Talk:Psychic/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article, not redirect

this should be a article on its own, and not a redirection..

I agree with the statement above, I will look into adding some unique content in the near future. Solar 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

psychic experience and science

It's unlikely that psychic phenomena can ever by proven scientifically. This is because science is observation of the measurable using the five senses. In other words, it is limited to the physical experience.

Psychic phenomena happens in realms that science can't measure, and usually can't observe. I might have a psychic experience, but unless you have psychic ability (and aren't in denial about it), you can't observe my experience.

And the things that I can do, psychically, would be explained as "coincidence" or completely denied by non-believers.

geeezelouise

Geezelouise, there are many supposed psychic phenomena that could be tested scientifically. E.g. a common psychic claim is that a person can know who is phoning before picking up the phone. It would be very simple to devise a test where the psychic would try to guess who was phoning (say he/she had to choose from a list of 10 possible people) before picking up the phone. If, say he/she got 8 out of 10 correct, then that would be considerably more than could be expected by chance alone, and therefore could not be dismissed as coincidence. Dominickearney 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested article guidelines

I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology. There is a complete sub-culture based around the 'Psychic' and for this reason it warrants its own article with extra focus on the cultural side. - Solar 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the second paragraph for this article. Does anyone object to me referencing my website as the source of this information? I also have more information that I would like to share on this topic, if anyone is interested? Psychic 12:29 (GMT+8:00), 20 April 2006

[edit] Statistics

does anyone know of a good data repository for finding statistics and demographics and data on obscure topics?

[edit] Proposed external link

Project Jason-Voice for the Missing "Working to stop psychic frauds from harming families of the missing" http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/30606-pmp-introduction-to-psychics-and.html

Smiloid

I think this link would be more relevant in the psychic detective article. - Solar 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that the proposed link is irrelevant and prejudicial. Why does Wikipedia have a "skeptics" group editing metaphysical articles? Does Wikipedia propose to have an atheists group edit their articles regarding various religions? Solar, I hope that I can somewhat appreciate the burden that you bear here as a moderator, but I also hope that you can appreciate the intellectual dishonesty that I perceive in these practices. On Wikipedia, the Randi cult has attacked practically every metaphysical article. I am, frankly, appalled at these practices. These people reject even the most stringent scientific verification (PEAR, SRI, the Rhine Institute, etc.) in favor of their limited belief systems. That's fine, as far as their own beliefs go. Let them have their flat earth. But why should their limited belief systems be imposed on the rest of the world? Nomorebs 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomoreb, please link the stringent scientific verification on the article page. It sounds highly relevant. Skeptics form a significant, often scientific point of view, and are therefore valid and, heck, practically necessary for Wikipedia to include. fel64 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply to KSmrq in one of the Randi sections below (I forget which one). Nomorebs 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology being ‘generally’ considered a pseudoscience

I have removed the comment about Parapsychology being ‘generally’ considered a pseudoscience, as I feel a citation should be included to a recognised and respected scientific source showing this, at the very least. Beyond this, the point is clearly covered in the parapsychology article and the paragraph already contains 'These claims are widely disputed by mainstream science, and are regularly attacked by skeptics' which maintains the NPOV policy, adding the point about pseudoscience is clearly an attempt to make the article POV. - Solar 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Parapsychology is being put into the field of a real science by suggestion in this article. Unfortunately, parapsychology does not hold true to any of the rigorous scientific methods that have been consistent for thousands of years. To state that one can not make the statement to this affect is clearly giving YOUR POV.

To suggest it should not be repeated here, because it is stated in the article on parapsychology, makes the assumption that the reader of this article, has, or will read the parapsychology article.

Also, the Ganzfield experiments fall under the realm of parapsychology, and can't be counted as a valid scientific experiment. No matter who performs the experiment, if it is not done under proper scientific conditions, and is not repeatable, or if the results are extremely poorly translated, you can't classify it as science.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Edwardsnh (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 May 2006 UTC

There's a lot of unsupported personal opinion being inserted here. There is no support whatsoever offered for the comments listed above.

To be honest, from the perspective of a casual visitor, this page has quite obviously been taken over by members of the Randi-worshipping cult, and offers no real or neutral information with regard to the topic at hand. In fact, the Randi-worshippers appear to have pretty much taken over Wikipedia entirely with regards to metaphysical topics.

It appears that the Randi-worshippers fail to take into account the destructiveness of having articles prepared by those who condemn the topic. Would you also like to see the articles about Jesus and Christianity prepared by Satanists? That, sadly, is the level of discussion here with regard to metaphysical topics. I doubt this matters to the Randi cult. Their only interest, apparently, is promoting their hero-icon and dismissing without fair review any concepts that he rejected.

