This redirect 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
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. --
ScienceApologist15:32, 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. --
ScienceApologist16:11, 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! --
ScienceApologist16:14, 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. Redding16:19, 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. --
ScienceApologist16:26, 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. --
ScienceApologist16:19, 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. --
Minderbinder16:18, 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. --
ScienceApologist21:10, 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. --
Minderbinder19:48, 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.
Antelantalk23:12, 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.
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)psychosynergyreply
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