Talk:Michael Persinger

Disputed science infoboxes

infobox on disuputed science could apply to many many articles and is not helpful. what we should be doing is pointing out in the body of the article, with refs, exactly what areas are in dispute Mccready 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the infoboxes are helpful. Please see Green Cheese for an example of how they are intended to be used. ---CH 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed until discussion on this page sorts it out. Seems to me that two groups and two groups only are in dispute: Persinger and Granqvist. I have searched for other refs, but to no avail. From a rational scientific view, which I uphold, I don't have enough info to prove Persinger is wrong on this one (though given the company he keeps and his views on other matters, perhaps he is wrong - but these are not sufficient arguments). So, Hillman, pls provide some info which would clarify. Once again, I find the general smear within the box unhelpful, yet am happy to leave it if persuaded. I might also say that as far as I can see he doesn't claim to have found the seat of spiritual experience. He merely says he can create conditions in the lab under which people report experiences which are reportedly similar. Mccready 04:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He now unequivocally says that religious and mystic states are induced in his lab:

Michael A. Persinger, Kevin Saroka, Stanley A. Koren, Linda S. St-Pierre "The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory" Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, Vol 1, No 7 (2010) Hamlet 2010a (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this is an up and coming topic in Neuroscience and Neurotheology I got here because he is referenced by others. I do wonder about the pseudoscience categorization that some seem to be applying and as to what motivates the assessment as such. Needless this is very early research and may change soon as genetic origin of religion seems to be of more interest to the secularist trying to eliminate deity from the equation Alan Kroeger 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If possible please hold up on deletion as I believe I can make enough correction to make this article close to acceptable. I found some of the citations and will endeavor to get it done in the next couple of days. I found the source of the Susan Blackmore citation now all I have to do is figure out how to do this properly. Hey was this there before they deleted the controversies section? http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html Alan Kroeger 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see what was deleted, at [1]. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Persinger's research is more often than not sited by UFO debunkers, I suspect that the claim that his Tectonic Strain Theory is "pseudo science" is perversely motivated by those who feel it calls into question their own pseudoscientific theories regarding alien abductions and the nature of UFO sitings. Persinger's theory is just that, a theory. He backed it up with statistical research and experiments using electromagnetic pulses applied to the temporal lobes which he did show caused hallucinations in many people. He made no absolute or overarching claims, except that there appeared to be a correlation between certain psychological, historical and geological phenomena. I am sure there are holes in his research and his theory. There are holes in almost every scientific theory and every method used to arrive at said theories. Science is continually being refined and revised. Imperfection does not make a theory pseudoscience. I am going to come back when I have some time to fix this article because it is shamelessly biased. --Betamod (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bio

A long time ago (in a galaxy, well, here) in a magazine article on Dr. Persinger I read that he originally emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. If someone could run this down to determine that it's a fact it might be added as a line to his bio. I do not think it affects the legitimacy of his work. -Wfaxon 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a Wired article, titled (I think) "This is your brain on God".64.235.195.113 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This biography seems to have been written by a partisan rather than any kind of neutral party (particularly the final section on "Recent Controversy"). That makes it not trustworthy as an encyclopedia article. The subject, Dr Persinger, may certainly merit a bio in Wikipedia, but it should be unbiased, which this one does not seem to be.

I agree - the tone of voice of "Recent Controversy" is way off for an encyclopedia. I made a very conservative edit, and changed an exclamation point in this section to a period, because the exclamation point is indisputably inappropriate. 68.122.124.191 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Recent Controversy" section should be completely rewritten or deleted. As it reads right now, it's very biased and doesn't even approach objectivity. I would agree with the above statement that it is completely inappropriate and potentially slanderous.