Enjoy your flat earth.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.235.130.231 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 May 2006 UTC

If of course the negative comments at the top of this thread related to the methods of parapsychology and the Ganzfield experiments undertaken by Daryl Bem are true, then the anonymous user who made them can simply add citations to prove his/her point and show that scientific method such as double blind experiments have not been used. This would then be acceptable within Wikipedia policy; otherwise it is simply opinion and should not be included. It is a simple matter of backing up statements made, especially when they are so serious to the nature of the article. With regards to the parapsychology article I made the comment that it is already covered, as my reasoning for starting the psychic article was to focus on the cultural aspects of the subject, not to simply repeat endless arguments related to the reality or not of psychic phenomena. I think the science could be covered in a short paragraph with a link to the parapsychology article for those who wish to learn about the scientific debate. I hope that we can agree on this and move the article forward. - Solar 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof isn't with the first anonymous user (I assume the second one is User:Nomorebs) to show that the experiments are not valid; proponents of including anything about the Ganzfeld experiments should show that it's valid. And Opinion is entirely valid to include on Wikipedia, as long as it is significant - which in this case it may be. I don't know, as I've seen no evidence for or against the Ganzfeld experiments. I reckon the attention of a qualified person would be fairly helpful here. fel64 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The second one is indeed me. I didn't mean to be secretive, and I regret any inconvenience. It was my first post here and reflected my deplorable lack of Wikipedia-editing skills. (Hat-tip to Solar for a few pointers to the newbie.)

I lack sufficient familiarity with the ganzfeld experiments to comment on those specifically.

That having been said, how would you propose one demonstrate the "validity" of those experiments? And further, what is the criteria for "significance" of an opinion? And who decides whether an opinion is "significant" or not? Does Randi's offer constitute an opinion? Does it constitute evidence? Nomorebs 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi

I took the liberty of placing a link to the JREF, as there is at least a whole paragraph about Mr. Randi. Readers should have an external link to the man himself.Smiloid 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what has Randi got to do with this article? He is a non-believer in psychic abilities. So are hundreds of millions of other people (of course, there are hundreds of millions who do believe, as well). Shall we list every person who doesn't believe in psychic ability? Furthering this concept a bit, shall we also put addenda to each article about each separate religious faith and philosophy explaining who doesn't believe in that faith or philosophy? If I offer a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Jesus was the son of God (testing under my own strict acceptance and performance conditions, of course) and no one is able to claim the prize will that then disprove Christianity for once and all?

As explained in my addenda to the article, the relevance to this article of the Randi claim fails under a multitude of logical fallacies.

I believe that the paragraph regarding Randi should be removed as irrelevant to this article and, relatedly then, that the link to the JREF removed as well. All references to Randi in this article are disputed as irrelevant and prejudicial. Nomorebs 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Nomoreb's suggestion. At the very least, could you cite a quote made by Randi or representatives of his foundation that states something to the effect of "because the Randi prize has not been awarded, psychic ability does not exist"? The mere existence of the prize is not enough to establish that Randi is making any claim at all. -aliasworkshop

Nomorebs, I think that the $1,000,000 challenge is worthy of inclusion. It may be logically fallacious (only, though, if it claims that non-fulfillment is proof that it cannot be fulfilled, which has been rebutted quite nicely here) but that's not the point. It is extremely relevant. It's a very famous challenge that is often referred to, fallacious or not. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does need to include noteworthy things, even if logically incorrect, even if they attempt to deny the existence of the article's subject. fel64 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but this is the crux of the issue here. Does Randi's challenge "attempt to deny the existence of" the entire subject of the Psychic article? Or is it simply anecdotal, and will never be anything more than anecdotal? I don't know what you really are trying to accomplish here, but it seems to me that the only reason to include the Randi challenge here is to create a prejudicial "smear" against the possibility of psychic phenomenon which does not constitute evidence one way or the other - the "famousness" of the smear notwithstanding. This is not the use of reason, logic, or facts, and I believe the reference has no place in this article.

It seems somehow ironic that the "skeptics", priding themselves on their "scientifically-based" perspectives, spend much time demanding repeatable and reliable (i.e., non-anecdotal) evidence from those who claim to be psychic, and yet they are perfectly willing to use the anecdotal Randi challenge as evidence against the possibility of psychic functioning. This is part of what I perceive as the "intellectual dishonesty" in these discussions. The "evidence" of Randi isn't evidence.

