Talk:Psychic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] It's time for a rewrite

This article has progressed little in the past several months and most of the progress has been due to removing controversial relevant information that could have stayed if it was presented in a better way. This article is very short for such a subject and needs to be drastically improved. This article has Featured Article potential however the ONLY way to accomplish this is for all editors to work together to improve it. The most efficient way to treat this article is the way that Parapsychology was treated. If everyone agrees to work with me on improving this article then I can have it to F.A. status within a month. If no one wants to participate on a comprehensive group rewrite then I'm going to move onto other articles. Please add some input on this. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a rewrite on this article and some fleshing out of certain sections. I think it needs an entirely different approach than what is currently there, however (I'll elaborate later). I'm also concerned by the history of the article. Everytime a concerted effort is put into improving the article (consensus), a rogue editor comes in and makes massive changes soon after. It suffers from personal opinions of how the article should read rather than a collective opinion. So in rewriting the article, there should first be an agreement on the approach the article should take, and then there should be a group effort to support and maintain that approach. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd prefer a different method than used in Parapsychology. That was too cumbersome, and too many people felt ignored. I propose working on one section at a time on the talk page, or in a sandbox + the sandbox's talk page. Then inserting one section at a time with consensus. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles can't be worked on "one section at a time" as articles must flow as one piece of work. Parapsychology is an FA. This article will never reach that status nor will any other paranormal related article with the conventional method of doing things. It simply won't work. I won't spend time doing it any other way because with articles such as this it would be futile. Now I've mentioned this before, During the rewrite process things get hectic and if I overlooked a proposal simply reposting it at the bottom would be more than enough. Or even leaving a note on my talk page to remind me to implement it. Though as I've said before, If you want to try it your way then I could wait a month or so and come back and still see this article below the level of GA, such as I did with the EVP article, but my sitting back and waiting for you to realize that the conventional methods of editing these sorts of articles don't work means that the article takes longer and longer to improve. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

Ok, let's do it your way Wikidudeman. Here is the article in a sandbox. If there is consensus to do a re-write, I think Nealparr is right that the first thing we need to do is agree on a general approach. I sandboxed the consensus version, so we can also discuss Perfectblue's recent edits. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" version if there is a neutrality tag placed anywhere in the article. A neutrality tag equals a dispute and a dispute means no consensus. My way is to overhaul the entire article and rewrite it over the next week or so in which point I'll invite anyone wanting to help to the specific subpage on my userpage where we can discuss changes until there is indeed a consensus. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is more or less the approach I'm taking. The only difference is that I'd prefer if our discussion took place here where it will be more open and obvious. Also, I'll take blocks of text which other editors have produced, and which have achieved consensus, and integrate them into the article. There are ways to get a group-rewrite to work.

Let's see what other people think. If neither you nor I are considered neutral editors, and people feel this is a problem, then I suggest we put it in Nealparr's user space, if he is willing. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. We create a subpage on this article called "draft rewrite". I rewrite the entire page over the course of next week. Once I am done I'll invite everyone to come and contribute on the talk page and make proposed changes. To preserve the draft and prevent edit warring we must have someone make the proposed changes. It doesn't have to be me who makes them. However aside from that person making the proposed changes, No one else can edit the article ASIDE from making minor grammatical edits to improve spelling or grammar or format. Anything else must be done by the one person who implements the proposals once reached consensus. The person implementing the proposals could be myself or it could be Nearparr. Either is fine. A better idea is that we both could be "implementers" and if one person is away for a day or so then the other person can implement the proposals. The rules for implementers are the same as for normal editors, The implementer can not make changes to the article aside from minor grammar fixes other than implementing consensus proposals. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really opposed to any of these processes you guys are talking about, but before someone sandboxes it and starts writing, I'd like to work out a rough outline of the article first. I mean, we can take what's there now and start tinkering with it, but I'm thinking it needs a total complete rewrite, like from scratch. Not sure if anyone actually wants to take that on. The parapsychology article rewrite started off with decent content and was mostly integrating the other article and tinkering here and there. There wasn't massive deletions or rewordings. In this article, I feel, there is less good content to work with than bad. So we would need to come up with what we want to have in it before we start writing.
The first thing I'd like to see if people agree on is getting rid of most of the parapsychology stuff. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get "psi" out of the intro because it's an obscure term, and mysteriously it finds its way back in. If it's going to be a decent article, a great deal of the parapsychology stuff has to go. There's only a handful of people on the Earth who have ever heard the term "parapsychology", but everyone has heard of psychics. Less people have heard of "psi" than own Macs. This article needs to be more New Age than science, because that's how "psychic" is out there in the world. Is anyone even up for that?
Then the next question is whether or not -everyone- is on board. We just recently came up with an intro that everyone was pretty OK with, and perfectblue completely changed it without a single comment about the intro on the talk page. A complete rewrite isn't going to go very far if it's changed as soon as it's installed. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes. We need to get everyone on board. But first we must have an idea of what we plan to do. Would you support a Parapsychology like rewrite, but with more wording changed? A total overhaul? Wikidudeman (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a sandboxed, controlled draft. But I'm saying that it needs a total overhaul. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Ask around to see if other major contributors agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So basically, we need someone who is willing to do a lot of research and writing, and is neutral to the subject. I suggest Nealparr, because he is neutral, and has a vision. I thought the previous intro was good, and I would like to see the first paragraph of the parapsychology section kept- the article needs one long paragraph on parapsychology. The section there now would be fine, for a longer article. We have to include something on parapsychology, though not a lot. I agree to making it more pop-culture.
I would like to avoid discussion of the reality or not of the subject. But if that cannot be done, then there is no way to avoid major coverage of parapsychology, because that is the other side of the debate. In other words, the skeptics bash it in the name of science, and so you have to have parapsychology there as the science which deals with the subject. This seems like a major problem. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, why don't you share your vision here? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm neutral when it comes to wikipedia articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly getting much better at it (: ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forget the rewrite. Just help me improve the article.

