Talk:Medium

Should it be pointed out somewhere that the plural is "media"?

Daniel C. Boyer

I removed the first example because, IMHO, water is not a medium for salt, since a medium is not only a carrier, but (being in the middle, as in the latin sense) it is necessarily a carrier OF something TO something else, with both a starting and an ending point of the journey, and water brings salt TO nowhere specifically (salt moistures with water making a composite newer "thing", and it would get out of it only after a separation of the resulting composite). The example of art can be accepted if we commonly intend that (quite rethorically) - i.e. - "marble was the medium that let us appreciate today the art of Michelangelo". But, is this really worth being the first example?


 * The following sentence was found in the editing history, but it has been removed:
 * In religion, a medium is a person who acts as a 'mediator' between the living and the dead spirits.
 * I have seen that the term is widely used in english with this meaning too. Given that, in case, it refers to spiritism rather than to religion, why was it deleted by previous contributors instead of correcting it?
 * I'd add it again to the article, if someone agrees.
 * I have added it again. People may want to copyedit this but I think it has to be there (it is linked from automatism, for example.
 * Daniel C. Boyer

Finally, human brain isn't in any intermediate position: it receives or it (hopefully) produces, it is either the starting point or the final stop of information, unless we wish to discuss whether there is something else in us apart from head and heart (but this would be inappropriate here) or that a man's brain can be merely instrumental to us (to which part of us?) or to someone else, but this would perhaps be satire. --Gianfranco

Parapsychology meaning
The trouble with calling it phenomenon was that some here believe that this necessitates inserting criticism into the definition, so we might as well avoid that.

Also, if a medium is a medium, he/she does serve as a channell for spirits, so it isn't correct to say that a person is a medium when they say they are. It's a matter of definition, not truth.


 * "why was it deleted by previous contributors instead of correcting it?"

The reason is probably that many here on wikipedia do not want this kind of stuff spread around. It gets really emotional.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediumship is completely within the study of Parapsychology. There is nothing in the article that covers anything outside the scope of parapsychology like UFOs, cryptozoology or other non-psychical subjects. To imply that Mediumship is outside of the scope or Parapsychology falsely implies that there is real evidence of mediumship phenomena that can't be explained by parapsychology. Oicumayberight 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, to you, parapsychology is the explanation for mediumship? Well, I'll leave it.  No harm in it.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying parapsychology is the only science capable of explaining mediumship phenomena until there is a record of scientific evidence of a mediumship phenomena that can't be explained by parasychology, in which case it would be a natural phenomena for the realm of natural science. I don't think there is any such natural scientific evidence on record. Oicumayberight 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If parapsychology can explaim mediumship, then it is a natural explanation- it is science. Parapsychology doesn't do non-scientific explanations.  Most people would say parapsychology can't explain mediumship.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just making the contrast between natural science and social/behavioral science. When you talk about phenomena, it's sciences job to explain even when they don't get around to it or don't explain it adequately. As most of the design subjects I'm interested are not in the realm of natural science either, I understand what you mean about science not being able to explain adequately. So we have to work with whatever laws the social and behavioral sciences give us and hope they are adequate. The only way to improve it is to improve the science. Oicumayberight 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Yeah, parapsychology is like a social science. I think it is a mistake to go into parapsychology from psychology. Because it's really a physics problem which has psychological and consciousness correlates. Strange how successful human civilization is relative to how little we know, huh?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you define success. I took the red pill. Oicumayberight 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty funny username. You should do mediation (= .  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah yeah, OK. So did I.  Still, what I meant is, we know nothing, but we still survive, and we have technology and we can see billions of years back in time, and we can cure some disease even though we don't know much about the body or how to manipulate it etc.  I mean, life expectancy used to be between 17 and 30.  A little knowledge seems to go a long way.

I like that about the red pill. I'll use it (:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology vs Paranormal
To avoid an edit war, let's discuss why parapsychology may be a better umbrella for mediumship than paranormal. Since parapsychology studies the paranormal with a broader scope, medumship is also studied by parapsychology. It's misleading to narrow the scope of term usage. It implies that there are evidence of mediumship that cannot be explained by parapsychology. The world has yet to see such evidence. Oicumayberight 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) tyesha padett look at me now mw love me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.78.76.12 (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Medium in painting
I came here to find out what exactly medium means in oil painting but it is not mentioned here. Should be added I think. -- PyroPi (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like a dictionary definition, which wouldn't be found here unless there's an actual article about it. Check the Wiktionary definition here -- item 6 under "noun". --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be an article on the use of medium in painting. It is used in both oil and acrylic painting, if memory serves, and its use and purpose should be described. There are varieties of medium, as well, and the explanation of their qualities and use ought to go well beyond a bare dictionary definition. I am not qualified to write such an article, but it should exist. The wiktionary definition, by the way, no longer mentions painting medium. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 23:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)