Finally, Fel, and no offense intended, but it seems to me that your admissions that the challenge is "fallacious" and "logically incorrect" are not helpful to your argument. Nomorebs 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the Randi challenge is that the psychics have to produce the evidence. Randi doesn't have any evidence contrary to psychic abilities, nor does he claim to have; he just demands that you produce some. Dominickearney 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randi challenge

User:Fel64 graciously brought to my attention the fact that I edited the paragraph on the Randi challenge, a major change, but marked it as a minor edit. Experienced editors know that such a change does not qualify for the "minor" tag, and deliberate misuse can be viewed as a violation of Wikipedia policy. In this case it was an accident, as I set the tag when I began a truly minor edit, namely changing the mis-capitalization of some linked topics. Unfortunately, I forgot to un-set the tag when I extended that edit. My sincere apologies for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused.

Since this is a sensitive article, I'll also explain the rationale for the Randi challenge edit. Over many years Randi has worked with scientists and skeptics to investigate many claims of paranormal abilities. He and his colleagues are experienced enough to state clearly that experiments can never prove that paranormal abilities do not exist. For example, if I were to say "Look, a shooting star!" to a friend, and the friend looked up too late to see it, that does not mean it didn't happen. Even if this occurs five times in a row, the meteors could still be there unobserved. So the "logical criticism" attacked a position that it seems pretty clear Randi is not asserting with the challenge. What the challenge does show is that it is easier to make claims of paranormal abilities than to support those claims, and many claims come from the same flawed sources.

Science is perfectly willing to be patient and thorough. Examples in physics include attempts to detect proton decay, which has never been seen; attempts to measure neutrino flux and oscillation, which only recently succeeded; and attempts to verify the general relativity prediction of frame-dragging, which is the purpose of the Gravity Probe B project begun almost 50 years ago. It is hardly surprising that various physical scientists over the years have attempted to bring this same patient care to the study of psychic and other paranormal phenomena. Unfortunately, that background does not prepare them for some of the complications of dealing with human subjects, especially subjects who might purposely deceive.

It is not at all helpful to see the same mistakes repeated over and over. Serious scientists work very hard to control every possible source of error and interference in a delicate experiment, and they know that claims of paranormal phenomena will never gain scientific acceptance without that care. Sadly, the general public is all too willing to believe absurd and patently deceptive claims from unscrupulous charlatans, and often people genuinely believe they themselves possess psychic abilities for honest but flawed reasons.

Magicians learn to manipulate perception for entertainment, and to earn an honest livelihood. Audiences usually understand that conjuring effects are not real. The phony psychic business is quite a different matter. Believers are hoodwinked under false pretenses, and sometimes even threatened with dire consequences if they do not give money — often money they can ill afford to lose. [1] More dangerous still are phony psychic healers who gullible patients turn to instead of the genuine medical treatment they need. These are the people who the police will (sometimes) prosecute, and who seriously raise the ire of folks like Randi. A dramatic example is televangelist Peter Popoff, who Randi exposed as getting his "psychic information" via radio transmission.

