• Paranormalia is written by Robert McLuhan, a journalist and author based in London. Please contact me at robertmcluhan@gmail.com

« Sheldrake and Wikipedia | Main | Parapsychologists Vox Pop »

October 05, 2013


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Sheldrake and Wikipedia :


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Robert people who're confident in themselves and their own understanding of their own worldview're often all too keen to take on board alternative viewpoints precisely when they're testing of their own.

People who set out to misrepresent information about or even suppress access to their opponents' views not only demonstrate awareness of difficult to defend weaknesses in their own sides' dogmas but exhibit the Hitler in the bunker like paranoia of those who fear their sides losing even as they themselves're losing the plot.

This's the great cosmic joke behind the opposition to Sheldrake.

The scientific method's essentially the process of devising a theory then questioning or testing it to destruction the idea being you can't prove things but you can disprove them.

Yet when Rupert Sheldrake reformulates the assumption the total amount of matter and energy's always the same into the scientifically testable “Is the total amount of matter and energy always the same?” he's accused of pseudoscience.

In many ways it reminds me of the disconnect between the religious terrorists/defenders who screech "Trust in All Powerful God!" but then proceed to blow themselves up along with believers and unbelievers alike thereby demonstrating the one thing they don't trust is God to sort the matter out Himself.

To put it another way if the scientific method's so perfect why not allow it's opponents to go up against it and be found out?

After reading some of the comments on the blog post preceding this one, I'm beginning to come around to the idea that there needs to be some sort of response from those on the "pro-paranormal" side of the debate.

What can be done, exactly? I suppose a group of psi-proponents could organise a group whose goal is to challenge the behaviour of the Guerrilla Skeptics and attempt to restore balance and neutrality to Wikipedia pages that deal with the paranormal. But how many people would be willing to spend so much time and effort on such an endeavour? If the Guerrilla Skeptics are that aggressive and determined, then surely they'll just keep on obstructing our "side's" efforts?

Then again, perhaps the reason they've (apparently?) gone so far is precisely *because* few people have seriously tried to take a stand. Perhaps if they faced determined opposition, they would grow weary and less inclined to spread their biased viewpoint. If a dedicated group of pro-paranormal people sought to challenge the sceptics' behaviour, and were persistent and dogged in doing so, perhaps the sceptics might back down a little?

It would be a very long and wearisome struggle, though.

Or, perhaps, as Steve Hume suggested, we need to work to bring more publicity to the fact that this sort of thing goes on so often. We don't necessarily need to try to influence Wikipedia per se, but inform as many people as possible that it's unreliable when it comes to subjects such as the paranormal. Perhaps rather than fighting to change the Wikipedia pages, the better tactic would be to accept/leave them as they are and discredit them instead by drawing awareness to the manipulation of the content.

I think Michael Tymn takes the correct approach in his most recent article "Debunking Babe Ruth and Leonora Piper" on White Crow Books. You might want to take a look at it.

" Perhaps rather than fighting to change the Wikipedia pages, the better tactic would be to accept/leave them as they are and discredit them instead by drawing awareness to the manipulation of the content."

Yes. If people are made aware that these activists are trying to control what they are allowed to read it will ultimately rebound negatively on the Skeptic movement. It might also be worth trying to insert and maintain control of a select few high hit potential articles and put in a load of links to believer websites.

I read Sheldrake's response at his blog the other day, but I think he and others pro-paranormal so to speak, need to approach this from a different strategic angle. As I have said before, it's a rigged game at Wiki, and you are going to be like Sisyphus having to roll the ball up the hill again, and again.

More important to get word out that Wiki cannot be trusted on anything remotely controversial or liminal re science, on anything that goes against the Establishment position, and should merely remain as a resource for general knowledge and trivia. There is in fact widespread ridicule among the Internet savy public that Wiki is not to be trusted on anything controversial or remotely subversive, in fact the ugly facts on Wiki in this regard are far better known than the facts on Psi-friendly research over the past decades say.

Those who know anything about Psi don't bother with Wiki in this regard, and those who have an open mind and are interested in finding out about the topic quickly learn to mistrust Wiki.

So I say just ignore Wiki, if the general public are too naive to know better, well that's how it is. You can't change the world. The general public's naivite is far more damaging in other respects re public life and work, than a child-like trust of Wiki.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • ‘A brisk, bracing look at this continuing controversy, exhaustively researched .. a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in parapsychology and its critics.’
  • ‘‘Packed with accurate information while at the same time surprisingly engaging and fun to read.’
  • ‘‘This is one book that gives a completely objective review of skeptical debunking, and spells out in detail a clear pattern of chicanery which pervades a well-funded and organized campaign against all psi research.’

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • ‘These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in.’ Alan Turing, computer scientist.

  • ‘I have noticed that if a small group of intelligent people, not supposed to be impressed by psychic research, get together and such matters are mentioned, and all feel that they are in safe and sane company, usually from a third to a half of them begin to relate exceptions. That is to say, each opens a little residual closet and takes out some incident which happened to them or to some member of their family, or to some friend whom they trust and which they think odd and extremely puzzling.’ Walter Prince, psychic researcher.

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

  • ‘Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.’ Thomas Henry Huxley

  • We can always immunize a theory against refutation. There are many such immunizing tactics; and if nothing better occurs to us, we can always deny the objectivity – or even the existence – of the refuting observation. Those intellectuals who are more interested in being right than in learning something interesting but unexpected are by no means rare exceptions. Karl Popper, on the defenders of materialism.

  • If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. Arthur C. Clarke.

Become a Fan