Both forums need an introduction

OK - here is the first portion of what I have in mind (minus references and suitable markup). Maybe Chris and Max_B will explode,
so it is probably worth trying to resolve that before moving firther.

Welcome to psiencequest!

There are an enormous number of psi websites on the internet, as I am sure you are aware. PsiScienceQuest is rather different. As the name implies, we are exploring the interface between science and psi phenomena. 

We use the term psi to include any phenomenon that involves consciousness (i.e. the mind) in ways that seem to go beyond ordinary science. In recent decades, science has come to see consciousness as essentially a 'computation' performed by the brain. Sometimes the brain is even referred to as 'wetware' by analogy with the hardware that runs our computers! That in turn leads to the idea that the mind is analogous to computer software. Unfortunately, rather than testing this model of the brain critically, many scientists simply assume it is true, and reject anomalous phenomena that clearly don't make sense within that model. These anomalous phenomena are at the heart of our discussions here. 

Near Death Experiences

A really glaring example of anomalous consciousness is to be found by listening to people who have had a cardiac arrest, and been resuscitated. While about 85% of people remember nothing from the period when their heart was not functioning, 15% experience a Near Death Experience (NDE). These are typically complex and vivid - many people report feeling more awake than ever before, yet their brains are not receiving any oxygen or other nutrients! This is rather analogous to a computer continuing to function after its battery was disconnected! (* references to relevant forum threads *) Clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with thinking of the mind as software running on the wetware in the bead! 

NDE's often involve contact with dead relatives, and certainly suggest that consciousness continues after death - another idea that is normally rejected because it contradicts the brain as computer model! A number of people on this forum have personally experienced NDE's. (* references to forum posts *) 

Telepathy 

At the opposite extreme we have telepathy. This has been researched for a long time in well controlled conditions. Typically one person selects a card at random from a pack with four different types of card and tries to send its image to a receiver, who reports what he receives (or guesses). Clearly he has a 25% chance of guessing the right answer by chance. When large numbers of tests of this sort are averaged together, the results generally come out slightly above chance. However, much better results are obtained if the receiver is sense-deprived in a flotation tank, or in other ways. This experiment is known as the Ganzfeld experiment, and in this case results average at just over 30%. This result seems to indicate that telepathy is real, and is discussed in threads such as (* references *) It is interesting to note that many NDE experiencers report that when they 'talked' to others in their NDE, this happened telepathically! 

It is believed that telepathy is far more efficient in extremely emotional circumstances. Thus a woman may become aware that her husband is in mortal danger, or dead before any conventional news can arrive. Such phenomena obviously cannot be tested in a laboratory setting, but nevertheless the accumulation of such reports is very suggestive. 

Communication of this sort does not seem to be restricted to human beings. For example tests have been done that confirm that some dogs are aware when their owners are returning home - long before there is any physical way for them to know (phones and other electronic devices are switched off). (* references *) 

David

This sort of opinion belongs on the forum. for discussion, as far as I’m concerned. To elevate one persons opinion above everyone else’s, and plaster it on the front of the forum doesn’t make much sense to me.

A general wiki however, *does* makes sense to me, as all members can contribute, and if they disagree, they can put a sentence or two in which challenges a previous claim, or puts it in context. A wiki is the ideal tool for members to work cooperatively on a document. But I don’t think such a thing should be foisted onto the root landing page of this forum.

[Ninshub]

I still think this is primarily a discussion site, and it doesn't make much sense to have a statement on the main page setting out positions on the questions that people are going to discuss. It seems a bit too much like the judge opening a trial by saying whether he thinks the defendant is guilty.

I appreciate David's well-meaning efforts, but this well articulates my opinion as well.

Skeptiko is a podcast website, with an associated forum. This is purely a forum site. I can't think of other forums that "introduce"/explain/defend the topics. And then there's Max's very important points about traffic.

Trying to be constructive, I do think there would be room for a brief introductory statement on the main page - together the with links to the forum sections that are already there.

Something could be said about the approach of the site, which focuses on discussion of the evidence about psi phenomena. And the fact that discussion is welcome from all parts of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, provided people are willing to address the evidence rather than just insisting on their preconceived beliefs. 

Despite the name, in practice I doubt whether most of the discussion is about science in the narrow sense, and I think that's as it should be. I think it would be a mistake to discourage people from participating because they don't have a burning desire to argue about Bayesian versus frequentist statistics, or the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment. So maybe a note to that effect could be included.

Maybe it would be helpful to run through how the main categories of psi phenomena are defined, though there might be a danger of getting bogged down in too much detail.

And maybe it would be good to make the essential point about the experimental evidence - that experimental parapsychology has been going for nearly a century now, and has produced results which depend on statistical interpretation but which on the face of it are very strong and haven't been satisfactorily explained in conventional terms. But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

Trying to be constructive, I do think there would be room for a brief introductory statement on the main page - together the with links to the forum sections that are already there.