Again, this does not mean science will never validate psychic phenomenon, nor that Randi claims such. The "logical critique" of Randi's assertion was based on what I believe are false premises. Therefore I have replaced it with something more accurate (his own words from his own web site), and hopefully more neutral. --KSmrqT 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you replaced a logical critique of Randi with Randi's own chest-thumping about himself and anecdotal remarks about certain "challengers." That's an interesting implementation of the NPOV.
So, the lesson here is that when logic opposes the Randi viewpoint, we can win the argument by simply editing out the other person's language. The triumph of force over reason has been accomplished by these acts. You apparently do not share my perception that this may constitute intellectual dishonesty, and results in the presentation of a slanted (and for all intents and purposes, worthless) article.
I don't have the time for debate (and believe it would be of little value against the perspectives reflected here), but this being a talk page, I will offer a few casual comments, so that, even as you conquer (for now), you may understand the perspective of the people upon whom you set your boot. The world is always changing and someday you might want to have alternative understandings available to you.
1) I will be the first to admit that there is a great amount of really horrible stuff that comes out of the general "professional psychic/medium" field, and this tars all people who may be interested in honest investigation and exploration of anomalous phenomenon with the same brush. (Sometimes in the same person; for example, my own belief is that Uri Geller did exhibit quite striking psychic ability in Russell Targ's experiments, but I also believe that he used devices during at least some of his public appearances. While he may have done this out of feeling a need to "perform" and deliver "results" under stressful conditions, the only result was that he injured his own credibility, and his acts brought others into question then as well.)
In connection with this, though, I will say that I believe that most of the poor "psychic" stuff I've seen over the years has NOT been by intentional scammers, but rather by people who were "true believers" themselves and just did not have as much access or control of their abilities as they seemed to think. In other words, they are fooling themselves as much, or more, than anyone else.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID...
2) My own belief, based upon hundreds of personal experiences over 40+ years, is that anomalous cognition - aka psychic ability, intuition, ESP, "gut instinct", etc. - is a real and normal part of human functioning, which we can learn to improve and develop, and which is reliably and repeatably demonstrable in the lab.
Of course, opinions and personal experience being of little moment here (and properly so), I would refer interested persons to the lab work, some of which is listed and linked below, that has been done in recent years evidencing psychic functioning.
I would preface these links, though, by cautioning that the lab experiments are not real exciting or dramatic stuff, and usually rely on generating statistically improbable results which cannot be explained by normal functions of induction or deduction or by Newtonian physics. However, they are replicable and represent evidence that anomalous cognition is a demonstrable phenomenon.
  • Dr. Edwin. C. May's Cognitive Sciences Laboratory at the San Francisco Bay area located Laboratories for Fundamental Research (http://www.lfr.org/), and has ongoing experiments regarding anomalous cognition in which people can participate. I recommend to you their article "Anomalous Anticipatory Skin Conductance Response to Acoustic Stimuli: Experimental Results and Speculation Upon a Mechanism", Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (2005), Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 695-702, for the evidentiary results of recent experiments there.
  • The Rhine Research Center (http://www.rhine.org/) famously has conducted over half a century of scientific research on psychic abilities. While skeptics may complain of inadequacies in conditions during the initial period, that does not disqualify the bulk of their work (and in fact simply casts shadows on the earlier work, without disproving a thing).
  • The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) department of Princeton University (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/) has been researching remote viewing for almost 30 years. Their experiments have produced volumes of statistically notable evidence for the science of remote viewing under strict and rigorous conditions. A large portion of the results of PEAR's research was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 207–241 (2003) by PEAR's researchers Brenda J. Dunne and Robert G. Jahn.
  • The Institute of Noetic Sciences (http://www.ions.org/research/lab.cfm) is another research facility, which was founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who once conducted an ESP experiment from the space shuttle. Their work includes "the exploration of nonlocal interactions among two or more participants. These interactions are often accompanied by subtle changes in states of consciousness, which can be inferred by measuring fluctuations in participants’ physiology. Measuring changes in brainwaves, heart rate, and skin conductance provides a model to study distant healing in the laboratory."
I am not such a fool, of course, to think that the work of these scientific organizations would convince any of the Randi-cult skeptics who currently control Wikipedia. While I decry the coopting by bullying force and intellectual dishonesty of a resource that supposedly offers NPOV information to the public (clearly NOT how matters stand currently with regard to most of the metaphysical topics here), it is not my intention here to convince any skeptics of the reality of psychic functioning, as indeed I cannot. As the old saying goes, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I do not pretend to have the strength to break the case-hardened lock on the "skeptical" mind.
I regret any inconvenience caused by my inability to participate in these discussions on any but an occasional basis, but again, I have no desire to debate these topics as I do not perceive that such may be fruitful. I believe that I will best "contribute" to the debate by continuing to investigate and work to obtain more evidence of a "phenomenon" that I believe to be a perfectly natural part of life.
"Our efforts today no longer focus on whether ESP exists; we have strong evidence that it does. Instead, we are studying how ESP works, by examining how personality, emotional relationship, mental and physical states, education, gender, and other variables may affect ESP experiences."
Dr. Sally Rhine Feather,
Director, Rhine Research Center
Nomorebs 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What results have the RRC been getting? Can you link to articles or abstracts? What was the outcome of the PEAR research? What results did they get at the Institute of Noetic Science? The first example you gave, though, looks good. Is there any way to see the article without access to archives of that Journal, and (how) was it peer reviewed?
Why don't you put some of this information in the article? It seems relevant.
I feel it's a little unfair of you to decry to the lot of us at once, when hey, I can't even understand the accusations leveled at the first person.
fel64 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings yet again, friend Fel. I received your message regarding my alleged incivility on this page towards user KSmrq, whom you said had directed no ad hominem attacks towards me. Well, KSmrq did say that my "logical critique" (those are KSmrq's quotation marks, which I did find a bit insulting) was based on what KSmrq believed were "false premises" (my quotation marks, as I am quoting KSmrq). That, plus KSmrq simply deleted my text and replaced it with a very self-serving comment by the ubiquitous Mr. Randi. I experienced this as intentional rudeness and incivility towards me, and my response undoubtedly reflected my feelings. My bad? I believe that, taken as a whole, no. After all, I have not unilaterally deleted KSmrq's text, and the self-promoting of the tirelessly self-promoting Randi now takes up a generous portion of the article, which I thought was titled "psychic", not "Randi."

As to more in-depth reviews of the scientific studies that have been done producing evidence of psychic phenomenon, I whole-heartedly refer you to Dean Radin's excellent 1997 book "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomenon." It gives in-depth discussions of many of the studies I referenced, and many, many more. Unfortunately, not too much about our dear Randi (or Uri Geller, for that matter). In fact, at page 240 in that book Radin writes: "...while the stories about these two are intriguing, nothing about the work of either Geller or Randi is mentioned in this book. They are actually so *irrelevant* to the scientific evaluation of psi that not a single experiment involving either person is included among the thousand studies reviewed in the meta-analyses." (Please read *irrelevant* as italicized text - I haven't gotten that far yet in Wiki text rendering.)

