Talk:Psychokinesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
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.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Talk Page Archive

Archive 5 has been created with a link at right. Archive 6, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 6" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. 5Q5 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo ideas for the article (cont'd from Archive 5)

It'd be nice if someone could track down a Public Domain or Creative Commons version of this image, the cascading balls at Princeton. What they'd do is drop the balls into these 19 collecting bins, and ask participants to try and PK the balls away from the center (normally the balls form a bell shape with more in the center than on the outsides). They'd then measure for a statistically significant deviation of the balls from the baseline (bell shape). I've wanted that image for the parapsychology article for some time but can't find one. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like a perfectly appropriate image. I take it most people would be opposed to merely recreating the subject of the photo artificially, otherwise we could do that. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I myself would not be opposed to creating it artificially - this article could use some images, and it doesn't look like we're going to find many that are available for our use. Perhaps a bell curve showing statistical probabilities as used in the online PK "tests" might be used also? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo for the intro should in some way reflect PK in action or as a result. Photos for other sections can correspond similarly. The PEAR lab photo with the cascading balls is probably owned by Robert G. Jahn or Brenda J. Dunne, whoever operated the camera that day. Good luck trying to get them to donate, though who knows, one of them might, now that the lab is closed and the glory days are over. One other option is ask for a PK claimant on one of these psi forums if anyone has a photo or video still of one of their claims. You might get a large choice to choose from, but they have to be willing to make the claim in the Wiki photo page description and the image has to look good. Yet another option is that photos over 100 years old are in the public domain, right? Maybe there's some pre-1907/8 seance photo out there that has a PK effect in it. The seance aspect of PK is mentioned in the article in early history. Maybe there's an ancient painting or drawing. Early history is a fitting place for an image like these. 5Q5 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Any old, free comic book images we could use? Something instantly recognizable? Antelan talk 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain images found. Let's begin a discussion and choose the best one (or two?) for the PK article and I will upload it/them to Wikipedia. Suggest where they should be placed in the article. Not sure if all can be uploaded without designating an article at the same time, so if anyone wants them for other articles, go ahead and upload them and let us know here. As I post this, I could not find any of these already on Wikipedia. 5Q5 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886) levitating himself at a seance.
  2. A child levitating due to the influence of witchcraft. Published in Saducismus Triumphatus, London, 1861 by Joseph Glanvill.
  3. Withdrawn - Unable to verify. "A poltergeist phenomenon witnessed by Father Tinel in 1850 in Cideville, France." This image looks like it might have been on Wikipedia at one time, but I cannot find it. View here Update: I am unable to find the needed information to authenticate and qualify this image for uploading. The only place I can find the image in print is in the Time-Life encyclopedia Mind Over Matter, 1988, pg 37, where the caption accompanying it reads: "Tables, chairs, and even a dog and cat sail above the heads of an astonished Father Tinel and his housekeeper at the parsonage in Cideville, France, in 1850." The source for the image in that book is "Jean-Loup Charmet" which is a photo library now included in the Bridgeman Art Library in the UK. However, they no longer have the image in their database, at least not under "Father Tinel" or "poltergeist." Furthermore, I am unable to establish that a Father Tinel ever witnessed poltergeist activity or that the image even depicts Tinel. Without a publication and date to cite, this image cannot be uploaded at this time.
  4. H. Mairet, Séance with Eusapia Palladino at the home of Camille Flammarion, France, 25 November 1898. / Eusapia Palladino levitates a table at a seance on November 25, 1898. This particular psychic was endorsed as genuine by magician Howard Thurston. She was also known to resort to trickery when her talents failed (sound familar?).
  5. "A Mandolin Levitating During a Seance with Eusapia Palladino 13th March 1903." I guess the mandolin is the striped baloon-looking object. This one is interesting because it appears to have originated on an old photo card with a German spelling of "telekinesis" in the caption. Back then telekinesis was a term used to refer to a power channeled through the medium. Later that was changed to mind power as the source.
  6. French spirit photography hoaxer Édouard Isidore Buguet (1840-1901) demonstrates telekinesis in this 1875 photo titled Fluidic Effect.
  7. A 14-year-old domestic servant, Therese Selles, experiences poltergeist / spontaneous PK activity in the home of her employer, the Todeschini family at Cheragas, Algeria, as featured on the cover of the French magazine La Vie Mysterieuse in 1911.
  8. The medium Eva Carrière with a light manifestation between her hands and a materialization on her head. Carrière also performed under the names Eva C. and Marthe Béraud. Photograph taken in 1912 by German photographer Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1862 – 1929).

