Talk:Remote viewing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Nov. 18, 2004 to Feb 4, 2005):

---

Archives
1

Contents 1 Link blanking 2 Shutdown at Fort Meade 3 Science and pseudoscience

[edit] Link blanking

Please don't blank links without discussion. If you think they should be removed, please discuss here on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I blanked some links for instance CSICOP as they have nothing to do with remote viewing.

Also new age and psudoscience tags do not belong there. It has not claims to be a science, but it mesurable by normal scientific methods so what is psudo about it.

[edit] Shutdown at Fort Meade

This information is cited to a specific source - why has it been repeatedly deleted? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall rightly, the source only said that it was going to be shut down, and it's dated, so we need a source saying it actually was. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An episode of the progarm "The Unexplained: Remote Sensing" on the Biography Channel, aired 4/1/2007 12-1pm MDT stated and showed a photograph that the building WAS torn down at Ft. Meade. I did not catch the date of the episode, and the channel guide did not have the next repeat of this story. Further internet searches on the Bio Channel and other sources may find other information. LanceBarber 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science and pseudoscience

This article can be connected to both science and pseudoscience. Please give sources if you remove one Cat but leave the other in. It should either be in neither Cat, or both. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, RVings exploration may have been grounded in science at one stage, but that exploration just showed it to be invalid as a theory. Since it is still being explored with no theoretically basis for any of it's underlying principles, it makes is more pseudoscience than science. The science side has basically said "tested, failed", so really it does qualify for pseudoscience until such time it's underpinnings are grounded in solid science. This is how science works. As for sources, they are all in the history and criticism sections. Again, the fact that it is a science with little or poor theoretically underpinning, little interest from scientists and large amounts of criticism tend to sway it towards the "junk" side of science. Shot info 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue this at the present. There is more to the story than what you just said- but the Parapsychology article and some others need to be re-done first. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, just because something is researched doesn't make it a science. RVing (and others) may be "real" science in the future, but not at this present time with the conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method. At this moment in time here in WP, RVing (and others) are pseudoscience. Just like plate tectonics were until the theories were proven and evidence shown. Shot info 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is protoscience with some methodological problems- not pseudoscience. One doesn't have to choose strictly between pseudoscience and science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method"...pseudoscience. Shot info 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I say- if your're right, you're right. I'm not prepaired to argue this right now, but we'll get to it someday, eh? (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I am treading carefully, especially around BLPs and looking at other equivalent articles to see what they have done to help the way forward. However, you may just have to accept that in some instances the WP community regards certain categories as appropriate. Thanks though Shot info 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)