I have a couple of other books that address the huge volume of scientific psi studies from an academic perspective which you might find interesting. One is entitled "Handbook of Parapsychology," published in 1977, authored by over 30 (generally) academics, and edited by a group including J.B. Rhine of the Rhine Institute. It's as thick as a dictionary and it is an extremely well-documented work. For example, the list of references for the chapter entitled "Experimental Psychokinesis" runs a full eight pages on its own, in what my old eyes deem to be rather small type.

I also have a copy of "Extra-Sensory Perception: After Sixty Years," another academic review of scientific experiments in parapsychology, again edited by Rhine et al. This book was published in 1940.

Now, just consider for a moment, if you will, that this book was published in 1940 and covered 60 years of research. It is now 2006 - 66 years after the publication of that book. The total is over one and a quarter centuries. Big picture - we're not talking about a hundred studies here, but rather tens of thousands of studies over the years. Can the fact that one person makes a "challenge" really have any relevance within the context of the immense volume of evidence that has been developed by so many scientists over the years?

Some people may well enjoy wearing the badge of "skeptic". It can mean "I'm no fool" and "I'm someone who can reveal the frauds and scammers." Well, as I implied above, finding psychics that really aren't (or at least aren't much) is like shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting down fake psychics isn't much of a challenge. (And while we're at it, could someone please dispatch that John Edward/Crossing Over dude? If that isn't cold reading.... Believe me, he annoys me as much he annoys you.)

The real challenge we face though, is that, as well-documented by the research I've referenced, anomalous cognition is a real phenomenon. Amidst all the mud, there's a real pearl down there. I'm happy (more precisely, driven) to get down in the mud to try to find the pearl. The Randi followers are trying to argue that the pearl isn't real, and they seem to have taken over here. Due to my own many (admittedly anecdotal but they're still real to me) experiences, I KNOW the pearl is real. I would love to have a real discussion on what we really know about psychic abilities, how they can be developed, and so forth. Here, I feel like Galileo before the Church or Cervantes before the Inquisition. The controlling Randi people apparently just want to shut down all discussion. Speak no psychic, see no psychic, hear no psychic.

I hope, my friend, you can see how this vexes me. I don't regret any previous comments I've made, but I do understand how they can detract from the topic at hand, and will try to maintain more civility in the future, even in the face of what I consider dismissive rudeness. OK?

No More BS -- Nomorebs 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Ahh, come on. KSmrq, whether Randi Cultist or not (italic is double apostrophes wrapped around the text, by the way), wasn't doing that because you'd written it. I'm sure he didn't even know at the time who put it in. It might have been rude to you, but heck, WP:Faith. Those books sound interesting. I assume, by the way, that "Extra-Sensory Perception: After Sixty Years" was not edited by Rhine et al back in 1940? bAre the articles in those books, or the works they summarise, published (after peer review), somewhere?
And, really, why don't you add some of this to the article?
Randi and Geller are relevant in that they are in the public's eye when it comes to psychic stuff, I guess - in the same way as linking to self-proclaimed psychics is. They may not have anything to do with the discovery of whether or not psychic things exist, but they are still relevant.
No more BS - now that's a toast to drink to! fel64 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional psychics

I feel that there are so many precognitive/precient characters in fiction, it demands its own category, and I'm surprised to find it doesn't have one. What should the categroy be called, for example, the telekinetic characters have the category Category:Fictional psychokineticists. The category could hold a lot of characters like Buffy Summers, Phoebe Halliwell, Cordelia Chase, Cassie Newton, Sam Winchester etc... there are literally hundreds... would anyone like to be a part of this? Feel free to discuss on my talk page too. Zythe 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added bit about the term "psychic" in Gnosticism

In addition to the current use of the word, "psychic" was also a concept in certain kinds of Gnosticism. Wikipedia needs a whole lot more information on this subject, I'll grant you - the only thing that even mentions the concept is the stub on hylics - but nonetheless I'd thought I'd make the link in the article right now. I would suggest this is just a temporary thing until someone writes a Psychic_(Gnosticism) article; then we can put up a disambigution page. As it is, this is the best I can do for right now. --Brasswatchman 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two things about the article

1. If psychics are people who have psychic ability, then the article needs to state that there are no known psychics. That's why I put in "claimed", which was taken out.

