Talk:Paraphysics

AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 9 November 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category proplem

yep. i think there is something wrong with the categories.. someone should take a look at that.. openforbusiness, 89.8.43.197 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No indication

That this topic is any way distinct from parapsychology or its related studies. Redirecting per principle of least astonishment. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Topic includes more than just parapsychology. J. D. Redding 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the previous incarnation of the article which stated two possibilities: 1) it was either the study of paranormal phenomena "somehow" related to physics or 2) it was a corruption of metaphysics. Either a disambiguation or a redirect is most appropriate therefore. --ScienceApologist 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not unilaterally do this. Can some discussion take place? J. D. Redding 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded substantively to my points. I find your actions to be unilateral. --ScienceApologist 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported you non-cooperation to the 3RR vio board.

Please put in a mergeto and mergefrom tags in the pages if you want to move the pages. J. D. Redding 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a point if you have any rationale for keeping the article. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move the page, please follow policy.

Please place {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tag on the appropriate pages. Primarily so community involvement can be sought. J. D. Redding 16:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response to my request for a discussion, I see. I know that you have refused to discuss matters in the past with me, and it seems that this has not changed. You are in the community, so your involvement would be appreciated. --ScienceApologist 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just my input .. but community input. PLEASE PLACE MERGETO AND MERGEFROM TAGS ON THE PAGE. J. D. Redding 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there is no indication that you have any case for why tags should be placed instead of simply redirecting the article. No arguments have been made beyond your initial weak attempt to assert that there was a difference between parapsychology and paraphysics. An assertion, I might add, that is not backed up by the text you were defending! --ScienceApologist 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphysics includes more than just parapsychology. The article lacks the additional information, but that is why the cleanup tag I put in. You still seem to not want to follow procedure. J. D. Redding 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does paraphysics include that goes beyond parapsychology? The only thing I have seen is that some people use the term as a replacement for metaphysics. Harldy a reason to keep an article. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. You seem to be in the opinion that this is redudant. Please follow procedure. J. D. Redding 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy asks for controversial redirects to be proposed first. Since I don't see any controversy with this redirect except the rather brutish way you are going about fighting me, I don't think that there is any procedure that wasn't properly followed. You aren't using the talk pages: you aren't explaining what is worth keeping about this article. --ScienceApologist 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that it's not controversial.

Again, please no personal attack.

Please follow the Merging procedure. J. D. Redding 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your opinion that it's not controversial" is hardly an argument. Please make your case. --ScienceApologist 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi, if you're going to report 3RR, you need to actually list the diffs on the 3RR noticeboard. The admins are going to ignore it otherwise. --Minderbinder 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I would concur that the concept is quite controversial, as fighting over it is occurring right here, as we are talking. --Chr.K. 12:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps

This is the entry "Paraphysics Laboratory" in the 1996 edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology by Gale Research (in other words, this is how it's used academically):

Paraphysics Laboratory A research unit organized by some members of the Society for Psychical Research (London) that specializes in study of the physical aspects of psi phenomena. The laboratory publishes the International Journal of Paraphysics from its headquarters at the Summerhayes Hotel, 12 Cambridge Rd., Bournemouth, Dorset BH2 6AQ, England.

That's the only reference to paraphysics in the index, so I would think it is a specialized division of parapsychology. That said, I agree you should wait a breath or two before redirecting, especially when an editor asks for a moment to get feedback. What's the hurry? --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better question may be: why the wait? Reddi is a tendentious editor who drags his feet and has refused to discuss matters on talkpages. I don't pander to his attempts at ownership. The argument cuts both ways: it is an editorial call I made that the article on this subject was so problematic as to warrant complete redirection. I made this point above and I have seen no substantive arguments against it. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks? WTF? J. D. Redding 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this would be a perfect subsection of the parapsychology article. There seems to be no reason not to redirect. Ante lan ^talk 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally agree with that. This seems to be a non-notable subset of parapsychology, and nobody has really made a case why it needs it's own article. --Minderbinder 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section at parapsychology may be reasonable. I'd have to see it first. --ScienceApologist 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that you are a final judge of reasonability? Are you?

I am going to place mergeto and mergefrom tags. J. D. Redding 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Redding, please remember to assume good faith. Your interpretation of his statement appears rather unreasonable. A much more reasonable interpretation of his statement is that he would have to see the section to know if he considered it reasonable. Ante lan ^talk 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notablitity?

A quick look ....

A few notable mentions ...

D Burton, D Grandy, Magic, Mystery, and Science: The Occult in Western Civilization, 2004 (csicop.org)
EA Novikov, Towards Modeling of Consciousness Arxiv preprint nlin.PS/0309043, 2003
L Rickels , Satan and Golem, inc. Parallax, 2004

There is also ...

Alan Miller and Burt Webb are part of the Department of Paraphysics and Parapsychology, Experimental College in the University of Washington.

J. D. Redding 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to take place

I see no indication that there is any problem with mergin paraphysics into parapsychology. Please list objections below. --ScienceApologist 14:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that paraphysics deals with the subject of underlying mechanisms. Equally you can merge physics with medicine and them both with psychology.

The strategy of people trying to incorporate paraphysics into psychology is to take our attention away from the physical facts and replace them with less material and less evident psychological phenomena. Is this a form of censorship?

No matter how "classified" the problem of paraphysics is, we must keep it as a science separate from psychological sciences or else we will find ourselves re-discovering the same things again and again. What is happening to the science in general and the freedom of information in particular - worries me. 92.40.123.88 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)psychosynergy[reply]

Restore merge?

Given that this article bases its legitimacy on a claim that it is a field of research covering the 'paranormal', but fails to make clear (per WP:FRINGE) that such research lacks recognition within the scientific mainstream, I propose that the redirect to parapsychology be restored. As an article it is actually of little use anyway, even for those interested in the subject. It spends a great deal of time discussing what the word 'paraphysics' means, but fails to discuss any research within the field at all. Then again, given the lack of any clear definition of the subject matter, actually including research would be problematic - and including it without violating WP:FRINGE would of necessity highlight the complete lack of scientific credibility of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Physicists who investigate the paranormal" are obviously part of parapsychology and psychical research. If there's any reliably-sourced material that discusses paraphysics relationship to parapsychology, it should be ported over and merged with that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be restored to the merge as it is mostly fringe material. I have removed some deadlinks and fringe sources from the article. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the merge makes sense, it's part of parapsychology, and all the links were to parapsychology, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]