Talk:Extrasensory perception

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Extrasensory perception article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Extrasensory perception received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Psychology Top‑importance

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

Paranormal Top‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Voice please

AUDIO PLEASE. 2605:A601:AE2D:E600:D8F1:C07F:A724:1FE8 (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should quote and add article about relesed cia stargate files

Someone should quote and add article about relesed cia stargate files 2001:14BB:A7:CC96:D881:2E5D:F817:B7AB (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not sound like a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth sense

Sometimes the term Sixth sense also refers to Proprioception. 46.125.249.42 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A quick google brought me a couple of articles which prove your point, but the substance needs to be added to the other article first, then a redirect template can be added to the top of this one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing and 'Non Classical Channels'

Interesting to note that Alan Turing considered 'Non-classical channels' when proposing his test for artificial intelligence being conscious. Is it premature to declare that ESP is pseudoscience when there is a small possibility that some cases really are information being obtained from external sources that are as yet undiscovered, via some mechanism in the human brain that we have overlooked? I have actually looked into this and some inventors and artists have flashes of insight that looks a *lot* like a collective intelligence is at work, in some cases pursing the exact lines of reasoning leading to an invention or composition despite geographic separation and no connection between them that can be determined. Even folks watching a film or listening to the same composition have sections of their brain waves synchronize, this is based on scientific fact and verified on numerous occasions via both EEG and fMRI suggesting that a form of telepathy where the same input yields the same output may be possible despite their being no direct connection. 88.81.140.241 (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it premature" No. THe pseudoscience-or-not judgment is based on whether the methodology prone to find effects where there are none, not on deliberations on what might be, and also not on argumentum ad populum using Turing's name. Also, Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not on what reandom people of the internet think up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]