2. What randomness tests have proven psychic ability? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your first question: a psychic is a psychic. If a person doesn't have the psychic abilities described, then they aren't a psychic. There are people who claim to be psychics, those can be referred to as "claimed" or "claim to be" or "believed to be" - such as Sylvia Browne or John Edward, but a psychic is a person who has those powers; claims don't enter into it.
definition of psychic
There is no proof that I'm aware of that there are no "known psychics" - there are many who would strongly argue against that point. Further, that statement, as well as using terms such as "claim" in this particular article, strikes me as POV - there's already a skeptical flavor to the article - no need to overdo it....  :)
Dreadlocke ☥ 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your question number two, I believe the most well known study using random number generators is Ganzfeld, and Dean Radin [2] talks about testing that was done along those lines. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In order for there to be "known psychics" there has to be indisputable evidence that they can do what they claim to do. There isn't. The fact that we are having this debate tells us that. We don't debate the existence of gravity or that earth is round, do we?

The opening statement implies that it is a fact that people possess ESP. A more accurate opening would be something like "Psychics are people said to possess ESP etc."

Does anyone concur? 212.42.10.194 12:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't concur. That's not the correct definition of a psychic (as I stated above). A psychic isn't just "said to possess", they either do or they don't - if they don't, then they're not a psychic. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your definition is wrong. Your definition assumes that psychic powers are real. That reality of these powers is at the very least questionable. You say that a psychic is someone that has ESP etc, and someone that hasn't, isn't. It is widely maintained that nobody has these powers, and yet there are people who describe themselves and other as "psychics". Your definition cannot be made in an encycleodedia. You can say that a psychic is someone who is believed to have, or claims to have, or presumed, or is thought to have, ESP. You CANNOT say "has" as that implies that they truly do.

Anon user, you need to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The entire argument you use above is an informal fallacy, since anyone who does not have the powers would not be a psychic - even if they are "believed" to have such abilities. The definition is for what a psychic is defined as. If they don't have the abilities as described (even if they "claim" to), then they are just not psychic. "Claims" do not enter into the equation at all, it doesn't matter what they claim. It is also incorrect to say that "it is widely maintained that nobody has these powers", this is false - as a matter of fact, studies show it widely accepted that psychic and esp abilities do exist.
The opening statement does not imply that "it is a fact that people possess ESP," it very clearly states what ESP is defined as but makes no judgement as to whether it actually exists or whether people actually posess the abilities. Anything to the contrary is a mistaken reading of what it actually says. The article itself contains detailed information on the dispute as to whether or not psychic or esp abilities exist, which is more than sufficient to meet the needs of NPOV. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Psychokinesis

Psychokinesis is a well known PSI or Psychic power. [3]. The very definition of Psychic [4] is of one who has paranormal powers. Psychokinesis is a paranormal power. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

What needs to be cleaned up in the article? Dreadlocke ☥ 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement "The claims of psychics are widely disputed by mainstream science" needs a citation, or to be removed, as it appears to be facially false. Whoever wrote it is apparently unfamiliar with the theory of bio-entanglement and well over a century of other scientific research into psychic phenomenon. The links to Randi-related sites should also be removed as wholly irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.148.216 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 November 2006 UTC

While I agree with your sentiments, we have to go by Wikipedia policy and guideline WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I know I can source the comments about mainstream science widely disputing psychic claims, but I'm not sure I can back up bio-entanglement or even other research that has been going on for decades, in order to excise the skeptics point of view. I'll look into sourcing the mainstream science thing. As far as Randi, yep, I totally agree. Irrelevant. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There are two points with that statement, firstly, I wrote it to refer to psychics, in the sense of Uri Geller who make all sorts of claims, which even to many contemporary parapsychologists seem dubious. Secondly, having said that I'm not sure I was accurate to say that mainstream science disputes all psi, which that line implies. Surveys that have been done on the subject such as those by Gallop show a roughly 50/50 split on the subject, with those with scientific/academic training having a higher level of belief in psi. [5] I have changed the statement to "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities actually exist is still controversial within science; however, recent polls do show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics." I think this is more neutral, I think that the original statement was the result of reading too much sceptical propaganda and this version is much fairer. In terms of the bio-entanglement side, some mention of Brian Josephson would be interesting on that level, his paper: Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality is excellent. Best wishes. - Solar 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Solar! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] site inclusion

Please include <a href="www.knowingsouls.com">Knowing Souls</a> under this site. We are honest and accurate and ethical psychics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.161.152 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please add <a href="www.infiniteadvice.com">Infinite Advice</a> under this topic. This is a psychic website that actually features psychics and psychic readings. It will give a viewer a good idea of what a psychic actually does.

These are both commercial links -- see WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Psychics

I think we need a section on phone psychics, or comercial misuse of psychic claims, and how that relates to those who make subjectively honest claims to psychic ability. How bout yous?