Let's forget the rewrite for this article. Let's just improve it. I'll start by offering suggestions. Please say "support" or "oppose" and briefly explain your reasoning. Here are some suggestions:

[edit] Remove the "Famous psychics" area

I have been looking for decent UK psychics and not really finding anything useful. I was impressed with www.americanassociationofpsychics.com as it is the only invitation only psychic directory on the internet that actually hand picks its members. I'll be honest with you I had some input to the site a few years ago when I was in the USA, however I still think it is the best psychic resource site I have seen. It may be a useful external link to consider. Please note I am back in the UK and have no involvement with this organization therefore this is purely my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbarrie (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This list is really not required and could be incorporated into the article body fairly easily. It needs to be erased. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace with the really notable psychics in history, like Nostradamus. I'll take care of this part. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer it just be removed. Integrated into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Truly notable. Then we erase not-truly-notable. Otherwise the section will just re-appear. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the infobox

Way too big and doesn't add to the article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand Popular culture and Fiction

This section needs expanding. It only mentions two examples while there are no doubt dozens. Someone needs to expand it. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I wouldn't want to see it degrade into a list. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change "skepticism" to "organized skepticism

Because lots of people are skeptical of psychics and psychic phenomena. These are the organized guys. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That's too specific. While most of the skepticism mentioned is sourced from organizations, the vast majority of actual skeptics belong to no such organizations. "Skepticism" is much better IMO. The fact that the sources come from organizations doesn't mean that the only skepticism is "organized" whatever that really means. I'm skeptical of psychics and I belong to no organization. Most people who are skeptical of psychics or psychic abilities belong to no organizations and use the same arguments that the JREF or CSICOP use. "Skepticism" is more general and more encompassing. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Six of one, half a dozen of another. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place "psychical research" and "skepticism" into "Research"

The reason for this is because they're not separate topics. Both "psychical research" and "skeptical research" are research into the possibility of psychic abilities. They contrast with the rest of the article which talks about psychics in pop culture, history, fiction, etc. As I mentioned before, that's the approach I feel that the article should take because that's where "psychics" are in the mainstream pop culture. All the lab stuff, science stuff, skepticism, debunking, etc. is research, not pop culture. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this to be an article about psychics in pop culture and reduce the pro- con- arguments that show up in some of the other articles. As I've talked about before, most people are already familiar with and have made up their minds on whether psychics are real or not. Let's put that to the side and throw in some informative behind the story stuff. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article needs to elaborate on all of the relevancies of the term "psychic". I see "Skepticism" and "Psychical research" as quite different. Firstly, Not all skepticism includes actual research into the purported claims. Skepticism based on Occams Razor etc generally use no research. I see them as quite different. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah. The debunking ain't almost never research. Agree with Nealparr that we should reduce to minimum. Agree with WDM that they are seperate. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see them integrated, even if under a different header. "Evaluating psychic phenomena" would work based on your distinctions. What I wouldn't like to see is the whole article suffer because of pro- and con- debates. Plus, I think the beliefs and skepticism statements should be integrated here where appropriate (unlike in the parapsychology article). An example of where it works is the sections I put together for Nostradamus and Delphi. They belong together in this article because the topic of this article isn't a science debate. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
See how it is now and tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not liking the one word header. "Validity of psychic claims" would be better. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft it

