Craig Weiler with Rupert Sheldrake - Psi Wars

[Ninshub]

This just out:




In this provocative webinar from 2020, chaired by Honorary Member Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Craig Weiler will examine the widespread phenomenon of dogmatic scepticism in relation to psi research, where the phenomena are often dismissed as impossible in principle in spite of extensive evidence to the contrary.

Thanks Ninshub, Craig put the case extremely well - but I suppose I would say that because he expounded my point of view almost exactly!

Uncharacteristically, Rupert Sheldrake had very little input into the discussion, but it looked as if Rupert was about to continue speaking when the video finished. Is this part of a loner discussion?

Everyone should watch, but I'd be particularly interested to read the response of the few sceptic members of the forum.

An article by Craig Weiler

Wikipedia and the Paranormal

http://paranormaldailynews.com/wikipedia...cism/2879/

It’s Worse than Mere Incompetence

The Wikipedia editors had to go out of their way to make this article as blatantly false as it is. This isn’t incompetence; it’s deliberate. And it isn’t a one off either. The vast majority of articles related to parapsychology of any substance are treated this way, including biographies.

Fair Minded Scholarship is Missing From Wikipedia

For many of these articles, particularly for anything related to parapsychology, there are a number of knowledgeable people who could contribute sufficient documentation to balance the articles, but have been shut out of the process. They have run into coordinated efforts that rebuffed their attempts and in some cases, kicked them off Wikipedia, solely for scholarly disagreement. They are simply shut out of the process. I documented a couple of these cases in my book, and I know of others.

Though I've had differences of opinion with Craig in the past, the topic he covers here still needs to be aired.

One aspect is that an online search often turns up wikipedia results as the top result on any topic, which makes the deficiencies (to put it politely) in the content more vital.

Personally I scroll down the results page, attempting to find direct sources rather than the pre-digested and packaged stuff. But it isn't what I'm reading which matters. What's important is what the average online user is likely to be reading.

I can't tell you just how frustrated I feel when I read Wikipedia entries on these subjects. Generally, I find that non-controversial subjects like geography or (well, now I'm finding it difficult to think of non-controversial subjects) are ok for a quick information check. But nothing is OK about the bias they unashamedly indulge in when it comes to parapsychology (and certain other topics such as intelligent design, alternaive archaeology and UFOs).

It is difficult to explain this to anyone who does not spend the amount of time we do researching our evidence. Wikipedia will always quote sceptics - often the least reliable sceptics at that - but rarely (if ever) will the give any mention or recognition to prominent people who endorse positive evidence for Psi or afterlife communications, NDEs, etc. There is little difference in the way the write about these subjects to the way they dismiss extreme conspiracy thories which leads their readers to assume that both belong in the same category of bonkers beliefs.

As for Google searches - yes, Wikipedia pages dominate but often the first page of search results will also come up with the Rational Wiki entry and the casual searcher might be excused for thinking this is just a more specialised version of Wikipedia.

However, given the ubiquity of Wikipedia and Google searches, I am constantly amazed to read that the majority of public opinion remains convinced that the "experts" are wrong and that paranormal phenomena can't be dismissed so easily.

However, given the ubiquity of Wikipedia and Google searches, I am constantly amazed to read that the majority of public opinion remains convinced that the "experts" are wrong and that paranormal phenomena can't be dismissed so easily.

I use Wikipedia primarily for looking up information about TV shows. It's rather infamous for poor medical information and a variety of biases otherwise.

I think for certain topics it gives at least a cursory understanding but I don't think it necessarily influences people as much as some worry. Also, not sure there's much to be done about it as trying to push back would require an incredibly organized resistance.

I use Wikipedia primarily for looking up information about TV shows. It's rather infamous for poor medical information and a variety of biases otherwise.

I think for certain topics it gives at least a cursory understanding but I don't think it necessarily influences people as much as some worry. Also, not sure there's much to be done about it as trying to push back would require an incredibly organized resistance.

This is the source of my frustration. Knowing something is unfair yet being unable to change anything is something that has never failed to upset me since early childhood.

This is the source of my frustration. Knowing something is unfair yet being unable to change anything is something that has never failed to upset me since early childhood.

I think time is on our side, the interest in the paranormal seems to get higher ever year. My guess is as people see the materialist-atheist project has not produced the science-grounded rationalist utopia, we'll see this interest grow. The occultist John Greer, former Archdruid of USA, has even talked about these movements running in historical cycles:

The Unicorn, the Phoenix, and the Dragon

Not to endorse this fully - historical analysis of this sort, in general, seems to be very long on "post-hoc" observations and short on current day policy successes [or predictions for that matter].

Sometimes I've looked up sporting records or who won the Eurovision Song contest, things where a simple and often fairly complete list might be found.

But on the topics we discuss here, as well as the original sources, it's good to post links to the relevant article in the PSI Encyclopedia. As a group, this forum is too small to make much impact, but posting links as often as we can does raise the visibility of that resource. How many people on say Facebook or Twitter are even aware of its existence? It's good to post links there as well, if we have access.

I use Wikipedia primarily for looking up information about TV shows. It's rather infamous for poor medical information and a variety of biases otherwise.

I think for certain topics it gives at least a cursory understanding but I don't think it necessarily influences people as much as some worry. Also, not sure there's much to be done about it as trying to push back would require an incredibly organized resistance.

Other than visiting a physician, where would you go to look up medical information?

For example if I, or someone close to me, had a detached retina I might look at these sources:

https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/eye-hea...detachment

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/...orn-retina

malf!  You live!!

Good to see you.