Range and Scope

It seems to me that this article is much too narrowly focused such that it lacks range and scope, further exacerbating the POV bias that has been mentioned above. Persinger has done much more than is mentioned. His theories, while controversial, are interesting and deserve to be taken seriously by Wikipedia. I was seriously disappointed when I called up this article as a reference. It was neither useful nor useable... Who is working on this article? Please sign-in and "sign" your work. Thanks, Emyth 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an article about Tectonic Strain Theory rather than an article about Michael Persinger? For example, if you go to Einstein's page there is not a lengthy back and forth about each of his theories. There is a separate page for that. If this theory is notable in its own right, it should be moved to a separate page with just a brief summary here. If it isn't it should just be dramatically reduced to a summary on this page. Right now this page gives totally undue weight to this one area of his research. Locke9k (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TVO Award section removed

Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I removed the section, Persinger wins TVO's 2007 Big Ideas' Best Lecturer Competition because it was entirely copied from the article Laurentian University's Michael Persinger wins TVO's 2007 Big Ideas' Best Lecturer Competition. --George100 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody add this to reference?

Dr. Persinger's God Helmet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of a 'biased' tag and response to same.

One editor added a NPOV tag, adding "way too positive about the fringe research". I have changed references to 'reported' (referring to the fact that Persinger has published this material). This should bring the section back into neutrality. I ask that the NPOV tag be removed or that the comments considered biased should be denoted clearly enough for another editor to work on them and bring the page to neutrality. --Hamlet 2010a 03:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The tag says: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011)" The tag was placed without any discussion being added to the talk page (this page). Accordingly, this tag may be removed in the near future.--Hamlet 2010a 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Dr. Persinger's parapsychological work

Considering that Dr. Persinger is actually referred to as a scientific skeptic in various sources I've seen (generally quoted as such, by James Randi, but I don't remember precisely where, hence why I'm not posting them here), I am a bit concerned about Persinger having published papers in favour of telepathy and remote viewing. My question is, is there any criticism out there of Dr. Persinger's parapsychological papers, and if so, could someone point me in the way of those sources? As a skeptic myself, I'm a bit concerned that during a google search, I couldn't find any peer-reviewed criticism of his papers. I'm hoping I just typed in the wrong key words and that someone here might be able to do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.117.41 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm surprised as well. There should have been attempts at replication or at debunking for something this big, but I found none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Persinger's work with his "God helmet" has not been independently replicated, in fact this section links to the only attempt by an independent laboratory to replicate his work - it failed, although Persinger disputes the findings (of course). His tectonic strain theory has also failed at least one attempt to test it. I think that career "sceptics" like Randi aren't sceptical enough when somebody reinforces their pre-existing belief that the paranormal is an illusion of the brain; or they are blinded by Persinger's "science talk" and don't know enough about neuroscience to effectively reject it. Famousdog (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What about his "telepathy" work? I found nothing on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this aspect of his research, but my reading of the God helmet and tectonic strain literature has not exactly filled me with confidence in his scientific rigour. Famousdog (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the god helmet is concerned, the setup used by the swedish team was so different that it basically wasn't the same experiment anymore, so I'll have to give him the benefit of doubt. I read his answer, where he outlined the differences, but I can't find it anymore. This is his research on telepathy: http://www.laurentian.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EE269B6F-9213-45D1-AE97-0440A1056C5D/0/NSL27463yokedmagneticfieldoct2010.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Persinger's arguments against the Granqvist replication are nit-picky in the extreme - if these are real effects they should be demonstrable by other labs with other slightly different setups. If you need to have exactly the right setup and be located in Sudbury Ontario for an experiment to work, then the "effects" are hardly worth discussing. Granvist et al also make some cogent arguments that, even if the replication had been perfect, the God helmet cannot be having any meaningful effect on the brain. Or if these "weak complex" magnetic fields are having an effect on the brain, then we should see Jesus and all the host of Heaven whenever we pass a television, use a phone, or sneeze. Famousdog (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While I'm hardly an expert, Persinger's complaints about Granqvist's replication are far from trivial: http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/The_God_Helmet_Debate.htm According to McFadden's electromagnetic theory of consciousness (which I'll be the first to admit is far from mainstream)our skull and protective membranes dampen external EM fields, so the fields from these outside sources are far weaker than the brain's own natural electromagnetism. This said I'm not sure why this wouldn't apply to Persinger's experiment as well. I've read of many experiments about magnetic fields influencing the brain, although I cannot say how intense they were. Mind you, it could be all trash, but given the resonance the "god helmet" had I think double checking might be in order. I realize My link isn't exactly Science magazine, so I'm not suggesting to add it to the article, but it seems to summarize the situation pretty well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That website seems to be pro-Persinger propoganda either by him or a collaborator and merely reiterates Persinger's side of the discussion in the scholarly press. The spectragrams given by Murphy and Persinger on that webpage are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and I can't imagine such a small difference would have any kind of meaningful effect. If an experimental protocal is that sensitive to noise, you have to question whether you are actually looking at "real" effects. In terms of magentic field intensity, let me give you some context: The God Helmet has a field strength of around 5 microTesla. A fridge magnet would be roughly 5 milliTesla. In other words 1000x stronger! By contrast transcranial magnetic stimulation has field strengths of about 1-2 Tesla. More than adequate to cause neurons to fire in the cortex. And yes, McFadden's theory is so far out of mainstream that it's no grounds for accepting or rejecting anything. Famousdog (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Devereaux?

