quoting stuff you just got off wikipedia.
Yeah but I don't use Wikipedia, I use Google Groups. Old skool etc.
Eddie Murphy was originally going to star in Ghostbusters.
Parapsychology is the study of the evidence of mental awareness or influence of external objects without interaction from known physical means. Most objects of study fall within the realm of "mind-to-mind" influence (such as extra-sensory perception, folie a deux and telepathy), "mind-to-environment" influence (such as psychokinesis) and "environment-to-mind" (such as hauntings). Collectively, these abilities are often referred to as "psionics".
The scientific validity of parapsychology research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism, and is generally referred to as a pseudoscience, refuted by numerous rigorous scientific studies. Nonetheless, many eminent scientists have been firm believers that the field is worthy of analysis, such as Wolfgang Pauli (See Pauli Effect).
Contents [hide]
1 Types of parapsychology
2 History, claims, and evaluation
3 Status of the field
3.1 How science views the field
3.2 Interpretation of the evidence
3.2.1 Criticisms of parapsychological research
3.2.2 Responses from parapsychologists to criticisms
3.3 Early Scientific American challenge
3.4 Other objections to parapsychology
4 Other interesting facts
4.1 Critics of parapsychology
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
8.1 Independent research organizations
8.2 University research organizations
8.3 Other
[edit]
Types of parapsychology
The phenomena in question fall into two broad groups.
Extra-sensory perception (ESP) is also known as anomalous cognition, and includes telepathy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairalience, clairgustance, clairsentience, precognition, postcognition, psychometry, and dream transference.
Anomalous operation includes psychokinesis (in the past referred to as telekinesis), pyrokinesis, psychogenesis, out-of-body experiences, astral projection, near-death experiences, mediumship, and reincarnation.
The general term "psi phenomena" (or the somewhat older term, "psychic phenomena," which was said to be the "psi factor" in an experiment) covers all of these categories.
[edit]
History, claims, and evaluation
See history of parapsychology and claims of parapsychology.
[edit]
Status of the field
The standing of the field of parapsychology has always been controversial within the scientific community.
As its name indicates, parapsychology is sometimes considered a sub-branch of psychology, and this has arisen historically since it involved the study of apparent mental faculties. In its modern form, parapsychology is an interdisciplinary field, which has attracted physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as psychologists and those from other sciences. (For an argument that parapsychological phenomena may not in fact be psychological, see Peter J. King's "Parapsychology without the 'Para' (or the 'Psychology')" (Think 3, 2003, pp 43 53).)
Parapsychology often involves the use of new and untested technologies and methods such as neurofeedback, Neuro-linguistic programming, past life regression and so on.
Many people are not satisfied with the term, and have proposed alternatives, such as "psi research" (similar to the older term "psychical research"), but "parapsychology" is the term that has gained the greatest acceptance today.
One organization involved in the field, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [1]. At present (2006) there are about two hundred and seventy five members in the Parapsychological Association.
[edit]
How science views the field
In the scientific disciplines, there is a belief that all claims should be treated with scientific skepticism. Mainstream scientists generally argue that after examining psi claims for over a century, there has been significant difficulty assertaining significant positive evidence for such claims.
Many in the scientific community believe that parapsychology is not a real science, that psi phenomena do not exist, and that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Many scientists and skeptical observers of the field believe that some parapsychologists knowingly commit fraud; that some are incompetent or misled by their own hopes or desires; and that some are naïve and therefore easily deceived by fraudulent participants; or perhaps some combination of the above. One of the most famous cases in psychology that illustrates being misled by one's hopes is that of Clever Hans. Mr. Wilhelm von Osten, who promoted the horse, did not intend to defraud anyone, but he fooled himself and large audiences nevertheless. [2]
Parapsychologists disagree with this assessment. Many have been formally trained in science, and are familiar with the scientific method. Statistician Jessica Utts has shown in a number of papers that:
"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted."[3]
The precise percentage of scientists holding negative views about parapsychology is unclear, since surveys targeting this group are far less common than those targeting the general population. In his article Save Our Science: Paranormal Phenomena and Zetetics, skeptic Henri Broch complains:
"These data are based on an investigation on the belief in parasciences among Frenchmen (published in 1986). [...] Contrary to what might have been thought, the level of belief in the paranormal is directly proportional to the level of education, whatever the religious persuasion may be. Those with higher scientific degrees fare slightly better, although their level of belief is superior to [greater than] the average!"
