Talk:Essay: The best argument against parapsychology

This article seems to be missing something: "The best argument against parapsychology". Were crickets and tumbleweeds intended, or did someone get going on their rant against the critics of PP and just forget to write the introductory paragraph defining the topic of the article? Human 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Whenever superstition clothes itself in scientific language, it becomes a pseudoscience. Typically, its history will be marked by continued attempts to legitimize itself, none of which garner much serious attention from mainstream science. Though it may survive as a discipline —as with Astrology— it will be marked by a distinct lack of progress, both in theory and practice. The absolute truth is that parapsychology has been going on for a very long time now, and it has very little to show for it.[2] Parapsychologists started out before the invention of the airplane and the typewriter, when people still used the abacus, and magnetism and electricity were interesting. While other sciences have progressed and put men on the moon and a computer in every home (at least every home that matters), parapsychology is still stuck trying to prove to the rest of science that it is studying something."

You have to keep reading, I think. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article needs a restructuring, at the very least. Put the "topic", ie, what the title refers to, at the top. Then put most of what's there (the rebuttal?) below it. I'd do it, but I'd be tempted to delete most of the rebuttal stuff. Oh, and The best argument for parapsychology does not have a reciprocal link. Human 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it's written because it's necessary background. Randi has a much longer allegorical essay on the argument, but I can't find it right now. It's about setting the context for why it's really a difficult problem to evaluate. What can you use as a litmus test if you can't evaluate the whole area? Well, you can't use the experts, because you have conflicts. You can't evaluate the science. All you can do is look at the results. I think it's necessary context, to have it before you get to the argument, and I think putting the argument first spoils the effect. If people don't have the time to read the whole thing then they don't have the time to think . Why does everything have to be like Wikipedia? But why don't you do what you want with it and see if you can make it better. Major Domino

Deletion

I propose the deletion of this article. It reads like a rant, and makes no good points. It's biased, and not in the way that would make this site work. Additionally, it is highly opinionated to the point of uselessness. I do appreciate that an article against parapsychology is needed, so another article of the same or a similar name could be created in the future. Another alternative would be a total rewrite of the current one, if anyone had the time or drive. All in all, I see nothing in this article that merits inclusion in the site. All the best, MrFahrenheit 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, think we should just move it to "Essay: The best argument against parapsychology," instead of total deletion, because it is relevant to this site's purpose but, if we move it to being an essay instead of an article, then it can have bias because it's an opinion piece (just like the "Why Skeptics Lose" essay here), and the debate around the points made by the author can then be discussed on the respective talkpage of the essay.Gooniepunk2005 17:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)