What's with the HTML tags? Anyway, fine effort, 5Q5! Of these images I'd fairly strongly support image 5. It supports the more traditional and popular (according to popular culture) manefestation of PK/TK. 4 does as well, but the image is of a lower quality (I couldn't particularly tell that the table was levitating). Levitation is fine, but a bit more appropriate/specific to levitation. I'm not fond of using images of poltergiests because (and this is certainly arguable) the relationship between poltergiests and PK is less intuitive. Any of these images would be acceptable, I'd just prefer the image to be something intuitive to the casual enquirer to PK (at least for the first image). Not something that illicits, "Huh?? How is that related?...oooh yeah, I suppose so, how about that." It would be nice if we could have one image where the practicioner claims it to be true PK, and one image of a fictional representation of PK, but because most popular references in fiction are more recent, copyright issues generally prevent that...I'll keep thinking, and it's obviously worthwhile to continue the search for quality images (I'll see what I can do later). -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also like images 4/5. Antelan talk 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nix 5. Click on the "zoom" link on that photo's page for an enlarged version and you can see she's not even trying hard. She's partially hidden behind the curtain and the mandolin is also right up close to the curtain. If I had seen this more clearly, I wouldn't have even offered it as a candidate. These seance photos were taken in darkened rooms with flash powder. As the Church Lady saying goes, "how conveeenient." New photo: I found a really good candidate in number 6 by a 19th century French spirit photographer who made and sold faked telekinesis and ghost photos. You can see what's going on in the photo in seconds. It would fit right in the Early history section. In the caption I would indicate that it was fake. I even have an AP news story source that says he was arrested and spent a year in jail. Both the publishing date and date of his death are well over a hundred years old, so it's definitely PD. I'm still looking for more photos, and feel free to add your own candidates for any section to the above list, but right now 6 is my top choice for Early history. It should reduce in size nicely to the right of the section. I think the intro should be reserved for a modern era image. What do you think? 5Q5 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your arguments completely rule out image five. However, I think this new image is excellent, a clear photo and a classic example of TK. I also agree with your thoughts on the caption. I think it sorta knocks 4 and 5 out of the running. Once again, great find. -Verdatum (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it's a nice photo and would be good here. Antelan talk 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I used html to create the numbered list above because the Wiki markup number sign # only works for words, phrases, or short sentences. But the blockquote tags weren't really needed so I removed them. I'll work on uploading pic 6. It seems uploading a PD image is different. I have to create a new registration at Wiki Commons and upload it there. If I upload any of the other images, I'll note it as a link in the above list so that they can be used in other articles. Depends on how much qualifying info they need to upload. Can't see the upload form until I register. Hey, four hyphens creates a faint separation line, at least on this Mac Safari browser; will check my PC tomorrow. Didn't know that. 5Q5 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These are great!! We don't have to choose only one, do we? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded pic 6 and inserted it into the Early history section. I will upload the others as I have time. I have to gather more info on them for the form. Finally, Houston, we have photo. 5Q5 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ask the creator of the spoon bending photo if he was making a claim of PK for it, but he hasn't logged into Wikipedia since May 1, 2007, so that looks like a lost cause. 5Q5 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded Pic 1 and Pic 2 to Wikipedia Commons. Feel free to place them in any appropriate article. I am continuing to gather information on the others. 5Q5 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Pics 1, 2, 4-7 have been uploaded. Pic 3 has been withdrawn; unable to verify. I'm done for now (I have one more famous image pending). I don't intend to insert any more of these images into the PK article. See all available paranormal images at Category:Paranormal phenomena which is a subcategory of Category:Occult. 5Q5 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture 8 of the medium Eva Carrière uploaded. 5Q5 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert M. Schoch notable witnesses reference

For the record, here's the full source quote from Atlantis Rising magazine Jan/Feb 2008 issue for the ref on Robert M. Schoch in the Notable witnesses section, article written by Schoch: Although I was extremely skeptical at first, after spending years of studying the topic, based on literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and first-hand experiences, I do believe that at least some PK is real. ... Clearly to my mind, the PEAR studies (and similar studies in other laboratories) have demonstrated that micro-PK exists. ... I will admit that once I personally observed a minor poltergeist incident (a book "jumping" off a shelf when no one was close to it, and there was no shaking or other tampering with the shelf, and this occurred with a woman in the room who has had other poltergeist incidents occur in her presence). 5Q5 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phrase "On the other hand Macro PK..." needs improving