I have a pretty comprehensive article in mind that will cover the "psychic" topic pretty well I think. But when I was editing earlier I only got about an 1/8th way through what I had in mind before things were switched around, changed, and reworded. I'm starting to think the drafting idea is the better way to go than a "free for all" improvement. Too many cooks in the kitchen at one time and what I have in mind might not be what you had in mind and vice versa. I might like yours better and you might like mine. This isn't a rant. I'm only saying that I'm going to wait until everyone's pretty much done with what they're doing, sandbox it, do what I wanted to do, then we can talk about my edits as a whole instead of in part. Let me know when everyone's done : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Drafts take too long. Just tell me what you have in mind and then we can start from there. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and sandbox it. People can edit away, then we can see what you do, and agree to put it in. The current lead at least is dreadful- I have no idea who put Randi in the lead, for pete's sake. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:21, 19 September 2007(UTC)
The mention of skepticism in the lead needs to be more. The article has two paragraphs about skepticism and only 1 sentence about it in the lead? This won't work. The lead must summarize the entire article including the skepticism section. Randi has a place in the article skepticism section therefore there is no reason why we shouldn't mention him in the lead. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added more info to the lead so that the Skepticism section is more proportionate to the skepticism content in the article. It's no longer half of the lead as it was before. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. I did a small re-arrangement, and removed some WTA kind of stuff. Looks fine now. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would hold off on worrying about the lead until the article itself is done. There's still a lot more to do. As for whether Randi should be in the lead? I don't think that's a good idea. The lead should be an abstract of the content. It shouldn't be a regurgitation of every specific fact in the article. Besides, why Randi? Why not CSI, etc? I'm not picking on Randi, all the other specific stuff in the lead should go when we're all done. That's what the article itself is for. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, As the article currently stands, The lead reflects it very well IMO. An entire paragraph is dedicated to Randi in the article and 2 sentences in the lead. This is very proportionate. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, What else did you have in mind for the article? Please elaborate here. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing that will be done in a day or anything. I'll be beefing up the history section, definitely (just ran out of time yesterday) and some other pop culture stuff. We're only at 18k, so it's all good. The parapsychology section was just a placeholder and needs to be rewritten. Bunch of stuff. I'll try to be quick, though, since it seems you're in a hurry for some reason. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All done with "Early seers and prophets". I think it's written well, so be gentle and hopefully we can discuss changes here before they're put in. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add a "Critical resources" category

Anybody get a tremendous amount of heartburn if I add an "External links" section with a "Critical resources" subsection and the following link?:

