Talk:Psychic/Archive 1

Article, not redirect
this should be a article on its own, and not a redirection..


 * I agree with the statement above, I will look into adding some unique content in the near future. Solar 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

psychic experience and science

It's unlikely that psychic phenomena can ever by proven scientifically. This is because science is observation of the measurable using the five senses. In other words, it is limited to the physical experience.

Psychic phenomena happens in realms that science can't measure, and usually can't observe. I might have a psychic experience, but unless you have psychic ability (and aren't in denial about it), you can't observe my experience.

And the things that I can do, psychically, would be explained as "coincidence" or completely denied by non-believers.

geeezelouise

Geezelouise, there are many supposed psychic phenomena that could be tested scientifically. E.g. a common psychic claim is that a person can know who is phoning before picking up the phone. It would be very simple to devise a test where the psychic would try to guess who was phoning (say he/she had to choose from a list of 10 possible people) before picking up the phone. If, say he/she got 8 out of 10 correct, then that would be considerably more than could be expected by chance alone, and therefore could not be dismissed as coincidence. Dominickearney 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested article guidelines
I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology. There is a complete sub-culture based around the 'Psychic' and for this reason it warrants its own article with extra focus on the cultural side. - Solar 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the second paragraph for this article. Does anyone object to me referencing my website as the source of this information? I also have more information that I would like to share on this topic, if anyone is interested? Psychic 12:29 (GMT+8:00), 20 April 2006

Statistics
does anyone know of a good data repository for finding statistics and demographics and data on obscure topics?

Proposed external link
Project Jason-Voice for the Missing "Working to stop psychic frauds from harming families of the missing" http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/30606-pmp-introduction-to-psychics-and.html

Smiloid


 * I think this link would be more relevant in the psychic detective article. - Solar 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that the proposed link is irrelevant and prejudicial. Why does Wikipedia have a "skeptics" group editing metaphysical articles? Does Wikipedia propose to have an atheists group edit their articles regarding various religions? Solar, I hope that I can somewhat appreciate the burden that you bear here as a moderator, but I also hope that you can appreciate the intellectual dishonesty that I perceive in these practices. On Wikipedia, the Randi cult has attacked practically every metaphysical article. I am, frankly, appalled at these practices. These people reject even the most stringent scientific verification (PEAR, SRI, the Rhine Institute, etc.) in favor of their limited belief systems. That's fine, as far as their own beliefs go. Let them have their flat earth. But why should their limited belief systems be imposed on the rest of the world? Nomorebs 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nomoreb, please link the stringent scientific verification on the article page. It sounds highly relevant. Skeptics form a significant, often scientific point of view, and are therefore valid and, heck, practically necessary for Wikipedia to include. fel64 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply to KSmrq in one of the Randi sections below (I forget which one). Nomorebs 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychology being ‘generally’ considered a pseudoscience
I have removed the comment about Parapsychology being ‘generally’ considered a pseudoscience, as I feel a citation should be included to a recognised and respected scientific source showing this, at the very least. Beyond this, the point is clearly covered in the parapsychology article and the paragraph already contains 'These claims are widely disputed by mainstream science, and are regularly attacked by skeptics' which maintains the NPOV policy, adding the point about pseudoscience is clearly an attempt to make the article POV. - Solar 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychology is being put into the field of a real science by suggestion in this article. Unfortunately, parapsychology does not hold true to any of the rigorous scientific methods that have been consistent for thousands of years. To state that one can not make the statement to this affect is clearly giving YOUR POV.

To suggest it should not be repeated here, because it is stated in the article on parapsychology, makes the assumption that the reader of this article, has, or will read the parapsychology article.

Also, the Ganzfield experiments fall under the realm of parapsychology, and can't be counted as a valid scientific experiment. No matter who performs the experiment, if it is not done under proper scientific conditions, and is not repeatable, or if the results are extremely poorly translated, you can't classify it as science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Edwardsnh (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 May 2006 UTC

There's a lot of unsupported personal opinion being inserted here. There is no support whatsoever offered for the comments listed above.

