The SPR's psi encyclopaedia was intended to be an antidote to the unbalanced sceptical coverage of psi by Wikipedia. But judging by material like this, I feel it's in danger of ending up equally unbalanced in the opposite direction:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...dc-therapy
The article describes the subject matter as controversial, but is based on a work by the proponent of the technique in question. I can't see any critical comment or any representation of other views about the technique. The Society for Psychical Research is not meant to hold corporate views, and I don't believe it should be promoting unbalanced coverage of controversial subjects.
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...dc-therapy
The article describes the subject matter as controversial, but is based on a work by the proponent of the technique in question. I can't see any critical comment or any representation of other views about the technique. The Society for Psychical Research is not meant to hold corporate views, and I don't believe it should be promoting unbalanced coverage of controversial subjects.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)