پاراپسيكولوجيا

لمقال مقطوع من شجرة، ما كايدي ليه تا شي مقال أخر، زيد ليان ديالو ف مقالات خرين.

لپاراپسيكولوجيا ولا علم نّفس لموراوي ولا علم نّفس لموازي هو مجال كيدرس ضواهر روحانية لي، على حساب نّاس لي كيأمنو ب هاد لمجال، كاتجاوز لإدراك لعادي د بنادم، بحال التخاطر، و لستيبصار، تّحريك لعقلي ؤلا تيليكينيسيس، ؤ لپسيكوميتري ؤلا لقياس د نّفس و أي حاجة تاع لخوارق، بحال تجربة لقرب من لموت. هاد لمجال ماكيتّعتابرش صيونص ب لمعنى لحقيقي ؤ أغلبية د لعولاما كيشوفوه صيونص د بلعاني، حيت بعد كتر من قرن من لأبحات د لپاراپسيكولوجيا، فشلو تّجارب باش يتبتو لوجود ديال ضواهر روحانية كيما كاتّوصف ف هاد لمجال.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

تّصاور لي كيدّاعيو بلي كيصّورو خيال كانو منتاشرين ف لقرن 19

لأبحات د لپاراپسيكولوجيا قليل فاش كيبانو ف جّورنالات د صّيونص، ؤ كيتنشرو عادتن ف جورنالات خاصة نّتيشار ديالها محدود.^[10]^[11]

عيون لكلام بدل

^ شميت، يواكيم (2007). "Parapsychology". ف فون ستوكارد، كوكو (إيديتور). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. لايدن ؤ بوسطون: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1872-5287_bdr_COM_00339. ردمك 9789004124332.
^ ريبير، أرثر؛ ألكوك، دجيمس (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 4 غشت 2023. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.
^ Gross، Paul R.؛ Levitt، Norman؛ Lewis، Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. نيويورك: New York Academy of Sciences. ص. 565. ردمك 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.
^ Friedlander، Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. بولدر (كولورادو)، كولورادو: Westview Press. ص. 119. ردمك 978-0-8133-2200-1. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 7 أبريل 2023. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.
^ Pigliucci، Massimo؛ Boudry، Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. شيكاݣو، إيلينوي: University Of Chicago Press. ص. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ردمك 978-0-226-05196-3. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.
^ ألكوك، دجيمس (1981). Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. ؤكسفورد، نّݣليز: en:Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ردمك 978-0080257730.
^ هاكين، إيان (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. كامبريدج، نّݣليز: مطباعة جامعة كامبريدج. 32 (3): 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361.
^ بيرمان، DJ؛ سپوتيسوود، ج. پ؛ بييل، أ (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. سان فرانسيسكو: Public Library of Science. 11 (5): e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p=0.003) with QRPs.
^ كارول، شون (11 ماي 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. نيويورك City: Condé Nast. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 8 أبريل 2023. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.
^ بودري پيلوتشي (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Parapsychological research almost never appears in mainstream science journals.
^ لوسي ؤدلين-سمي (1 مارس 2007). "The lab that asked the wrong questions". 466 (7131). نيتشر. But parapsychologists are still limited to publishing in a small number of niche journals. Cite journal requires |journal= (معاونة)

تقدر تزيد شوف بزاف د تّصاور و لمعلومات ديال Parapsychology ف ويكيميديا كومنز.

[Stuckrad_2007-1] شميت، يواكيم (2007). "Parapsychology". ف فون ستوكارد، كوكو (إيديتور). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. لايدن ؤ بوسطون: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1872-5287_bdr_COM_00339. ردمك 9789004124332.

[AlcockSI-2] ريبير، أرثر؛ ألكوك، دجيمس (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 4 غشت 2023. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.

[3] Gross، Paul R.؛ Levitt، Norman؛ Lewis، Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. نيويورك: New York Academy of Sciences. ص. 565. ردمك 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.

[4] Friedlander، Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. بولدر (كولورادو)، كولورادو: Westview Press. ص. 119. ردمك 978-0-8133-2200-1. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 7 أبريل 2023. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.

[5] Pigliucci، Massimo؛ Boudry، Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. شيكاݣو، إيلينوي: University Of Chicago Press. ص. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ردمك 978-0-226-05196-3. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.

[6] ألكوك، دجيمس (1981). Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. ؤكسفورد، نّݣليز: en:Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ردمك 978-0080257730.

[7] هاكين، إيان (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. كامبريدج، نّݣليز: مطباعة جامعة كامبريدج. 32 (3): 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361.

[8] بيرمان، DJ؛ سپوتيسوود، ج. پ؛ بييل، أ (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. سان فرانسيسكو: Public Library of Science. 11 (5): e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p=0.003) with QRPs.

[9] كارول، شون (11 ماي 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. نيويورك City: Condé Nast. مأرشيڤي من لأصل ف 8 أبريل 2023. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.

[10] بودري پيلوتشي (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Parapsychological research almost never appears in mainstream science journals.

[11] لوسي ؤدلين-سمي (1 مارس 2007). "The lab that asked the wrong questions". 466 (7131). نيتشر. But parapsychologists are still limited to publishing in a small number of niche journals. Cite journal requires |journal= (معاونة)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]