Some skeptics believe that there is a tendency for parapsychology researchers to select "good days" and discard "bad days" for the people in the test samples. But the "Theory of Runs" shows that the chance of a long run of successes (or failures) increases drastically when the periods of success or failure are selected as part of a larger sample. See: Feller, William (1968), An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. I, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 86. For a more recent discussion of the theory and the "arcsine law" see [4] or [5]
Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest and a sociologist from the University of Arizona, studied surveys on belief in ESP from 1978 through 1987, and studied the mental health of believers in ESP. The surveys he studied showed that from 1978 through 1987, the number of American adults who reported psychic experiences rose from 58% to 67% (clairvoyance and contacts with the dead were reported by 25% of his respondents). According to Greeley, the elderly, women, widows and widowers, and the conventionally religious report higher incidents of such experiences. He also tested the psychological well-being of people reporting mystical experiences with the "Affect Balance Scale" and found that people reporting mystical experiences received top scores. Greeley summarized his findings by writing,
A few parapsychologists are skeptics, for example Chris French and his colleagues at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College in London, and Richard Wiseman and his colleagues at the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire, both of which units include individuals who are members of the Parapsychological Association. These researchers do not approach the field with a belief in the paranormal, but are rather interested in the purely psychological aspects of those who report paranormal experiences, along with the study of the psychology of deception, hallucination, etc. These researchers also have provided their own guidelines and input to other parapsychologists for the design of experiments and how to properly test those who claim psychic abilities. While some of these guidelines have been useful, many have suffered from a naive understanding of scientific practice in general and in parapsychology in particular, from a distorted view of the methodology actually in use in the field, and the unfortunate habit of some skeptics to make sweeping statements about the applicability of counter-hypotheses to lines of research without actually investigating the appropriateness of those counter-hypotheses to the details at hand. (See, for example a mostly-positive review of one of these guidelines written by skeptics[6].)
The most important point that both proponents and skeptics raise is the need to be critical of the theory, methods, and conclusions of any one who investigates or comments on parapsychology as a science, no matter what point of view they represent. In order to be an objective professional, one must have a first-hand knowledge of the vast past and present published scientific literature in the field, primary and scholarly sources of its age whenever possible, and -- even more important -- have first-hand experience as an experimenter or investigator and a respect for the art of conjuring and its masters. The hands-on approach is essential to scientific progress in the field, whether one approaches it from a "paranormalist" or a "conventional theorist" point of view. Selective and historically uninformed armchair cheerleading and armchair skepticism are equally useless in all fields of inquiry and science.
[edit]
Interpretation of the evidence
A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or some sources for the information in this section.
Many scientists hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of poor quality and not properly controlled; in their view, the entire field of parapsychology has produced no results whatsoever. Frequently, however, proponents argue that those who hold this view have not had any contact with the published literature of the field such as that which can be found in the Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, or in the proceedings of the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association[citation needed]. Instead, they have relied on the analyses made by members of the skeptical community who, wrongly, assume that all parapsychological experiments suffer from flaws and therefore no parapsychological experiment may be considered evidential even in the weak sense of the term. Working psi researchers welcome criticisms that are based on knowledge of the peer-reviewed, published literature of the field. Criticism and blanket statements based on hearsay are not productive and not encouraged in any area of science.
Other scientists hold that there is a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. They hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research. [7]
Other scientists, who are familiar with the published literature of the field of parapsychology, believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof.
[edit]
Criticisms of parapsychological research
A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or some sources for the information in this section.