Thanks for your input --Sdiekmann 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We're currently working on rewriting the article and I'm sure at some point soon we'll get to the EL section. That's a tricky section because potentially it could be filled with any number of spam links to psychic hotlines, etc. To match WP:EL, I would personally like to see two or three links only, directly about the topic, and only from authoritative sources. Either that or no links at all. I'm a bit wary of scripture pages because, of course, there's hundreds of religious perspectives and linking to one justifies linking to any number of them. I think I'd be more willing to include a link to scriptures if the page was an authoritative source expressing the consensus of the entire Christian community. I'm not even sure if there is such a thing. That link, for example, is Lutheran and represents only one version of the Bible out of several. See the dilema? --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can find 3 or 4 good neutral links then we can do it that way. Otherwise we need probably 2 pro and 2 criticism links both in the same section. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. The article is on a Lutheran website, although it's essentially just a list of Bible verses, without much "commentary" except at the beginning, and there's no such thing as a "Lutheran" Bible. Look those Bible verses up in any translation and they will read essentially the same. There isn't a place where you can go that lists what the concensus is on any Christian "topic." I would think the majority of the Christian community would agree with what the article says. The Bible verses aren't taken out of context, and are from both the Old and New Testaments. It's goofy not to have any "con" point of view. That's what the "critical resources" section is for! Since I'm a Christian, I'll add this too: It's never a bad idea to get God's opinion also! At any rate I'll defer to your judgement after you've read my response and add what you want to add. Thanks --Sdiekmann 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We can surely mention the bible's stance on psychics in the article itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How about that Sdiekmann? Incorporating it into the article with that link being a source for the biblical view? It'd make a great addition to the "Belief in psychic abilities" section. I'd be happy to write it and would rather avoid too many ELs (personally I'm in favor of no ELs). --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Although if it's about the Bible then it would probably fit best in the History section. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But the beliefs are current, which places it in the beliefs section ; ) It's not really historical. It's about the view that Christians should not consult false prophets or engage in occult practices. That's a current view. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Then it would probably be best citing some person elaborating on those views opposed to citing directly from bible verses. Though I think that most people who call themselves "christians" don't oppose so called fortune tellers. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'll try to find some statistics on the beliefs published by a reliable theological source, but certainly not all Christians are opposed since some psychics refer to themselves as Christian. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A lot do actually. Though then we get into the semantic argument of "what is a Christian?". Can one be a Christian if one claims to be a psychic or consults people who claim to be psychics? Must one obey all of the bible to be a Christian or just some of it or perhaps none of it? In my experience most people who refer to themselves as "Christians" really don't know much about the bible to begin with and the ones who refer to them selfs as psychics or consults purported psychics likely don't even know that the bible forbids such things. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course none of this really has much to do with the article, since we're just presenting information according to weight, but it is my opinion that it's all subjective interpretation. The Bible doesn't forbid such things, it just forbids "false prophets". It doesn't forbid communicating with spirits or psychic advice. Moses, Jesus, Daniel and a host of others were all believed to have psychic abilities and communicated with spirits. Mary talked to an angel before giving birth. But they were believed to get their information from God. False psychic information was considered to be anything that doesn't come from God. Since that's totally a matter of opinion on what info comes from God and what doesn't, you have a lot of Christians out there who consider these things to be "gifts" from God. The entire book of Revelations came from a psychic vision. It ends up being a matter of opinion on whether that was from God and Edgar Cayce's stuff wasn't. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it says: "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:31. Seems like it's saying not to seek advice from mediums or spiritualists regardless of their powers or lack thereof. Isaiah 8:19-20 says even: "Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" in regards to spiritualists, basically it's assuming they do actually work. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I learned a long time ago not to get into deep religious conversations on the web : ) But I will say that every one of those things they say not to do, the "good guys" did too. Jesus didn't just talk to the dead, he raised the dead. But this is exactly why that link is biased and why I said it's just one version of the Bible. That wording comes from the New International Version. The King James Version reads "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." Exact same passage, totally different wordings. Nothing about "mediums" and "spiritists", which are modern terms. This begs the question, which came first? The belief themselves or the scriptures to match the belief? Clearly someone didn't like Spiritualism when they wrote the New International Version. : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the Hebrew words used for "those who have familiar spirits" is literally "necromancer" or "one who speaks to the dead" and the translation for the "wizard" is yidd@`oniy meaning a "soothsayer". So it's pretty much conveying the same meaning. --Wikidudeman (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And it is a common belief, so it belongs in the article. I'm just saying, off-topic, there's a lot that's interpretive there. Of course I have a tendency towards deconstruction, which means basically that I think everything is contexts within contexts within contexts, endlessly. I translate "conveying the same meaning" to "whatever meaning there was, it was lost long ago". --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Anomalous cognition