To be honest, from the perspective of a casual visitor, this page has quite obviously been taken over by members of the Randi-worshipping cult, and offers no real or neutral information with regard to the topic at hand. In fact, the Randi-worshippers appear to have pretty much taken over Wikipedia entirely with regards to metaphysical topics.

It appears that the Randi-worshippers fail to take into account the destructiveness of having articles prepared by those who condemn the topic. Would you also like to see the articles about Jesus and Christianity prepared by Satanists? That, sadly, is the level of discussion here with regard to metaphysical topics. I doubt this matters to the Randi cult. Their only interest, apparently, is promoting their hero-icon and dismissing without fair review any concepts that he rejected.

Enjoy your flat earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.235.130.231 (talk • contribs)  03:18, 6 May 2006 UTC


 * If of course the negative comments at the top of this thread related to the methods of parapsychology and the Ganzfield experiments undertaken by Daryl Bem are true, then the anonymous user who made them can simply add citations to prove his/her point and show that scientific method such as double blind experiments have not been used. This would then be acceptable within Wikipedia policy; otherwise it is simply opinion and should not be included. It is a simple matter of backing up statements made, especially when they are so serious to the nature of the article. With regards to the parapsychology article I made the comment that it is already covered, as my reasoning for starting the psychic article was to focus on the cultural aspects of the subject, not to simply repeat endless arguments related to the reality or not of psychic phenomena. I think the science could be covered in a short paragraph with a link to the parapsychology article for those who wish to learn about the scientific debate. I hope that we can agree on this and move the article forward. - Solar 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof isn't with the first anonymous user (I assume the second one is User:Nomorebs) to show that the experiments are not valid; proponents of including anything about the Ganzfeld experiments should show that it's valid. And Opinion is entirely valid to include on Wikipedia, as long as it is significant - which in this case it may be. I don't know, as I've seen no evidence for or against the Ganzfeld experiments. I reckon the attention of a qualified person would be fairly helpful here. fel64 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The second one is indeed me. I didn't mean to be secretive, and I regret any inconvenience. It was my first post here and reflected my deplorable lack of Wikipedia-editing skills. (Hat-tip to Solar for a few pointers to the newbie.)

I lack sufficient familiarity with the ganzfeld experiments to comment on those specifically.

That having been said, how would you propose one demonstrate the "validity" of those experiments? And further, what is the criteria for "significance" of an opinion? And who decides whether an opinion is "significant" or not? Does Randi's offer constitute an opinion? Does it constitute evidence? Nomorebs 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

James Randi
I took the liberty of placing a link to the JREF, as there is at least a whole paragraph about Mr. Randi. Readers should have an external link to the man himself.Smiloid 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what has Randi got to do with this article? He is a non-believer in psychic abilities. So are hundreds of millions of other people (of course, there are hundreds of millions who do believe, as well). Shall we list every person who doesn't believe in psychic ability? Furthering this concept a bit, shall we also put addenda to each article about each separate religious faith and philosophy explaining who doesn't believe in that faith or philosophy? If I offer a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Jesus was the son of God (testing under my own strict acceptance and performance conditions, of course) and no one is able to claim the prize will that then disprove Christianity for once and all?

As explained in my addenda to the article, the relevance to this article of the Randi claim fails under a multitude of logical fallacies.

I believe that the paragraph regarding Randi should be removed as irrelevant to this article and, relatedly then, that the link to the JREF removed as well. All references to Randi in this article are disputed as irrelevant and prejudicial. Nomorebs 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Nomoreb's suggestion. At the very least, could you cite a quote made by Randi or representatives of his foundation that states something to the effect of "because the Randi prize has not been awarded, psychic ability does not exist"? The mere existence of the prize is not enough to establish that Randi is making any claim at all. -aliasworkshop


 * Nomorebs, I think that the $1,000,000 challenge is worthy of inclusion. It may be logically fallacious (only, though, if it claims that non-fulfillment is proof that it cannot be fulfilled, which has been rebutted quite nicely here) but that's not the point. It is extremely relevant. It's a very famous challenge that is often referred to, fallacious or not. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does need to include noteworthy things, even if logically incorrect, even if they attempt to deny the existence of the article's subject. fel64 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but this is the crux of the issue here. Does Randi's challenge "attempt to deny the existence of" the entire subject of the Psychic article? Or is it simply anecdotal, and will never be anything more than anecdotal? I don't know what you really are trying to accomplish here, but it seems to me that the only reason to include the Randi challenge here is to create a prejudicial "smear" against the possibility of psychic phenomenon which does not constitute evidence one way or the other - the "famousness" of the smear notwithstanding. This is not the use of reason, logic, or facts, and I believe the reference has no place in this article.