Anecdotal evidence, characteristic of most of parapsychology, is inherently unreliable. Anecdotes may have natural, non-anomalous explanations such as random coincidence, fraud, imagination, or auto-suggestion.
If an experiment is not controlled to prevent fraud, then the results may not be trusted. This is especially so given the fact that many people who claimed to possess psi abilities were later proven to be frauds.
Parapsychology experiments are usually poorly designed. They often lack proper controls, allowing paths of intentional or unintentional information leakage through normal means, etc.
Parapsychology experiments are rarely replicated with positive results at independent laboratories.
Positive results in psi experiments are so statistically insignificant as to be negligible, i.e. indistinguishable from chance. For example, parapsychology may have a "file drawer" problem where a large percentage of negative results are never published, making positive results appear more significant than they actually are.
Currently inexplicable positive results of apparently sound experiments do not prove the existence of psi phenomena, i.e., normal explanations may yet be found. Concluding inexplicability from lack of existing explanation constitutes the well-known fallacy Argument from Ignorance.
Psi phenomena cannot be accepted as explanation of positive results until there is a widely acceptable theory of how they operate.
Parapsychologists may prefer and write selective history. The whole story may be avoided.
Parapsychology spends too much time simply trying to show that certain phenomena occur, and too little time trying to explain them — yet it is explanation that constitutes the heart of scientific enquiry, and wider, scientific acceptance of parapsychological phenomena would come only with the provision of explanation. (See King (2003) cited above.)
People who are considered noteworthy psychics could make a lot of money predicting or even controlling (via PK) the outcomes of boxing matches, football games, roulette wheel spins, individual stock price changes, and so on, but none of them seem to do so. Why not?
[edit]
Responses from parapsychologists to criticisms
A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or some sources for the information in this section.
The hard evidence for psi phenomena today is founded on repeatable experiments and not anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is considered valid in law and many other fields. The validity of anecdotal evidence does not depend upon the opinion of those listening to it. Memory studies by Elisabeth Loftus show that while memory can be capricious, a majority of people are not affected by many controlled memory manipulations. (See [8] for data.)
There is no such thing as a completely foolproof experiment in any field of science, and it is unreasonable to hold parapsychology to a higher standard of epistemology than the other sciences. [9]Fraud and incompetence in parapsychology is addressed in the same way it is addressed in any other field of science: repeating experiments at multiple independent laboratories; publishing methods and results in order to receive critical feedback and design better protocols, etc.
Experimental protocols have been continually improved over time, sometimes with the direct assistance of noted skeptics. Meta-analyses show that the significance of the positive results have not declined over time, but instead have remained fairly constant.
There are certain phenomena which have been replicated with odds against chance far beyond that required for acceptance in any other science. Meta-analyses show that these cannot be accounted for by any file drawer problem.
Anomalous phenomena do not disappear for lack of a theory. There have been many instances in the history of science where the observation of an anomalous phenomenon came before an explanatory theory, and some commonly accepted non-psi phenomena (e.g. gravity) today still lack a perfectly satisfactory, undisputed theory. For instance, in the past, those who sighted meteors falling to the earth were dismissed as madmen or false prophets.
Theories abound in parapsychology for aspects of psi phenomena, though there is not any one that is comprehensive and widely accepted within parapsychology.
It is not necessary to be a licensed psychiatrist or acquainted with clinical psychology to test the validity of psi. The field of parapsychology overlaps many disciplines, including physics and biology, and often physicists, engineers and others trained in the hard sciences, in conjunction with stage magicians and other experts in deception, are in a better position to design experiments for certain types of phenomena than are psychiatrists or psychologists.
The opinion of parapsychologists regarding the overall evaluation of the body of evidence to date is divided. As noted above, some parapsychologists are skeptic and do not believe that there is anything observed so far which cannot ultimately be explained within the existing framework of known science. Probably a majority of parapsychologists believe in the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of actual psi phenomena, though there is a range of attitudes toward the evidence.