This article needs to be merged with Anomalous cognition. The Anomalous cognition article is very short and means essentially the same thing. Input? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with extra-sensory perception instead. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But what's the difference between "Psychic" and "ESP" anyway? Wikidudeman (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably the same difference as water and H20. The distinction as far as the articles go is that one really long article incorporating them both would be too long to read and would have trouble meeting Wikipedia's length parameters and guidelines for splitting articles. One's pop culture and the other's parapsychological. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the ESP article is unsourced anyway. I don't think it would be impossible to merge the two. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge Anomalous cognition. Keep ESP, definitely, per Nealparr. We need an article which expands on that theme.
However, I suggest merging Anomalous cognition into ESP. That is where it really belongs. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
'Anomalous cognition' is specific term coined by specific researchers for a specific purpose (anomalous perturbation and anomalous operation are also examples). The field of parapsychology is slowly embracing these terms because like the term 'psi' they are not loaded with the sorts of cultural connotations associated with terms like ESP or psychokinesis. Calling these phenomena 'anomalous' recognizes that they might not be paranormal. I do not recommend a merger. These articles can be expanded in the future, and their specific meanings elucidated. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 14:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is semantics. "Anomalous cognition" is just a fancy way of saying "Psychic" or "ESP". They all mean the same thing and should exist in the same article, At least "Anomalous cognition" and ESP that is. Any attempt at expanding the anomalous operation or Anomalous cognition would surely lead into redundant info between the articles and their alternative names. This is a textbook case for merging them. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No it's not just semantics, though someone unfamiliar with the literature on the subject could easily make that assumption. Anomalous cognition is a much broader term than 'Psychic' or 'ESP'. If any merging was to be done, I would have to recommend merging ESP into the anomalous cognition article...not the other way around. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What makes "Anomalous cognition" different from ESP? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
'Anomalous cognition' describes behaviors related to memory, attention, perception, action, problem solving and/or mental imagery that deviate from what is expected. 'Extra Sensory Perception' suggests that there is an additional sensory channel that scientists have not discovered yet. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the article says "Anomalous cognition is a blanket term used to describe the transfer of information to a subject through means other than the 5 traditional senses.". Which seems to be Synonymous with ESP. Perhaps you need to change the Anomalous cognition article to better suit that. Also, If Anomalous cognition is simply behavior related to the mind that deviates from what is expected, then perhaps it should be merged with Mental disorder instead. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Those articles certainly need a lot of work, but I've had to prioritize how I spend my time here at Wikipedia. Lots of articles here on parapsychological topics are either poorly worded or just plain wrong.
Mental disorders are behaviors that deviate from the norm and are also disabling or distressing to the experient. The DSM-IV now recognizes that there is a category spiritual/paranormal experiences, which is not indicative of mental illness. The Varieties of Anomalous Experience, a book published by the American Psychological Association is an excellent resource on the topic if you are interested in these distinctions. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the so called "anomalous cognition" which has no detrimental effect on the individual with said condition would probably be a type of Abnormal psychology or something to that effect. However as it stands the Anomalous cognition article implies that it's the same thing as ESP. If you can improve it dramatically then a merger isn't in order, however if the content of that article is totally separate from what it actually is them I would probably say it needs to be totally deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Abnormal psychology is an excellent topic to bring up here because there is much overlap between that field and parapsychology. I've added your requested to the to do list at WP:PSI. Let's give it a couple of weeks and see what develops. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging isn't a permanent thing. Also, it can be re-directed right to the section of the article we want. If in the future there is someone who wants to really write the article, all you have to do is undo the redirect and eliminate the section in ESP. It's called forking. We could also leave the stub article. But nothing here is permanent or really worth spending a lot of time arguing over. This isn't a decision which need stand in the future. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

--Dseer 04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)== Anything else need to be done? ==