The opening words of this line in Measurement and observation: "On the other hand Macro-PK (also macro-TK) is a large-scale effect which can be seen with the unaided eye" seem inappropriate considering PK can involve the hands. Maybe just begin with "Macro PK..." or "At the opposite end of the range of effects is..."5Q5 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. I removed "On the other hand" from the sentence. 5Q5 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is in dispute, and yet since the inception of this archive there hasn't been any talk about it? Is someone who disputes its neutrality engaged with editors who actively work on this article? Are they contributing? I tend to dispute the neutrality of that neutrality tag... Eleven even (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree (again). I'm removing the neutrality banner. As I questioned previously (see talk page archive 5), the article has been flagged since May 2007 and it was changed from a neutrality check to fully disputed on 7 January 2008 by ScienceApologist, who never explained what the dispute was. The article has undergone a lot of improvement edits since May 2007. Unless the flagging editor is willing to identify the dispute on the talk page (and not just the history summary) so that it can be assessed and, if justifiable, resolved, then any other editor should be able to remove the designation promptly, as the dispute is just an empty label. 5Q5 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I second that. When a new archive is started, I will include a message to that effect ("Talk about your tag or have it removed"). Eleven even (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes good point. I think there are still neutrality issues, but honestly, I can't remember what they specifically are, and I don't think anyone else currently watching the article does either. If I remember, my main problem when I first read this article was the rebuttals of rebuttals, which should always be avoided as it essentially turns the article into a threaded discussion (there's a guideline or essay that explains this, but I can't remember which off the top of my head.). My other problem was an issue of undue weight given to one side which is discussed in WP:FRINGE. I haven't read the article close enough lately to recall the state of these issues, but I think a good deal of the infractions have been improved in the last couple months. If someone wants to claim NNPOV, they should raise specific grievences. -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second subsection

Modern usage? What the heck? Seriously? This section is rediculous. The report on teleportation is comical at best, and a horrible waste of money at worst, and you're using it to try and define terms? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generic comments like "This section is rediculous." are not helpful in conveying your thoughts and justifications on how the article should be edited. As far as I know, the source specified is appropriate according to WP:FRINGE. Unless you provide a supported argument, it tends to come off as it's "comical" only because you disagree or don't like it. So any details you could give would be much appreciated. Further, it is often helpful when trying to collaborate on an article with a goal of neutrality to discuss issues in a more neutral, and less judgemental tone. Thanks! :) -Verdatum (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, being nice to people helps. Your edits are good so far, though. Insulting the article in those kind of terms is almost the same as insulting the authors, who have obviously worked hard on it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carson Clip

In response to 5Q5's revert comments, I saw a clip of the carson footage a couple months ago. If I recall correctly, he was given the option to bend spoons wasn't he? He was presented an entire table of things to do, and he decided not to try because he wasn't feeling in the right mindframe (hideously paraphrasing)...Either way, I don't feel too strongly about it, as it's documented better in the main gellar article, which is where such details probably belong. -Verdatum (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Randi was given the entire Carson interview, yet, being a master of misdirection himself, chose to selectively edit it to exclude any metal bending and to emphasize the failure of hand dowsing. The clip lasts for just under two minutes when the appearance of the commercial break title card is not counted. I don't know if he tried to bend metal on the show or not. We have only Randi's version over the years and he definitely is a biased source. A lengthy interview clip of his brother-in-law/manager Shipi Shtrang is on Youtube, during which he speaks of the Carson appearance and he says he seems to remember that Geller did manage to bend something a little. If so, that could be why Randi chose the hand dowsing portion and the myth of the Carson show career failure began. I think all of us would like to see Geller's entire appearance on that Carson show episode. Of course Geller is employing magic today, but that doesn't mean he always did. He could have lost his ability and had to cheat to keep his career going. Much like several of today's famous baseball stars unfortunately. So, yes, Geller can be described as hoaxing today and in years past, but someone would have to discredit all the scientist, magician, and journalist witness statements from the very beginning to say he was always a cheat and failure. I'd want to see a source for each one disproven. That can't be done, as many of the witnesses are now dead, so part of Geller's story, the early years, will always be an open question. Of course, maybe time-traveling remote viewers could solve this... :) 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well that entirely depends on if time travel is predetermined or is able to have an effect on causality. As it could be the very act of traveling back in time that robs him of his powers. Furthermore, time travel is not allowed by Wikipedia editors, as it is a form of Original Research ;-) -Verdatum (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
not really. while time travel remains impossible, ther eis no actual regulation stiipulating that time travel as a resaerch technique is invalid. if in theory someone could go back ni time and collect a quote/source that fits WP:V, then they could intheory introduce it. of course time travel is not possible so this is moot, but i feel i must corerct your unfair alleation. Smith Jones (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I considered this exceptional case before replying, but dismissed it. I believe you are correct. If you can use time travel to retrieve a verifiable resource, that would be acceptable. But to use techniques such as interviewing now-dead witnesses would not. Unless you got the interviews published and recognised as a reliable source, in which case, you should probably leave it to another editor to include, so as to avoid a conflict of interest....Wouldn't it be great if this discussion blew up and we had to take it to Arbitrartion to rule on the acceptibility of resources obtained via time travel? -Verdatum (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
With parallel universes, all sides are covered. 5Q5 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All External Wiki links are nofollow

