Talk:Psionics

"Considered pseudoscience"
99.229.246.140 has been making this change, modifying the description of parapsychology as a pseudoscience to "considered by the scientific community to be a pseudoscience". The problem is, our reliable sources clearly indicate that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources indicating otherwise. WP:YESPOV indicates that we should not state facts as opinions (in other words, we should not attribute things which are not simply held by the one group we're attributing). We also need to abide by WP:WEIGHT, and not indicate that the scientific community holds one opinion on parapsychology, but other groups equally hold the contrary position. I'm happy to discuss further, but I'd appreciate if the edit warring stopped in the meantime. What we'd need to make any progress are reliable sources contesting the pseudoscience label. 99.229, do you know of any you could produce? Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits have recently changed to removing the pseudoscience label, such as here. Ip, you really need to participate on the talk page. It's been more than a week now, and you're still edit warring.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no point in keeping this article, it is a constant source of edit warring and there's hardly any reliable sources. Random IPs just keep adding original research, I think it should be merged with the parapsychology main article. Goblin Face (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if IPs keep making controversial changes and edit warring, we should consider semi protection. I'll take a look at the history and make a request if there's enough history.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't really seem to be a lot of problems in the last few weeks. Just the changes from the same editor I've reverted. If he continues, I'll ask for a block, and if things pick up after that, then semi protection. It's really not too hard to manage right now.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there needs to be a tag for some articles that are "controversial". Then people can add what they want, and let time decide.  The edit mentioned is perfect academic form:  instead of labeling something as pseudoscientific and biasing things toward empiricism, it simply and honestly shows the facts.  Neutral point-of-view means you don't promote science vs. religion, nor subjective experience (reported objectively) vs observations seen under the rubric and philosophy of science. --Dreamer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.234.56 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In other words, wikipedia's Neutral point-of-view is COMPLETELY adequate so long as subjective ideas are reported as such and experiences reported objectively. Even psychology reports its experiences, even when they don't understand consciousness.  Are you going to call it pseudo-science?  If you want to slow down edit wars, then require more time between successive edits either from the same IP or to the same section, doubling the amount of wait required at each edit rather than cutting off legitimate knowledge and experience from the fringe of human experience -- not everything which is known as a fact is well-known and studyable under the rubric of empiricism.  ...The way ArbComPseudoscience complaint is written, it would reject any articles on religious history itself.  Science has not shown any more effectiveness than religion at fixing the problems of the world.  That means the sources of future fixes may come from sources unknown to both.  Please consider that facts transcend philosophies of Truth, of which science is one of them.  --Dreamer

First sentence
"Psionics is an umbrella term used by parapsychologists to describe psychic abilities such as telepathy, psychokinesis, pyrokinesis and others." This is technically true, but it could easily be misinterpreted. Other articles of unevidenced phenomena used qualifications in the lead sentence like "suggested", "claim", "purported", and "alleged": Pyrokinesis, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Psychic. Here, we don't make this clear until the last sentence in the lead: "There is no evidence that psionic abilities exist." That is good, but a bit late. Can we add "alleged", similar to those other artices?
 * Psionics is an umbrella term used by parapsychologists to describe alleged psychic abilities ..."

That would be accurate, less potentially misleading, and consistent with the other articles it references. The last sentence is still good, and it clarifies things nicely. Other articles do that as well: qualify the lead sentence, and follow up with a more unambiguous explanation of the current scientific consensus. Whikie (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Did John W. Campbell originate the term?
He certainly did more than most to promote it -- there were probably literally hundreds of stories (and editorials) in his magazine over the years pushing it. I think that a LOT of space should be given here to Campbell. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

psionics
Can you tell me what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.105.6 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Psi Ball
This is energy ball 2402:3A80:11FB:6FD9:0:0:25DD:DD5A (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)