I wanted to know if anyone had any drastic plans for improving it further. Please let me know if there are any such plans so that I can assist in them. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually. I will be expanding Modern psychics, Belief in psychic abilities, Psychic advice industry, and rewriting Psychic research. Hopefully a collaborative effort will go into rewriting the intro.
Where I could use some help is if anyone has any reliable sources that show statistics of belief in psychic phenomena, especially stats from a religious survey, post 'em please. I'm also looking for good reliable statistics on how much the psychic phone line industry brings in each year, or any other reliable stats related to the psychic advice industry (books published, sold, etc.) There was an article in Skeptical Inquirer that had this info but I can't find it. Any notable FTC smackdowns would help too, like sources for the Miss Cleo fiasco.
I want to cover it all in short, concise blurbs. I just need good reliable sources.--Nealparr (talk to me) 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest, I don't really have the time to finish up what I think needs to be in there : ) If I were just writing an unsourced document it'd be different. It'd only take an hour. But writing based on sources is a time consuming process and I know you guys want to hurry it along, so go ahead and put what you want in it. All I have at my disposal is one set of encyclopedias (sure it's a huge set, but there should be a variation on sources). The above sections are what I think need to be beefed up. On the modern psychics I got to the point where I mentioned the New Age surge (1970s and 1980s, dying out in the mid-1990s). I was going to add to that Edgar Cayce and Jeanne Dixon and briefly mention Sylvia Browne and others, expanding on the most recent psychics later in the pop culture section. What I've been doing is basing the structure off the sources I do have, and then finding alternate sources so it doesn't all come from the same place. Since I don't really have the time to source-write, I'm going to defer to you guys. Good luck. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no hurry. Take a while off, come back to it. When you're done, we can put it up for a good article. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to nominate it for GA status which might invoke some folks to improve the wording, grammar, formatting etc. I wanted to wait until you were done doing what you planned to do to it however as it currently stands it seems fairly well written and might meet GA criteria. After it goes to GA then we can start adding all of the additional information so that we can reach FA. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's...
"Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job."
If you think it's GA, go for it. I personally think it has some gaps, but maybe it's good enough to start. I wouldn't want the process to hinder rewrites and major modifications though. Like I wouldn't want someone to use GA as an objection for rewriting sections and moving things around. As long as that doesn't happen, cool. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a while until we have it all worked out. You say that it's easy to write the info up but not hunt for sources for it? Type the information here and I will find the relevant sources if they exist. Then we can add it. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any practicing psychics have contributed to the article, only commentators, so I don't see why this would be a GA. Let me point out a few misconceptions from the perspective of practicing psychics: These days, a large number of psychics have been either trained by psychics (courses are readily available) or self-trained, or both, and most of those involved believe that this shows that these basic abilities are natural to everyone, but often suppressed by social conditioning. Reputable psychics work with impressions that they interpret and refine in consultation with the client and do not claim absolute reliability. This is not "cold reading", in fact many psychics close their eyes to further facilitates the mental impressions that bona fide psychics work with which arise from client responses. Many psychics attribute the inherent problems with Randi's challenge to the fact that he creates the structure and the atmosphere based on his own beliefs about the abilities, not how they actually operate, which skews the results, as well as unconsciously using his own equivalent abilities to skew the results. Similarly to the so-called refutation by the child skeptic. Neither the carnival atmosphere that works well for stage magic which the old flamboyant and mostly discredited mediums used, or the prove it with repeatable tests, scientific approach advocated by skeptics, are conducive to the practice which as stated is primarily based on interpreting impressions in the mind that serve some need other than those objectives. The basic principle most commonly used in these arts is simple, to let the story unfold in the mind without censorship or expectations, which you can improve with practice. A simple example to show how those interested can do psychic readings using the highly popular Bostwick method which tens of thousands have applied to become psychics (see this: [1]) is to imagine a rose flower in your mind, and then watch how the flower image changes as you think about it symbolizing different people you may not know that well (most people seem to be able to validate that and see some significance with the image shifts with a little practice and many thousands each year use similar means to discover that