Talk:Psi (parapsychology)

Neutral??
Just had a look at this article and it appears to indicate that psi is real, and not open to question, i.e. there is no representation of the sceptics viewpoint anywhere in the article. -> this must be a historic comment, as the majority (well over half, on just counting) references are from a sceptics viewpoint, delete?Caernunos (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am particularly troubled by the use of the word neutral, in the sentence:

is a neutral term for parapsychological phenomena

I am going to put a few qualifiers in. Belbo Casaubon 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This sense of the word neutral is that it does not indicate the content of the phenomenon. Actually, you changed it, then changed it back.  I didn't really have a problem with the word "general."  However, the whole intent of the word "psi" is to be neutral in the sense of not saying what the phenomenon is.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it because it kinda looks like you used a chopped up version of someone elses words ( not a criticism), this article is in need of a complete rewrite to provide a NPOV standpoint. Belbo Casaubon 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral at all; all of the criticisms of parapsychology included in this article have been adequately addressed by parapsychologists; one needs only to read Dean Radin's "the Conscious Universe" for mountains of data supporting the existence of psi. Psi is not vacuously or negatively defined at all in the case of psychokinetic effects as the intentionality of the participant is treated as the independent variable in PK experiments, which have been reliably replicated hundreds of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.107.165 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of references in this article are skeptical, it has been hijacked for use by a vocal minority. Please try to use scientifically valid criticism, rather than skeptical books, blogs and podcasts. One article is referenced out of contest to support the skeptical viewpoint, this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Caernunos (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note
Just a reminder to say that Psi is real in the sense that "it's not something taken from a movie". Users should also avoid any wording that implies that the term itself is dubious. Psi is a real and verifiable blanket term that applies to both (apparently) real unreal things.

perfectblue 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

psi and its uses
first off before anything else id like to say that i am a practitioner of psi and other things but not anwhere near the best.but i kinda wanted to mabey help with some discription a little bit for people who might not understand or even know what im talking about. well for the record of psycic phenomina i dispise the term psychic becuase everyone has a soul so therefor everyone is psychic.why not label it to how can i do that rather than saying am i psychic. with that said ill get back on point.psi is a part of the soul it is spiritual energy.no religion or anything attached it is considered nuetral in my opoin.the intentions of the person would make the defrence.a thought a emotion a person atoms moulicules everything in existance is made up of energy and u use this energy everyday wether u notice it or not.it would actually be very dificult not to use it.so how do u move it consoiusly to ur disposel?actually its more of a just do it method that might take some looking inside and understanding but i can help explain to the best of my abilitys.its not all in ur mind becuase that would be daydreaming and i just didnt wanna get people mixed up.its about will and intention.psi is a multi pourpse energy and within the soul no limits exist.endless possibilys can come from its use. this technique is called a psi ball by some people. 1.relax your body and mind 2.clear ur thoughts cuase it takes ur concentration a way 3.move this light from within u to the outside of ur body near u(possibly in front of u and u dont need ur hands at all but u can use them just remeber its your will not ur hands) 4.move and compress this into a ball add more energy untill it feels dense. 5.this is called programing.feel the outside of this ball harden and tell it to hold energy. now what u do with it is up to u .u could just push it away u could use telepathy threw it to contact a friend or somthing fun somtimes is using it as a clarvoent eye to see some where ur eyes cant.wake somebody up becuase it energizes them .well u get it kinda i hope but its up to u.find a decent website learn somethin n have fun with it cause u will find alot of beuty in the spiritual more than u see the ugly.of course this also would be a dession withi the person.but thanx if this gets posted n i hope i help somone. latter. uwdewa-namonow aka jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwdewa-namonow (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

who is Carl Williams?
This article sets up "Carl Williams" as an authority on the question of psi. In all the books and articles I've read about the philosophy of psi research - e.g., C. D. Broad's "Lectures on psychical research", Flew's "Readings in the philosophical problems of parapsychology", Steinkamp's "Parapsychology, philosophy and the mind" - and associated articles, this person has never cropped up. This seems to be just another example of how Wikipedia respects any junk a contributor coughs up in expressing their personal opinions, rather than representing anything like the bulk of considered and expert opinion. This article is just unintelligent - promoting marginal feelings about the topic rather than informed opinion. But hey, that's Wikipedia for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.145.107 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Or go whine in your Livejournal or something instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is carl Williams still relevant, given he gets no mention? Should this talk remain?Caernunos (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to archive talk pages that get too large, not to remove old discussions. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiesner

 * until now: The term was coined by biologist Bertold P. Wiesner, (...)

But his name seems to be Berthold, not Bertold. See Anna Gmeyner and many sources on Google (&book, at amazon) --Schwab7000 (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalised by skeptics
This page seems to have been vandalised by skeptics. Please respect that it is a valid term for parapsychology, and should not be a sounding board for your own particular skeptical belief system. I would like to highlight the sheer number of 'skeptical' references given throughout this article. An informative definition of psi would be far more useful to someone who is interested, than the tired cynicism of skeptics currently on offer.Caernunos (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples: "psi is the purported process of information transfer or energy transfer in extrasensory perception or psychokinesis" - this is incorrect, although I realise a skeptic has stated it. Psi is the term coined to represent the unknown factor in psychic experiences - it in no way represents any 'purported process'. I would suggest changing this to "Psi is the term coined to represent the unknown factor in psychic experiences. It can be used in terms of psi experiments, psi experience, psi participants or just psi.

" There is no scientific evidence for psi." This is clearly nonsense. Parapsychology has carried out scientific research for well over 100 years, presented in hundreds (if not thousands) of peer reviewed papers. The Ganzfeld is probably the best known, but I could list many very good articles fairly easily. An internet search finds references to many papers very easily. The 'no scientific evidence' quotes are clearly incorrect and should be removed. I shall add evidence after this statement, making the page a little illogical, but my previous changes were undone very quickly. Caernunos (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you the page needs to be improved and I have helped you on the definition, but for your other claims you are not citing reliable references. I am interested in improving this article but promoting conspiracy theories about skeptics is not going to help you. Aathmika Anula (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I find your comment about conspiracy theories offensive, please try to keep this civil, are you suggesting that the majority of references are not from skeptics (skeptics dictionary etc). Please explain how academic text books and peer reviewed papers are less reliable than podcasts? As for saying the Journal of Parapsychology is an unreliable reference for a term used in Parapsychology, you must see this cannot be a reasonable position. Caernunos (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence for "psi" that is accepted by mainstream scientific thought. Wikipedia is not interested in promoting fringe beliefs, regardless of whether you personally think the research is good or not. Until the mainstream view changes, Wiki policy is to not present fringe views as though they were factual. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, disagreeing with your edits is not "vandalism" and I'll thank you not to accuse your fellow editors of such things. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You would need to evidence 'fringe views', this is AN ARTICLE ON A TERM FROM PARAPSYCHOLOGY! A majority of people on the planet would disagree with you, so are you in the fringe? Whilst there is a vocal minority, the vandalism of Wikipedia by that vocal majority is shameful. Try writing half the rubbish on this page without referencing skeptical podcasts, books or blogs. Try using peer reviewed science. A question, what is 'mainstream scientific thought', who controls it, and where do I find it? (in peer reviewed articles, or in the desperate rants of skeptics)


 * Please review Wiki policies on articles about science and pseudoscience before editing this article again. That should address everything you just brought up. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of this article and as it's content is already covered on the parapsychology article I don't think we need both articles. It's not notable enough to have a whole article to itself. I have redirected the article to the main article on parapsychology (check the terminology and criticism sections), no content has been lost. Goblin Face (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)