Regarding the evidence, the rule of the thumb of the skeptical community is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since skeptics may consider paranormal claims extraordinary, they may think that the evidence needs to be better than what normally would be required. However, this puts the responsibility for investigating seemingly paranormal phenomena squarely on the shoulders of proponents and "internal" skeptics. Not only is research conducted by "external" critics and skeptics useful to the field as a whole, but it also imparts a kind of craft knowledge to critics and skeptics that makes their criticism and counter-hypotheses more productive and more useful. Further many of the counter-hypotheses proposed by skeptics are so unparsimonious as to be extraordinary claims as well, and in that case, those counter-hypothesis, also require extraordinary evidence.
Most people use this approach to evidence in everyday life. For instance, if the news reports that the president of the USA has just arrived in South Korea for a state visit, most people will take this at face value. The news is considered a fairly reliable source of information, and the president visiting a country such as South Korea is not an extraordinary claim. However, if the same news broadcast later mentioned that a 92-year-old man has improved the world record time on the marathon by half an hour, many reasonable people would require more evidence, even despite the assumed reliability of the source, since the claim is extraordinary. This analogy might be flawed, however. In the case of the 92 year old man, we have positive evidence gained from a lifetime of experience and the reassurance of physiologists that this feat is indeed extraordinary (i.e., improbable). When it comes to parapsychology, however, some would argue we have no positive evidence that it is improbable, only our own cultural bias and a subjective sense that Psionic powers are extraordinary. Hence, some would argue, it is not the sort of extraordinary claim which necessarily needs more evidence than a mundane claim.
Some parapsychologists agree with critics that the field has not yet reached the degree of consistent repeatability of experimental results needed for general consensus. John Beloff, in his book Parapsychology: A Concise History, notes the evanescent – some have said the apparently evasive – nature of psychic phenomena over time, and that the range of phenomena observable in a given era seems to be culturally dependent.
For example, in earlier times, psychic research studied physical phenomena demonstrated by spiritualist mediums that, according to the reports passed down to us in the literature, far surpassed anything that any of today's "psychics" can demonstrate. Skeptics consider this more evidence of the non-existence of psi phenomena. Frequently this particular claim is the result of the proponent community having cut itself off, because of political pressures of conforming to the scientific Zeitgeist, from the community of modern mediums and psychics who operate today. Whether or not the phenomena being exhibited by modern day mediums can provide proof of traditional notions of spirituality or can be attributed to the operation of mundane psychological processes is mostly an open question, due to the lack of research. So it is possible that physical phenomena is being exhibited today, but to what cause the effects may be attributed is an open question, even among parapsychologists.
Many people, especially like John Beloff and Stephen E. Braude, cannot easily dismiss the entirety of all the positive accounts – many of which came from scientists and conjurors of their day. Many began as skeptics - but then changed their minds to become believers and supporters of psychic phenomena when they encountered the inexplicable; and so believe that continued research is justified. Easily recovered critical historical research reveals these individuals were certainly out of their league when it came to the close up deceptions of fraudulent mediums and adept charlatans. (Podmore, 1910 & Price and Dingwall, 1975)
Other parapsychologists, such as Dean Radin and supporters such as statistician Jessica Utts, take the stance that the existence of certain psi phenomena has been reasonably well established in recent times through repeatable experiments that have been replicated dozens to hundreds of times at labs around the world. They refer to meta-analyses of psi experiments that conclude that the odds against chance (null hypothesis) of experimental results far exceeds that commonly required to establish results in other fields, sometime by orders of magnitude.
This is an old argument. See (Rawcliffe 1952, pages 441 & 442). The question whether or not each of these experiments themselves have been efficiently carried out is avoided. In the unsophisticated "language of the street" this would be known as "garbage in garbage out". All of the early experiments that were conducted by noted men of science in Italy and Germany with Eusapia Palladino "proved positive". This same argument did not satisfy the United States Department of Defense when remote viewing experiments were being funded for 20 million dollars. The project was terminated for lack of results.
