Talk:Extrasensory perception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Terrible sources[edit]

The article is suffering from seriously unreliable fringe sources. I attend on re-writing some of this article with reliable sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[]

This will attempted in the next few days. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[]

ESP is pseudoscience[edit]

ESP is pseudoscience List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Don't take the pseudoscience out again please. Lipsquid (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I have no problem with ESP being described as pseudoscience because it obviously is. The problem is that the sources cited in the lead in that sentence say ESP is non-existent, none of them claim ESP is pseudoscience (one of those books argues the field of parapsychology itself is), but none mention the concept of ESP is a pseudoscience so it is original research to add this. The previous was better "ESP is non existent" because that accurately reflects the cited sources. TreeTrailer (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[]
WP:CITELEAD
The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

It doesn't need a cite in the lede unless you think it is controversial. Which would be kind of nutty since you agree the proof is non-existent. Kindly change it back. Best! Lipsquid (talk)

The last citation clearly classify it as pseduoscience. Bringing it back in the lead. Azuresky Voight (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Use in criminal investigation?[edit]

Shouldn't this article include some mention of ESP in crime investigation? --uKER (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[]

There a lot of people who claim to use ESP, but I doubt that there's any sort of serious uptake of it by the authorities. I really think it's a case of grieving relatives of victims asking for it. --Dmol (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[]
Well, as controversial as it undoubtedly is, there's this stuff which cites a bunch of documented cases where at least they attempted it. --uKER (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[]

Misleading wording[edit]

The first wording in the article lead that in any way challenges ESP is the following: "The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results ..." This makes it sound like the scientific community is merely unable to understand the phenomenon or unable to understand it "their way". It's what an apologist would write if they had to mention it. Frankly, short wording is enough here. The scientific community rejects parapsychology as pseudoscience (I don't know where parapsychology came from anyway, but mention it like this if you must) and does not consider extrasensory perception to be a real phenomenon. Done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[]

That sounds good to me! RobP (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[]

Proposed merge of Second sight into Extrasensory perception[edit]

Oppose merge. This is a different concept from second sight; second sight is specifically the ability to see things present which are not susceptible to ordinary sight, while ESP is a more general concept, and the most usual case of ESP is the ability to see things that are at a distance, but could be perceived by ordinary sight to someone who was present at their location. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[]

Merge As is mentioned in this article, this is a form of ESP. Not enough here to warrent a separate article IMHO. RobP (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[]

I can't see a reason not to do this merge. If I don't get any push back I'm going to go ahead and do it in a few days. Not a lot of work given there is very little in the Second sight article. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[]

Merge complete. We'll see if it takes. If it does after a few days I'll get some clean up done here. This article could use a little TLC. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[]

"Taisch" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Taisch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Taisch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

"ESPer" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ESPer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

"Anomalous cognition" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anomalous cognition. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Anomalous cognition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

"ESPPP" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ESPPP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPPP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

"Sheep-goat effect" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sheep-goat effect. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Sheep-goat effect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

"Percipient" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Percipient. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Percipient until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Vision anomalies[edit]

Hi, it should be said that humans can see infra-red light through a two-photon method. Some better than others and this has in fact been documented here. http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-humans-can-see-infrared-light-02313.html#:~:text=Human%20eyes%20can%20detect%20light%20at%20wavelengths%20in,it%E2%80%99s%20possible%20for%20humans%20to%20see%20infrared%20light. I've done some tests here and can clearly see IR light down to 760nm as a dim red glow with green spots but testing with a camera filter confirms its actually NIR thats being observed. Also tested with a range of known wavelengths and it appears that certain IR LEDs also have off band emission at near visible light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.156.140 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[]

That is sensory perception. Does not seem to be connected with the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]