It seems somehow ironic that the "skeptics", priding themselves on their "scientifically-based" perspectives, spend much time demanding repeatable and reliable (i.e., non-anecdotal) evidence from those who claim to be psychic, and yet they are perfectly willing to use the anecdotal Randi challenge as evidence against the possibility of psychic functioning. This is part of what I perceive as the "intellectual dishonesty" in these discussions. The "evidence" of Randi isn't evidence.

Finally, Fel, and no offense intended, but it seems to me that your admissions that the challenge is "fallacious" and "logically incorrect" are not helpful to your argument. Nomorebs 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the Randi challenge is that the psychics have to produce the evidence. Randi doesn't have any evidence contrary to psychic abilities, nor does he claim to have; he just demands that you produce some. Dominickearney 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Randi challenge
User:Fel64 graciously brought to my attention the fact that I edited the paragraph on the Randi challenge, a major change, but marked it as a minor edit. Experienced editors know that such a change does not qualify for the "minor" tag, and deliberate misuse can be viewed as a violation of Wikipedia policy. In this case it was an accident, as I set the tag when I began a truly minor edit, namely changing the mis-capitalization of some linked topics. Unfortunately, I forgot to un-set the tag when I extended that edit. My sincere apologies for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused.

Since this is a sensitive article, I'll also explain the rationale for the Randi challenge edit. Over many years Randi has worked with scientists and skeptics to investigate many claims of paranormal abilities. He and his colleagues are experienced enough to state clearly that experiments can never prove that paranormal abilities do not exist. For example, if I were to say "Look, a shooting star!" to a friend, and the friend looked up too late to see it, that does not mean it didn't happen. Even if this occurs five times in a row, the meteors could still be there unobserved. So the "logical criticism" attacked a position that it seems pretty clear Randi is not asserting with the challenge. What the challenge does show is that it is easier to make claims of paranormal abilities than to support those claims, and many claims come from the same flawed sources.

Science is perfectly willing to be patient and thorough. Examples in physics include attempts to detect proton decay, which has never been seen; attempts to measure neutrino flux and oscillation, which only recently succeeded; and attempts to verify the general relativity prediction of frame-dragging, which is the purpose of the Gravity Probe B project begun almost 50 years ago. It is hardly surprising that various physical scientists over the years have attempted to bring this same patient care to the study of psychic and other paranormal phenomena. Unfortunately, that background does not prepare them for some of the complications of dealing with human subjects, especially subjects who might purposely deceive.

It is not at all helpful to see the same mistakes repeated over and over. Serious scientists work very hard to control every possible source of error and interference in a delicate experiment, and they know that claims of paranormal phenomena will never gain scientific acceptance without that care. Sadly, the general public is all too willing to believe absurd and patently deceptive claims from unscrupulous charlatans, and often people genuinely believe they themselves possess psychic abilities for honest but flawed reasons.

Magicians learn to manipulate perception for entertainment, and to earn an honest livelihood. Audiences usually understand that conjuring effects are not real. The phony psychic business is quite a different matter. Believers are hoodwinked under false pretenses, and sometimes even threatened with dire consequences if they do not give money — often money they can ill afford to lose. More dangerous still are phony psychic healers who gullible patients turn to instead of the genuine medical treatment they need. These are the people who the police will (sometimes) prosecute, and who seriously raise the ire of folks like Randi. A dramatic example is televangelist Peter Popoff, who Randi exposed as getting his "psychic information" via radio transmission.

Again, this does not mean science will never validate psychic phenomenon, nor that Randi claims such. The "logical critique" of Randi's assertion was based on what I believe are false premises. Therefore I have replaced it with something more accurate (his own words from his own web site), and hopefully more neutral. --KSmrqT 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you replaced a logical critique of Randi with Randi's own chest-thumping about himself and anecdotal remarks about certain "challengers." That's an interesting implementation of the NPOV.