Instead, many enthusiastic parapsychologists prefer to dismiss proof-oriented research, intended primarily to verify the existence of psi phenomena and, as in the past, jumped to "process-oriented" research, intended to explore the parameters and characteristics of psi phenomena. Time will tell whether these results prove to be evanescent as well. Unfortunately, what complicates the "time will tell" hope that many skeptics and proponents have is the lack of funds available for research from either the conventional or the "paranormalist" perspectives, and the negative impact on career advancement that an interest in these phenomena -- even from a skeptical point of view -- can have. The past history of repeated psi failures and short comings has given parapsychology a poor reputation.
[edit]
Early Scientific American challenge
A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or some sources for the information in this section.
The offering of prizes for demonstrations is not new to the field. Circa 1924, Scientific American magazine offered a $5000 prize to anyone who could produce any "visible psychic manifestation." Medium Mina Crandon, known in the literature as "Margery," made a bid and was tested by a committee set up by the editorial staff. Her performance was such that the committee members were split, four negative to one positive in their opinions. The magazine published the mixed report in its November 1924 issue, no prize was awarded, and the competition was declared closed the following year. In the early 1900s, the then well-known stage magician Howard Thurston, who had earlier studied to be a medical missionary, was impressed by the mysterious table lifting demonstrations of medium Eusapia Palladino. He advertised in the New York Times his offer of $1000 to charity in the name of any fellow conjuror who could duplicate this feat. He had no takers. In 1910 Eusapia Palladino publicily acknowledged she used tricks to an American reporter. Today many methods of table lifting and other seance secrets are well known to master conjurors, but kept secret as demanded by their art.(Rinn 1950, Christopher 1975 p.208)
[edit]
Other objections to parapsychology
There are a variety of other objections to parapsychology as well.
Psi Phenomena as a Violation of the Laws of Physics or Nature
Some critics claim that the existence of psi phenomena would violate "the known laws of physics", and some of these critics believe that this is reason enough that such phenomena should not be studied. Parapsychologists respond that "laws of nature" are simply summaries of existing scientific knowledge and do get revised from time to time during the course of scientific progress, in addition they are not so well understood that with them one could confidently predict the non existence of Psi (Consider quantum mechanics). If the existence of psi phenomenon were ever proved, explaining how they work might require revising or extending the known laws of physics. Precognition, for example, would challenge commonly held notions about causality and the unidirectional nature of time. However, these commonly held notions are often not physical laws, and are already being challenged by modern physical theories, quite apart from psi phenomena. Skeptics and parapsychologists alike generally agree that, as per Occam's Razor, simple explanations should be preferred for any resulting theories of psi. Some parapsychologists are critical of skeptics' frequently-uninvestigated claims about fraud, or the application of conventional hypotheses specifically because these claims are unparsimonious. Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor. Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that even in mainstream science nature itself is frequently unparsimonious.
Parapsychology as Taboo
Some believe that paranormal phenomena should not be studied, either because they are forbidden by their religious orientation, or because they believe that to do so opens the investigators to some sort of "spiritual attack". Parapsychology is also seen as a taboo subject in science and the academy and individuals who show an interest in studying seemingly psychic phenomena, even from a skeptical point of view, often find themselves losing or being pushed out of employment, or denied funding. Anthropologist of science, David J. Hess, has written on this topic.[10]
Parapsychology as a Danger to Society
Some believe that parapsychology should not be pursued because it somehow represents a danger to society. As is stated in the Y2000 NSF report Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience[11]:
"Concerns have been raised, especially in the science community, about widespread belief in paranormal phenomena. Scientists (and others) have observed that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Their beliefs may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills necessary not only for informed decision making in the voting booth and in other civic venues (for example, jury duty), but also for making wise choices needed for day-to-day living."