they too are psychics, whatever that means). The so-called psychic industry may be full of scams, but they do not reflect all psychics, and what are considered more reputable psychics know their limitations, and don't want dependency and so encourage others, including clients, to learn as well, which also improves the value of the results from the sessions. The article is imbalanced because what commentators speculate is not the same as the psychic perspective. --Dseer 04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need people who claim to be psychics contributing to it in order to be a GA, all it needs is to meet the GA criteria, which can be done if written by anyone. The article cites claims from people who claim to be psychic and cites facts from reliable sources concerning people who claim to be psychic. Having self-described psychics edit it isn't required for GA status. Most of the other stuff you've said seems to be original research and I won't argue about the existence of psychic ability or the legitimacy of Randi's challenge here. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is for the record you've created a strawman article on the subject in your selection of these pychic sources and have excluded relevant material that can be sourced, which is predictable without any psychic abilities, given your views. Of course you don't care for anyone who claims to have experience with the methods psychics use editing here because they might know of and cite material from published sources you do not approve of and which contradicts your position about those methods, and so why would anyone bother. However, there is no "original research", I have accurately paraphrased what is in published books written by psychics that could be sourced. You have also excluded any sources critical of Randi's challenge or its validity, presenting only the view about it that you favor. Nobody is going to waste any time here trying to source this given how you manage this article, so carry on. Fortunately, anyone with a more open mind really interested might not be fooled even if you engineer a GA despite blatant information suppression and POV in the article. It just that in case someone reviews this talk page in the process, this engineering should be exposed for what it is, the creation of a strawman "psychic". --Dseer 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the fact is, attributable sources on modern psychic methodology and general ability to learn methods do exist and could include besides the reference above sources like [2], [3], [4], etc. (there are many such sources). A summary description of the modern methods being widely taught today to those desiring to learn to be psychic are relevant because the article is about the term psychic, not just skeptics and their selective explanations and strawman potrayals of what is going on. Also, regarding Randi's challenge, is it not considered as fair or genuine by psychics on many grounds, for example,[5], [6] and [7], which includes the rationales I mentioned. It is not necessary for NPOV to dwell on these objections since the subject isn't mainstream science, but merely reference that they exist since Randi's offer is there in the article. It makes no sense to me to merge this with anomalous cognition since psychic practice includes not just passive cognition, but active practices based on psychic cognition. --Dseer 03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Further note: I had not paid attention before to the edit warring and dispute resolution going on between skeptics and non-skeptics regarding psychisms and paranormal articles. After reviewing the history over the last couple days, I see that Wikidudeman has made serious attempts to collaborate over time despite having a skeptical position. While the defects I mentioned are legitimate and sourced, it's understandable why Wikidudeman would in good faith not recognize these issues, particularly the way this article presents psychics from the POV of commentatators and erroneously extrapolates a strawman from the most famous ones. I have no objection to the article clearly stating that psychic abilities are not accepted by the vast majority of mainstream science and that skeptics believe they can reproduce what psychics do in non-paranormal ways. The key points I would like to see mentioned more clearly are that: (1) As the link in that section of the article actually illustrates, the majority of today's ordinary, sincere psychics see these abilities as something everyone (including skeptics) is born with to some extent and has experienced, but most born in modern civilized countries discount and rationalize away into the subconscious due to social conditioning, and for that reason further development later in life is still possible; (2) As the many "how to" references describe, developing pyschic abilities is primarily learning to pay attention to and interpret mental and sensory impressions that arise and improving through practice, but with significant distinctions between that practice and beyond cold readings techniques which skeptics assert explains it all.--Dseer 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a "beliefs" section [8] where the reliably sourced information about the notable beliefs of psychics can be documented. The wording cannot be such that it appears that Wikipedia shares these beliefs, however that information can be presented in the article. What you're looking at currently is an unfinished article. It's likely that information about the beliefs of psychics will make it in there eventually. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro is not encyclopedia-style