Argreed, though that may need its own article. Of course, proving which psychics are charlatans and which truly believe they have these abilities would be nearly impossible, since all of them claim to be "real" psychics, and with such a subjective experience it would be very difficult to disprove them (especially the popular ones with lots of believers). -- Noclevername 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Phone psychics" have their own individual articles. I doubt whether the subject has enough information to warrant an article, and it does not seem to really be an approprate subject for this article. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Noclevername 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that such a section will invite large amounts of vandalism and attract trolls. I think it's subject better left to the individual articles on actual phone psychics. This is already a controversial article. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There are no links to specific names given; Perhaps a list of those who profess to have psychic abilities, either here or better yet on its own page, could be added. I searched WP and couldn't find one. Noclevername 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, very similar to the list of mediums in the Mediumship article. Let's definitely not dupe the list of mediums, though. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steiger article

<refactoring to remove resolved objectionable edits>

The phrase "recent polls show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics" seems to me to be an overstatement of the article by Brad Steiger which is cited (see [6]). In summarizing the survey of Farha and Steward published in the Skeptical Inquirer, Steiger says "their poll of college students found that seniors and graduate students were more likely to believe in haunted houses, ghosts, telepathy, spirit channeling and other paranormal phenomena than were freshmen." As Steiger says, the study compared freshmen to seniors and graduate students, not "scientists and academics" to non-scientists and non-academics, and I can't find anything in the rest of Steiger's article which relates to a comparison of the latter sort (in fact, Steiger does't use the words "scientist(s)" or "academic(s)" at all). I've scanned his article, and as far as I can tell the only other comparisons it mentions are from "a nationwide Gallup Poll in 2001 that found younger Americans more likely to believe in the paranormal than older respondents", which also does not compare beliefs among academics/non-academics. (Note: The results of this Gallup Poll from 2005, 2001 and before are here). For these reasons, I've modified the phrase so it applies to the Farha/Steward poll. If I've misunderstood something, please set me straight! — Elembis 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not certain what an opinion poll was doing in the opening paragraphs anyway. Are there polls to see who "believes" in gravity? Either a thing exists or it doesn't; if it does, the evidence will eventually support it. If not, belief won't make it so. I favor moving the poll results to a footnote or trivia section. Noclevername 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The poll belongs in a more significant location than a "trivia" section (which doesn't exist in the current article) nor as just a footnote. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why should an opinion poll (only one of many, I'm sure) be given so much weight in the article? This isn't an article about "Popular opinions about psychics", it's supposed to be about psychics themselves. (Oh, and creating a trivia section for the article is fairly easy.) ---Noclevername 12:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to be expanded, not shrunk. If you think the weight is too much, then add other material. It doesn't belong in a trivia section, because that would trivialize the poll - it is not "trivia". Dreadlocke ☥ 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to create an article on "Public Opinions of Psychic Phenomena", that would be an appropriate place for poll results. --- Noclevername 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the cultural aspects including public opinion should be given slightly more weight in this article, when I started it in March, I wrote: "I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology" (See 'Suggested article guidelines'). I still stand by this statement, for a strong article dealing with the many beliefs and sub-cultures related to professional psychics it would be most productive to have a small area dealing with science and links to more in-depth articles such as parapsychology. This article would then be free to explore the sociological, media and cultural areas in depth. I would like to suggest we come to a consensus on the structure of the article and leave the endless debate between sceptics and supporters of parapsychology for personal talk pages or a forum. Best wishes - Solar 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, in Daryl Bem's paper on psi he cites a poll which was of academics and scientists with the following results: "A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%." I will see if I can find any more recent polls of academics and scientists either for or against psi. - Solar 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Solar, I seem to remember you quoting that poll in the article, now it just says "college seniors and graduate students". Can you make sure your reference and edit are still there and correct? Dreadlocke ☥ 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here or WTA talk page