Even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about the possible harm that naive belief in paranormal phenomena can have on individuals, on culture and on societies. A great deal of effort has been put into the notion of developing expertise in dealing with reported experiences both in a clinical sense, and as a topic of investigation. Unfortunately organized skepticism and the "taboo" that exists against serious research on such phenomena has impeded the ability of many researchers -- both skeptics and proponents -- from doing the kinds of research that would allow evidence-based therapeutic interventions.
Although under the heading 'paranormal phenomena' the report lists topics such as astrology, UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster, it also lumps in belief in ESP and, by implication, most parapsychology.
Parapsychology as a Waste of Resources
Some believe that parapsychology should not be funded because it is a waste of resources that would be better spent on other activities. Some of these critics feel so strongly about this that they engage in activism to try to prevent or remove funding from psi research. Psychic detectives may waste valuable police resources. One of the negative -- and probably unintended -- consequences of this point of view is that while 10% of the world's population or over 400 million individuals on the planet, may experience what they believe are psychic phenomena, and may suffer in their daily lives from psychological problems caused by their experiences, few scientists on the planet are able to find the resources to really investigate the phenomena, and therefore very little real knowledge exists that can be used to help these experiencers. While even most parapsychologists would agree there are more urgent problems to solve, having no research address these reported experiences does a grave disservice to people everywhere.
[edit]
Other interesting facts
A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or some sources for the information in this section.
German psychiatrist Hans Berger originally used the electroencephalograph (EEG) on humans in 1929 as a tool to study whether telepathy might be explained by brain waves. (Beyerstein, B. L. [12] 1999)
The first and only Ph.D. in Parapsychology awarded by any American university, was the University of California, Berkeley awarding the PhD to Dr Jeffrey Mishlove in 1980. Subsequently some activists unsuccessfully lobbied the Berkeley administration to revoke the degree. Reportedly, as many as 46 people in the UK have doctorates in parapsychology. However, with the exception of Dr. Mishlove, mentioned above, the so-called "46 people in the UK" have doctorates in other disciplines, principally in psychology, but completed doctoral thesis work which included or were devoted to research projects in parapsychology. Such individuals are also expected to be competent in the disciplines in which they received their degrees. Examples of these individuals include: Dr. Susan Blackmore (it says "PhD in Parapsychology, University of Surrey, 1980" on her webpage CV [13], though), Dr. Richard Broughton, Dr. Deborah Delanoy, Dr. Serena-Roney Dougall, Dr. Chris Roe, Dr. Simon Sherwood, Dr. Christine Simmonds, Dr. Matthew Smith, Dr. Carl Williams, Dr. Richard Wiseman, among others. [14]
Patent #5830064, "Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output," was granted by the US Patent Office on Nov 3rd, 1998 to inventors including several researchers from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) center. The patent in no way relies on the existence of psi phenomena, but in the description the inventors do suggest that "One application of the present invention is the investigation of anomalous interaction between an operator and random physical systems, whether by serious scientists or curious members of the public who would like to conduct experiments on their own."
Throughout the history of the investigations of physical mediums there seems to be no record of simply applying wet paint to a medium's hands and feet to ensure control and eliminate fraud. However, it is naive to think one control would cover all cases.
Joseph B. Rhine began examining psychic abilities after hearing, and being deeply impressed, by a lecture given by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, about the scientific reality of having established contact with the dead. (Rinn 1950)
In reviewing the history of parapsychology from the present back to its birth from 19th century spiritism it becomes apparent that there was a preconceived belief in the existence of psychic phenomena by members of science that led to poor testing conditions, and loosening of controls, so phenomena would be produced and validated, rather than a genuine curious search to discover whether or not psychic phenomena existed at all. (Rawcliffe 1952, Podmore 1963, Christopher 1979)
In early psychic research the advice of master conjurors, such as the sterling case of Houdini, on establishing control has been very valuable, but not appreciated by scientific investigators who had become close and fond of their subjects and their produced phenomena. There are many past examples where serious mistakes were made. (Christopher 1970, Rinn 1950, Hyman 1989, Podmore 1975, Price & Dingwall 1975) As long as this breach continues between master conjurors and scientific parapsychologists, parapsychologists are likely to repeat the same mistakes. The success of James Randi's Project Alpha is a prime example.