 * So, the lesson here is that when logic opposes the Randi viewpoint, we can win the argument by simply editing out the other person's language. The triumph of force over reason has been accomplished by these acts. You apparently do not share my perception that this may constitute intellectual dishonesty, and results in the presentation of a slanted (and for all intents and purposes, worthless) article.


 * I don't have the time for debate (and believe it would be of little value against the perspectives reflected here), but this being a talk page, I will offer a few casual comments, so that, even as you conquer (for now), you may understand the perspective of the people upon whom you set your boot. The world is always changing and someday you might want to have alternative understandings available to you.


 * 1) I will be the first to admit that there is a great amount of really horrible stuff that comes out of the general "professional psychic/medium" field, and this tars all people who may be interested in honest investigation and exploration of anomalous phenomenon with the same brush. (Sometimes in the same person; for example, my own belief is that Uri Geller did exhibit quite striking psychic ability in Russell Targ's experiments, but I also believe that he used devices during at least some of his public appearances. While he may have done this out of feeling a need to "perform" and deliver "results" under stressful conditions, the only result was that he injured his own credibility, and his acts brought others into question then as well.)


 * In connection with this, though, I will say that I believe that most of the poor "psychic" stuff I've seen over the years has NOT been by intentional scammers, but rather by people who were "true believers" themselves and just did not have as much access or control of their abilities as they seemed to think. In other words, they are fooling themselves as much, or more, than anyone else.


 * THAT HAVING BEEN SAID...


 * 2) My own belief, based upon hundreds of personal experiences over 40+ years, is that anomalous cognition - aka psychic ability, intuition, ESP, "gut instinct", etc. - is a real and normal part of human functioning, which we can learn to improve and develop, and which is reliably and repeatably demonstrable in the lab.


 * Of course, opinions and personal experience being of little moment here (and properly so), I would refer interested persons to the lab work, some of which is listed and linked below, that has been done in recent years evidencing psychic functioning.


 * I would preface these links, though, by cautioning that the lab experiments are not real exciting or dramatic stuff, and usually rely on generating statistically improbable results which cannot be explained by normal functions of induction or deduction or by Newtonian physics. However, they are replicable and represent evidence that anomalous cognition is a demonstrable phenomenon.


 * Dr. Edwin. C. May's Cognitive Sciences Laboratory at the San Francisco Bay area located Laboratories for Fundamental Research (http://www.lfr.org/), and has ongoing experiments regarding anomalous cognition in which people can participate. I recommend to you their article "Anomalous Anticipatory Skin Conductance Response to Acoustic Stimuli: Experimental Results and Speculation Upon a Mechanism", Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (2005), Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 695-702, for the evidentiary results of recent experiments there.


 * The Rhine Research Center (http://www.rhine.org/) famously has conducted over half a century of scientific research on psychic abilities. While skeptics may complain of inadequacies in conditions during the initial period, that does not disqualify the bulk of their work (and in fact simply casts shadows on the earlier work, without disproving a thing).


 * The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) department of Princeton University (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/) has been researching remote viewing for almost 30 years. Their experiments have produced volumes of statistically notable evidence for the science of remote viewing under strict and rigorous conditions. A large portion of the results of PEAR's research was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 207–241 (2003) by PEAR's researchers Brenda J. Dunne and Robert G. Jahn.


 * The Institute of Noetic Sciences (http://www.ions.org/research/lab.cfm) is another research facility, which was founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who once conducted an ESP experiment from the space shuttle. Their work includes "the exploration of nonlocal interactions among two or more participants. These interactions are often accompanied by subtle changes in states of consciousness, which can be inferred by measuring fluctuations in participants’ physiology. Measuring changes in brainwaves, heart rate, and skin conductance provides a model to study distant healing in the laboratory."


 * I am not such a fool, of course, to think that the work of these scientific organizations would convince any of the Randi-cult skeptics who currently control Wikipedia. While I decry the coopting by bullying force and intellectual dishonesty of a resource that supposedly offers NPOV information to the public (clearly NOT how matters stand currently with regard to most of the metaphysical topics here), it is not my intention here to convince any skeptics of the reality of psychic functioning, as indeed I cannot. As the old saying goes, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I do not pretend to have the strength to break the case-hardened lock on the "skeptical" mind.