Brief note to registered and unregistered editors. External links added to this or any Wiki article or talk pages will not be crawled by search engines. See the Jan 2007 Search Engine Journal article All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW. 5Q5 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PKE

I'm somewhat surprised to say, I think the Ghostbuster's reference is actually appropriate for the pop culture section (maybe not in the position found, but somewhere). The concept of the PKEmeter is often referenced when describing/explaining various instruments used in attempt to measure various forms of supernatural activity. It also validates the concept that popular culture aknowledges the relationship between ghosts and psychokinetic activity. -Verdatum (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never came across a reference to Ghostbusters or the fictional PKE meter (Google search) in all the material I researched for the article. You'd have to come up with a high quality reference. The poltergeist article doesn't mention the films, even though it has a poltergeists in fiction section. Keep in mind the article will one day need space for a likely lengthy and heavily referenced Hypothesized modes of operation section. That's one of the reasons we're trying to keep the section brief. I once suggested someone begin a new article: Psychokinesis (fiction), but nobody wanted to get it started. 5Q5 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. There is currently some contention and resistence to "in fiction" and "in popular culture subarticles. I think it will eventually be better resolved, but at the moment, concensus is still up in the air. -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PK / TK - terminology difference - 2nd reference

I want to store this second reference here because from time to time someone challenges the split in the two words' meanings. The book cited also has photo illustrated instructions for many of the tricks used by magicians to simulate PK and TK; these tricks then referenced by skeptics as the basis for debunking the entire phenomenon: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Street Magic, author: Tom Ogden, 2007, New York, Alpha Books/Penguin Group. ISBN 978-1-59257-675-3. Page 238: "Although telekinesis (or TK) is sometimes used synonymously with psychokinesis, it more specifically means the ability to make objects move by mind power." 5Q5 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to PK in Popular culture section - religion/mythology

Just about every medium is covered in the examples given except religious writings/mythology. An unregistered editor removed the following line of mine from the section on January 18, 2008 and I'd like to know if there is a consensus to return it or let's tweak and finalize it here: "There are also written accounts of psychokinetic events in ancient religious writings, most notably the Bible, in which, for example, Jesus is described as miraculously walking on water, transmuting water into wine, healing the sick, and reversing physical disability or even death by mere touch or thought." 5Q5 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the content; though ideally there should be a reference that describes such feats as being psychokinesis to avoid WP:SYN. -Verdatum (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I remember seeing a discussion or two in my previous reference searches. When I have a chance, I 'll look again. The opening phrase of the line could be revised to "There are also written accounts of events fitting the description of psychokinesis in ancient religious writings, most notably the Bible,..." 5Q5 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I placed the new material in a Religion and mythology subsection because it doesn't seem to fit with a popular culture label. 5Q5 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a public domain image to the section: "The Resurrection of Lazarus" painting by Leon Bonnat. Of all the Bible-story images I researched, this is the best at depicting deity-level psychokinesis. Tweak the caption if it needs it. Note a peculiarity in Christ's arms: It is impossible for a normal human to extend the arms out straight like that in real life. Try it. 5Q5 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)