<refactored to remove objectionable personal comments> Discussions of each article should be on the page of the relevant article. There is more to my rejection of the use of "claims" in this article than just WTA. I refer you to my arguments in the Two things about the article section. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The repeated discussion about this issue tells us that many people feel a subtle POV in the current uncontextualized, unmoderated statement "A psychic is a person who has the ability to experience ..". Whether or not the word "claim" is the best to use here is open to debate, but I do believe some moderating adjective or verb is necessary to achieve an NPOV that all parties can agree upon. This is issue is unlikely to go away until such a compromise is found.
Part of the problem is that your implication that a person who is a fraud would not be a psychic by this definition is not apparent. For instance, John Edward states that Edward "performs as a psychic"; the article "psychic" then tells us that psychics have certain abilities. There is no point in the sequence where one would be told that this is merely a claim by John Edward, believed by some but not taken seriously within the scientific community, which disregards any claims of psychic abilities, and actively disputed by illusionists who claim to have achieved identical results to psychics using suggestions and trickery.
In short, the current wording lends itself to uses where the sequence the reader encounters is clearly POV.
The article mediumship describes people who claim to be mediums as people who "profess mediumship"; this may be a good wording to use here as well. Alternatively, the intro could be contextualized similarly to the way prophet begins with "In religion", e.g. we could begin it with "In parapsychology".
The ideal article should not unambiguously state that psychics clearly are all charlatans; it should, however, clearly reflect the beliefs of the four key groups, a) "psychics", b) believers, c) the scientific community, d) the magic/illusionist community. In whichever context the article is referred to, e.g. from another article or category, it should be applicable to the group of people who are not either unambiguously psychic, or unambiguously fraudulent (which is essentially the group of all people using the label "psychic" to describe themselves, as very few have been unambiguously shown to be frauds to the satisfaction of all believers, and none have been shown to be "true psychics" to the satisfaction of skeptics & scientists).--Eloquence* 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with you and was in the process of preparing a lengthy answer, I think this is now a moot issue considering the new version by editor Martinphi that I believe addresses both our concerns.
I would just like to point out that I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted from the Mediumship article and then described it as “good wording”. However, in this article as a part of the definition of "psychic", it does not fit - anyone can profess to be a psychic, but that does not make them a psychic – so this is a false description of “Psychic”. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite fine with your suggestion "Alternatively, the intro could be contextualized similarly to the way prophet begins with "In religion", e.g. we could begin it with "In parapsychology". " That's great and exactly what MartinPhi did! Which is, in essence, adding detail to the article - as I suggested. Great job Martin!! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The new introduction is an improvement, but heavily loads the article with parapsychologist jargon. It is equally necessary to emphasize and clarify that there is no recognition of any psychic or paranormal phenomena within the broader scientific community.
The pro-parapsychology bias in the primary topic articles on parapsychology is unfortunately readily apparent. For instance, a little research on CSICOP or even Google Scholar will turn up dozens of papers that contest parapsychological claims; yet, the only relevant work that was mentioned in this article so far is a single obscure study on random number generators. It will take a while to turn this into an NPOV article by assembling a solid overview of the many excellent articles that have been written on these topics by the likes of Randi and Sagan, as well as specific studies into the paranormal that meet a minimum scientific rigor.
Recognizing that the fact that this article, and similar ones, have been predominantly edited by individuals who openly profess a belief in the paranormal, is not a focus on the personal, but an objective realization of an obvious source of bias in editing patterns. This bias will have to be addressed by bringing more people with a scientific background to these articles, so that other perspectives are fully represented, and the state of the debate is made clear to the reader. It would be highly misleading to suggest to the reader that there is any controversy within the broader scientific community about the existence of these phenomena; they are simply not recognized at all. What is more, all the observable behaviors are reproducible without any supernatural influence, e.g., the entire communication pattern of a psychic reading can be reproduced by making use of well documented psychological techniques. Has there been any effort by parapsychologists to distinguish such demonstrations from "real" phenomena at all?--Eloquence* 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem adding terms and phrases from parapsychology, which you call "jargon" - a word that I do not agree at all applies to the terms and phrases in the article, there is nothing unintelligible about the article's wording!
As for skeptical information, such as the opinion of CSICOP (now CSI - they changed their name recently), please feel free to add it under the "Controversy and skepticism" section, that's what it's there for!The introduction is not the place for a detailed description of the controversies, a short, brief descripion in the intro, with details in the body of the article is all that is called for. Please reference Wikipedia:Lead section for further details, which I admit is a guideline and not a policy, so a bit more flexible in it's application - but I do not believe the subject of an article should be attacked in it's own introductory paragraph!
I stongly suggest you stop commenting on the contributors, referring to their "professed beliefs" and their affiliation with pro-paranormal beliefs as you do, is damning them for their associations, which violates Wikipedia policy, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Dreadlocke ☥ 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the lead section guideline, since I wrote it. The lead is meant to be an overview of the article synthesizing the key information. The fact that psychic phenomena are completely rejected within the scientific world (with the exception of parapsychology), is certainly a key fact. I did not dismiss or discredit your views; I merely pointed out the obvious source of bias in the history of this article, which is absolutely not in violation of any policy.--Eloquence* 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your contributions to the "lead section" guideline, as well as the contributions of the many other editors who contributed to it. I'm only asking you to quit commenting on the contributors here - which I believe to violate the spirit of Wikipedia policy on that regard. I don't think commenting on the contributor's beliefs is a valid point to make, I find it dismissive of my own views, and I don't think it adds any value to your argument. I don't see the purpose in continuing to make comments along those lines. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)