Some early and mid 20th century psychologists concluded Psychical research represents a reversion to occult beliefs which have had their origins in the earliest of human cultures.(Rawcliffe 1952)
In the 1984 fictional film Ghostbusters Dr. Peter Venkman claims to have Ph.D.'s in both Psychology and Parapsychology when asked by overzealous EPA inspector, Walter Peck. It has yet to be explained by scientists why that is an "interesting fact" such that it should appear here.
[edit]
Critics of parapsychology
Banachek tricked scientists for 2 years, 120 laboratory hours, into believing he could bend metal with his minds in the much touted 'Alpha Project' experiment, a set-up.
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), an advocacy group of scientists and rationalist writers arguing for the anti-paranormal point of view.
Derren Brown (Has a detailed TV show, debunking people's beliefs.)
Susan Blackmore — Stopped lecturing and abandoned parapsychology altogether, because she could no longer endure the near fanatic and rude behavior of both believers and non-believers. Perhaps. She also lost faith in the existence of "psi". See her book Adventures of a Parapsychologist
Milbourne Christopher — Noted conjuring historian and master conjuror, his works debunking parapsychology are high quality.
Martin Gardner- Noted rationalist, puzzler, science writer, and master conjuror, has written many exposés.
Ray Hyman- Conjuror and noted research psychologist
James Randi- Master conjuror and author. In one exposé he revealed top evangelist Peter Poppoff and his wife used trickery to take advantage of their faithful congregation.
Ehrich Weiss (Harry Houdini)- Early 20th century master conjuror and author. He wanted to contact his deceased mother; he attended seances with this serious purpose but was always disappointed. In his will Houdini offered his great library to the American Society of Psychical Research on the condition that its president, Malcomb Bird, resigned. Bird refused. Houdini's collection went to the Library of Congress.
Penn and Teller, gives these comic showmen material.
[edit]
See also
Clairaudience
Clairvoyance
List of spirituality-related topics
List of parapsychologists
Parapsychology basic topics
Patapsychology
Prophecy
Psionics
Remote Viewing
The Bélmez Faces
True-believer syndrome
[edit]
References
↑ Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience, National Science Foundation, 2000.
Parapsychology, by Rene Sudre, Citadel Press, NY, 1960, Library of Congress Catalog 60-13928.
Parapsychology, by Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi, Al-Kitaab Publication, 1985.
The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin, Harper Collins, 1997, ISBN 0062515020.
Parapsychology: A Concise History, by John Beloff, St. Martin's Press, 1993, ISBN 0312096119.
Parapsychology: The Controversial Science, by Richard S. Broughton , Ballantine Books, 1991, ISBN 0345356381.
Our Sixth Sense, by Charles Richet, Rider & Co., 1937, First English Edition
The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research, by Ray Hyman, Prometheus Books, 1989, ISBN 0879755040.
Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Parapsychology, ed. Antony Flew, Prometheus Books, 1987, ISBN 0-87975-385-4
Sixty Years of Psychical Research : Houdini and I Among the Spirits, by Joseph Rinn, Truth Seeker, 1950
The Newer Spiritualism, by Frank Podmore, Arno Press, 1975, reprint of 1910 edition
Revelations of a Spirit Medium by Harry Price and Eric J. Dingwall, Arno Press, 1975, reprint of 1891 edition by Charles F. Pidgeon. This rare, overlooked, forgotten book gives the "insider's knowledge" of 19th century deceptions.