Something could be said about the approach of the site, which focuses on discussion of the evidence about psi phenomena. And the fact that discussion is welcome from all parts of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, provided people are willing to address the evidence rather than just insisting on their preconceived beliefs. 

Despite the name, in practice I doubt whether most of the discussion is about science in the narrow sense, and I think that's as it should be. I think it would be a mistake to discourage people from participating because they don't have a burning desire to argue about Bayesian versus frequentist statistics, or the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment. So maybe a note to that effect could be included.

Maybe it would be helpful to run through how the main categories of psi phenomena are defined, though there might be a danger of getting bogged down in too much detail.

And maybe it would be good to make the essential point about the experimental evidence - that experimental parapsychology has been going for nearly a century now, and has produced results which depend on statistical interpretation but which on the face of it are very strong and haven't been satisfactorily explained in conventional terms. But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

Well feel free to take my proposal and change it to what you like, or start from scratch. What I found as I wrote that page, is that it isn't easy/possible to write an introduction that takes no point of view at all. As I said, the most extreme materialistic viewpoint (which I don't think you take) sees these phenomena as a disjointed set of mistakes/illusions/statistical quirks - analogous to recording patters in tea leaves Even drawing the connections between the various phenomena (remember I hadn't finished) pushes the reader (and maybe the writer) beyond naive materialism.

David

A general wiki however, *does* makes sense to me, as all members can contribute, and if they disagree, they can put a sentence or two in which challenges a previous claim, or puts it in context. A wiki is the ideal tool for members to work cooperatively on a document. But I don’t think such a thing should be foisted onto the root landing page of this forum.

IMHO That would turn into a dog's dinner pretty fast!

The problem is, if you want to front page to be inviting, it absolutely has to say something reasonably clearly. It also has to deal with the connections - why is this a body of phenomena that should be examined as a whole?

I would guess that most of the members here are far less skeptical than you. If that is so, why not let them create a main front page that can contain a link to a minority report?

I mean, I'd like to see just what you and/or Chris would actually propose for a front page supply an alternative!

David

But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

If one were to take that line, it wouldn't be adequate to leave it at that. For example one might add that much of 'ordinary' science may be plagued by the same flaws, perhaps even more so. At any rate, there is a need to open the debate, rather than suggest that the matter is cut and dried.

I would guess that most of the members here are far less skeptical than you. If that is so, why not let them create a main front page that can contain a link to a minority report?

I mean, I'd like to see just what you and/or Chris would actually propose for a front page supply an alternative!

I've already outlined the kind of thing I would include in an introduction.

But I think the main question is whether the an introduction would adopt a neutral tone or a pro-psi tone. Contrary to what RationalWiki thinks, I've never felt that this site "promote[d] a belief in psi and the paranormal". I think it promotes discussion of those subjects. I think it would be a mistake to shift to promoting belief through a statement on the main page.

I also think it would be very bad to identify officially any group of participants as a minority, on the basis that they can't sign up to some catechism or other.

If one were to take that line, it wouldn't be adequate to leave it at that. For example one might add that much of 'ordinary' science may be plagued by the same flaws, perhaps even more so. At any rate, there is a need to open the debate, rather than suggest that the matter is cut and dried.

I think that illustrates why it's difficult even to try to summarise briefly two opposing viewpoints (and of course, presenting it in terms of only two viewpoints is also a gross oversimplification). It's in the nature of things that whatever's said about the views of one side, the other side will want to add a counter-argument. Which is why we have the discussion boards ...

I'd say the essential thing is to indicate that there is a range of different viewpoints, and that interpretations of the evidence differ.

IMHO That would turn into a dog's dinner pretty fast!

The problem is, if you want to front page to be inviting, it absolutely has to say something reasonably clearly. It also has to deal with the connections - why is this a body of phenomena that should be examined as a whole?

I would guess that most of the members here are far less skeptical than you. If that is so, why not let them create a main front page that can contain a link to a minority report?

I mean, I'd like to see just what you and/or Chris would actually propose for a front page supply an alternative!

David

I thought I had made it clear, I don't want the front page of the site to be changed.



Edit: Actually I'm going to say some more... you don't generally participate on this site at all... you moderate a competing forum... and your attitudes and behavior there are one of the major reasons why this forum was set up... to get away from you, because you sucked the life out of it.

So why the heck have you blown in to Psience now... and started telling us that this forum must change... what the hell has it got to do with you? You don't have my, and other forum members interests at heart, that's why we left you and Alex, and that's why my posting rights on Skeptiko were removed, and remain so to this day.

Why am I even commenting on your post, and humoring your ideas... ****************************...

(So I'm going to be very impolite now) ...**********************************************************?

Edit2: Agreed the particular language I used above on PSIence wasn't appropriate, and now removed...

edited