Content deleted Content added
→Content dispute: new section |
|||
Line 82:
To put it generally, the fact that a phenomenon is unexplained does not mean the next plausible explanation offered is correct.[[User:Bmcln1|Bmcln1]] ([[User talk:Bmcln1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
== Content dispute ==
I have recently disputed the content of the beginning of this article in regards to the statement "''As with all [[paranormal phenomena]], the [[objective reality]] of such experiences is disputed''". This statement appears to be somewhat inaccurate, as, when one looks back at the corresponding [[paranormal]] article, you will notice that the respective article does not promote the idea of the reality of this phenomena, as much as this article. The bottom line is that the statement is inconsistent with the "superior" article. The other article <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[paranormal]]] is not only more realistic, but is also more well-backed by reliable references<sup>[http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm]</sup>. In fact, if you look at other serious study, you will see the same thing – no evidence of the existence of this phenomena. The evidence is at best weak. There is no debate regarding this subject among serious researchers. This does not mean, however, that it is never researched, such as by skeptic organizations, given the off-chance that something unusual is discovered in the future. If I explain that scientific evidence is currently contrary to this, then I am accused of pushing a "view". The problem with that way of thinking, is that it is misguided. Science is not a "view", per se. Science is based on facts and evidence, and cannot be categorized as such. All in all, considering that (as the other <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[paranormal]]] article states) these beliefs are contrary to existing knowledge, they are virtually disproved, however, due to the scientific norms, that you cannot prove a negative<sup>[http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm]</sup>, we [Wikipedians, in this context] need to end with saying that it is "unlikely", which is what the other, better referenced article states (in different words). A couple of other editors (see {{template: history|Time slip|page history}}) for some reason refuse to buy it. I've initiated a discussion and I hope to see that someone can assist me in the process of sending my point across. Thanks. -- [[User:IRP|IRP]] [[User talk: IRP|☎]] 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||