In the sec'n on "tectonic strain theory", there is included a pgph about Paul Devereaux, apparently a UK quasi-paranormal (pseudo-)researcher who ascribes consciousness to the "plasma-phase" products of geologic triboluminesence. Despite the superficial similarity of the attempts to explain UFO sightings, it seems inappropriate for this pgph to be included in this sec'n, especially given that Mr Devereux apparently has his own wikipaedia page! I suggest the offending pgph be removed such that Dr Persinger's page include information about his odd theories and no other man's. 72.179.38.56 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

neurotheology?

I've come across references to Persinger over many years, to his articles in Perceptual and Motor Skills, particularly for anomalous phenomenology given transcranial magnetic stimulation or similar. I thought wikipedia might inform me more about his neurological ideas and methods. Instead I find a primary effort of "debunking" him for a line of research - "neurotheology" - that I've never come across in references to his work. So I can't trust what might follow. Why do wikipedia editors insist on towing the main spectacular line? This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid bill of some party's attitudes.

climate change

Persinger has published a couple of articles claiming a link between the earths magnetic field and global warming. Although I am no expert, it seems that this link has been debunked several times, and it may be interesting to add a section on this, to illustrate how Persinger operates. I did this, but that was edited out, so perhaps someone more invested in the topic can contribute? here are some of the papers on climate change

International Journal of Geosciences, 2015, 6, 846-852 Published Online August 2015 in SciRes. www.scirp.org/journal/ijg http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.68068 How to cite this paper: Vares, D.A.E. and Persinger, M.A. (2015) Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment Is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming. International Journal of Geosciences, 6, 846-852. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.68068 Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming David A. E. Vares1,2, Michael A. Persinger1,2,3

[11] Persinger, M.A. (2009) The Possible Role of Dynamic Pressure From the Interplanetary Magnetic Field on Global Warming. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4, 55-46. [12] Persinger, M.A. (2010) The Cosmology of Climate Change: Interconnections Between Increased Global Temperature, Carbon Dioxide and Geomagnetic Activity. Journal of Cosmology, 8, 1957-1969. [13] Gang, N. and Persinger, M.A. (2012) Correlations between Ocean Water Temperature and Related Parameters from the Victoria Experimental Network under the Sea (VENUS) and Geomagnetic Activity: Implications for Climate Change. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 7, 660-663.

---

CL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.227.134 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Death

Dr. Persinger's death was just announced by Laurentian University in an email to students and staff. Not sure how to provide it as proof, there doesn't seem to be any news online about it yet. Edit: here's the cbc about it https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/michael-persinger-obit-1.4786334 goshpunk (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the citation number 13 is a broken link.

I do not know how to fix this but the cite number 13 is a link to a page that does not exists/ Hosami (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Huso

Additional Reference

Interview on "Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack" Episode 13 - Electric Lady 172.74.82.61 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)