Mediums of the 19th Century Volume Two, Book Four, Chapter One, Some Foreign Investigations by Frank Podmore, University Book, 1963, reprint of Modern Spiriritualism, 1902
Occult and Supernatural Phenomena by D. H. Rawcliffe, Dover Publications, reprint of Psychology of the Occult, Derricke Ridgway Publishing co., 1952
Edgar Cayce on Atlantis by Hugh Lynn Cayce, Castle Books, 1968
[edit]
Further reading
Milbourne Christopher, ESP, Seers & Psychics : What the Occult Really Is, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1970, ISBN 0690268157
Milbourne Christopher, Mediums, Mystics & the Occult by Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1975
Milbourne Christopher, Search for the Soul , Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers, 1979
Georges Charpak, Henri Broch, and Bart K. Holland (tr), Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and Other Pseudoscience, (Johns Hopkins University). 2004, ISBN 0801878675
Hoyt L. Edge, Robert L. Morris, Joseph H. Rush , John Palmer, Foundations of Parapsychology: Exploring the Boundaries of Human Capability, Routledge Kegan Paul, 1986, ISBN 0710-0226-1
Paul Kurtz, A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, Prometheus Books, 1985, ISBN 0879753005
Jeffrey Mishlove, Roots of Consciousness: Psychic Liberation Through History Science and Experience. 1st edition, 1975, ISBN 0-394-73115-8 2nd edition, Marlowe & Co., July 1997, ISBN 1569247471 There are 2 editions. They are very different. online
John White, ed. Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science, published by Edgar D. Mitchell and G. P. Putman, 1974, ISBN 39911342-8
Richard Wiseman, Deception and self-deception: Investigating Psychics. Amherst, USA: Prometheus Press. 1997
Benjamin B. Wolman, ed, Handbook of Parapsychology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977, ISBN 0442295766
[edit]
External links
[edit]
Independent research organizations
Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded in 1973 by astronaut Edgar Mitchell to explore the frontiers of consciousness through rigorous scientific research.
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Society for Psychical Research (SPR). The original scientific society founded in London in 1882.
American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR).
Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology, originally part of Duke University, now an independent research center. The accomplished physicist Irving Langmuir, a founder of many studies in atmospheric electricity and plasma physics, visited Rhine at his laboratory in 1934. Rhine admitted (rather proudly and contentiously) to Langmuir that he had discarded data that was "wrong" because it did not support his belief in extrasensory perception. See Langmuir's 1953 talk Pathological Science at Princeton University
Parapsychology Foundation
[edit]
University research organizations
Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh.
Global Consciousness Project at Princeton
The VERITAS Research Program at the University of Arizona
Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of the Liverpool John Moores University.
Psychology Research Cluster at University College Northampton.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at Princeton University.
Division of Personality Studies (DOPS), a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia.
Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).
Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit (APRU) at the University of Adelaide.
Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths University of London.
Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire.
[edit]
Other
Articles on Psychics & Mediums
National Spiritualist Association of Churches
Entry on parapsychology in the Skeptic's Dictionary
Parapsychology links
Dean Radin's A Field Guide to Skepticism from his book The Conscious Universe.
The Project Alpha Experiment
Neuro-Kinetik.com Proposes the use of realtime MRI (and related instrumentation) to explore the portions of the brain that relate to parapsychological phenomena.
The online Library of Exploratory Science contains the complete text of many of the major peer reviewed journals in parapsychology and psychical research.
[15] The Need for Responsibility in Parapsychology: My Sixty Years in Psychical Research by Eric Dingwall
Parapsychology forum at forteantimes.com
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology"
Categories: NPOV disputes | Articles lacking sources
Manchester
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Manchester (disambiguation).
City of Manchester
Geography
Status: Metropolitan borough, City (1853)
Region: North West England
Ceremonial county: Greater Manchester
Traditional county: Lancashire, part in Cheshire
Area:
- Total Ranked 228th
115.65 km²
Admin. HQ: Manchester
ONS code: 00BN
Geographical coordinates: 53°29′N 2°15′W
Demographics
Population:
- Total (2004 est.)
- Density Ranked 6th
437,000
3,779 / km²
Ethnicity: 81.0% White
9.1% S.Asian
4.5% Afro-Carib.
1.3% Chinese
Politics
Manchester City Council
http://www.manches