Wikipedia article introductions do not begin with American-dictionary-style pronunciation guides and etymologies. Nor do they begin with definitions ("The term Psychic is commonly used ...") Here's a draft of something that might be more in keeping with the encyclopedia style:

A psychic is a person who claims to have unusual powers of perception or influence, such as extrasensory perception (ESP) or psychokinesis. The belief in psychic abilities has a long history, going back to ancient oracles and prophets who were said to foretell the future. Modern interest in psychic abilities dates to the Spiritualism movement of the mid-nineteenth century. Today, the existence of psychic abilities is disputed. Parapsychologists claim to study ESP and other abilities, while skeptics and debunkers regard psychic claims as fraudulent or deluded. Psychic abilities are a frequent theme in popular fiction, with many fantasy and science fiction stories and television shows based on the notion.

Any comments? --FOo 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on adding more to the article in an effort to get it to good article status, along with Wikidudeman and others. I've been slacking a bit but plan to come back to it soon. So the intro will probably change over time. Your intro is as good as any in the meantime, but are so many "claims" really necessary? --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a good start. The intro seems reasonably balanced (though the word claim is used too often) but the term psychic can refer both the asserted abilities themselves or to those who assert they have one or more of them, which should be spelled out in the first sentence. The intro doesn't reflect the significant fact that belief in such abilities is found pre-historically, and in indigious cultures all over the world, as an integral part of shamanistic beliefs and practices predating more modern, motheistic religions, not just Grecian oracles and ancient religious prophets. Not only is the existence of such abilities accepted by even in modern times by major religions from the East such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, but historically such abilities are acknowledged in the religious literature of monotheistic Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by most of the great western thinkers prior to the last few centuries, which technically makes the viewpoint of many modern rationalists and skeptics still a minority POV worldwide. And, while modern public interest in psychic abilities in the West does primarily date to the rise of the Spiritualism movement of the mid-nineteenth century which later gained the support of many notable advocates, it should be noted that inspiration can also be found in the Theosophical Society and Alice Bailey, among other sources. Instead of saying parapsychologists "claim" to study psychic abilities, a more NPOV statement would be that parasychologists attempt to study and validate psychic abilities using what they consider scientifically based methods, but have not proven their existence. And, one could say that Skeptics and debunkers regard psychic claims as fraudulent and deluded, and offer alternative, non-paranormal explanations for claimed psychic abilities, but have not yet disproven the existence of such abilities. --Dseer 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts in response:
How do we distinguish psychic abilities from divine abilities? Clearly some spiritualists regard them as the same, but it's my understanding that most parapsychologists consider ESP to be a materially testable product of the human brain. Attempts have been made to detect psychic powers in terms of electromagnetic fields, for instance, whereas most religious believers would not consider the divine to be a physical phenomenon susceptible to such scanning.
If we construe "psychic" broadly to include (e.g.) all claims of precognition including (e.g.) the Oracle at Delphi and the Hebrew prophets, then we have a real difficulty. The people of those times did not have the notion of "psychic abilities", which is a far more recent coining. Attributing it to them backwards in time risks anachronism.
This also pertains to the relevance of religious figures and (especially!) prehistoric religion. The distinction between construing abilities as "psychic" vs. construing them as "divine" appears to be that the psychic can be studied, tested, mapped out, and proven. Even the theosophists (and their descendants in the Golden Dawn and Thelema movements) attempted to regularize and formalize the nature of spiritual abilities. In contrast, traditional religious adherents claiming unusual powers (miracles, acts of God) do not attempt to systematize them. We especially cannot attribute any such belief to prehistoric figures, since (by definition) we do not have written records of their intent or beliefs.
Regarding proof and disproof and debunkers, it is probably not best to enter into this too much in this article. The usual consideration (stemming from Occam's Razor and the tradition of analytic philosophy) is that the party who proposes the existence of an entity or ability has the responsibility to prove it. "You can't prove a negative" is the usual (over)simplification.
The usual approach of debunkers is probably better characterized as threefold: (1) to demonstrate that claimed abilities can be replicated with stage magic techniques (as done by Harry Houdini and more recently James Randi and Penn & Teller); (2) to challenge specific claimants to replicable, controlled tests of their abilities; and (3) to publicly advocate skepticism, doubt, and distrust of claims they see as unproven. --FOo 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The above includes certain presumptions that are one POV but can legitimately be disputed. Many practicing shamans, metaphysicians and psychics do not presume the distinction between "psychic" and "divine" you are concerned about is valid. Nor is there such a consensus that "psychic" can be "studied, tested, mapped out, and proven." A parapsychologist may presume such a distinction for their own purposes because they want to either prove or disprove such abilities based on hypothesis using scientific methodology. A hypothesis that such abilities can be detected like an electromagnetic fields would, for example, need to be tested with some sort of Faraday Cage if true, but I don't see any such agreement that is the case among those who claim the abilities. Some religions may presume such a distinction between what comes directly from God and what comes from some other influence to establish their "truth", for example, the distinction between accounts of prophets and pagan seers like the Witch of Endor or Oracles or Celtic shamans. But as long ago as Plato in the West (not to mention Eastern traditions or shamanic traditions going back millenia, for example, the vision of Crazy Horse of a higher reality), a Theory_of_Forms has asserted that there is an underlying and more primary reality that affects the physical but is not physical. It is a suspect presumption to conclude that a consensus of psychics believe that what they claim to do is subject to proof using the kind of scientific tests, more likely that is not the case. The theory that Shamanism has a commonality around the world and has pre-historic roots that include most modern religions and for which general psychic abilities are an integral part of this belief has signficant support and is not the absurdity claimed merely because the term psychic is a modern invention. As for the assertions of Theosophists and Occultists (they are different) that such abilities can be cultivated and that there are distinctions between higher and lower "siddhis", using the ancient Indian term, that is based on the belief that there are multiple levels of existence and not just heaven and earth. Occam's Razor has value but the issue must be properly framed. In simplest terms, if the assertion is that everyone is psychic and not just a few people with special abilities and that a more primary reality is influencing this one, the implications of that being true are that isolating outside influences for controlled experiments is very difficult. The amplification of the debunking position into those three elements is fine, however, it should say that debunkers claim to be able to reproduce everything using stage effects, not that that is proven. Houdini did not conclude that stage magic explained everything, only that he hadn't found a case where it couldn't yet. Again, the defect is that allowing adversaries to frame their oppositions position is not something Wikipedia should condone.--Dseer 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I changed the Randi Challenged slightly to de-POV it. For the record, I am neither an adherent nor a skeptic. I think that the majority of psychics and Randi probably deserve each other in a marriage made in some Swedenborgian heaven (or hell). I just think its more fair to point out that Randi does seem to have his own thing going on here and its not all one way! --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)