 * I regret any inconvenience caused by my inability to participate in these discussions on any but an occasional basis, but again, I have no desire to debate these topics as I do not perceive that such may be fruitful. I believe that I will best "contribute" to the debate by continuing to investigate and work to obtain more evidence of a "phenomenon" that I believe to be a perfectly natural part of life.


 * "Our efforts today no longer focus on whether ESP exists; we have strong evidence that it does. Instead, we are studying how ESP works, by examining how personality, emotional relationship, mental and physical states, education, gender, and other variables may affect ESP experiences."
 * Dr. Sally Rhine Feather,
 * Director, Rhine Research Center


 * Nomorebs 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What results have the RRC been getting? Can you link to articles or abstracts? What was the outcome of the PEAR research? What results did they get at the Institute of Noetic Science? The first example you gave, though, looks good. Is there any way to see the article without access to archives of that Journal, and (how) was it peer reviewed?
 * Why don't you put some of this information in the article? It seems relevant.
 * I feel it's a little unfair of you to decry to the lot of us at once, when hey, I can't even understand the accusations leveled at the first person.
 * fel64 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings yet again, friend Fel. I received your message regarding my alleged incivility on this page towards user KSmrq, whom you said had directed no ad hominem attacks towards me. Well, KSmrq did say that my "logical critique" (those are KSmrq's quotation marks, which I did find a bit insulting) was based on what KSmrq believed were "false premises" (my quotation marks, as I am quoting KSmrq). That, plus KSmrq simply deleted my text and replaced it with a very self-serving comment by the ubiquitous Mr. Randi. I experienced this as intentional rudeness and incivility towards me, and my response undoubtedly reflected my feelings. My bad? I believe that, taken as a whole, no. After all, I have not unilaterally deleted KSmrq's text, and the self-promoting of the tirelessly self-promoting Randi now takes up a generous portion of the article, which I thought was titled "psychic", not "Randi."

As to more in-depth reviews of the scientific studies that have been done producing evidence of psychic phenomenon, I whole-heartedly refer you to Dean Radin's excellent 1997 book "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomenon." It gives in-depth discussions of many of the studies I referenced, and many, many more. Unfortunately, not too much about our dear Randi (or Uri Geller, for that matter). In fact, at page 240 in that book Radin writes: "...while the stories about these two are intriguing, nothing about the work of either Geller or Randi is mentioned in this book. They are actually so *irrelevant* to the scientific evaluation of psi that not a single experiment involving either person is included among the thousand studies reviewed in the meta-analyses." (Please read *irrelevant* as italicized text - I haven't gotten that far yet in Wiki text rendering.)

I have a couple of other books that address the huge volume of scientific psi studies from an academic perspective which you might find interesting. One is entitled "Handbook of Parapsychology," published in 1977, authored by over 30 (generally) academics, and edited by a group including J.B. Rhine of the Rhine Institute. It's as thick as a dictionary and it is an extremely well-documented work. For example, the list of references for the chapter entitled "Experimental Psychokinesis" runs a full eight pages on its own, in what my old eyes deem to be rather small type.

I also have a copy of "Extra-Sensory Perception: After Sixty Years," another academic review of scientific experiments in parapsychology, again edited by Rhine et al. This book was published in 1940.

Now, just consider for a moment, if you will, that this book was published in 1940 and covered 60 years of research. It is now 2006 - 66 years after the publication of that book. The total is over one and a quarter centuries. Big picture - we're not talking about a hundred studies here, but rather tens of thousands of studies over the years. Can the fact that one person makes a "challenge" really have any relevance within the context of the immense volume of evidence that has been developed by so many scientists over the years?

Some people may well enjoy wearing the badge of "skeptic". It can mean "I'm no fool" and "I'm someone who can reveal the frauds and scammers." Well, as I implied above, finding psychics that really aren't (or at least aren't much) is like shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting down fake psychics isn't much of a challenge. (And while we're at it, could someone please dispatch that John Edward/Crossing Over dude? If that isn't cold reading.... Believe me, he annoys me as much he annoys you.)

The real challenge we face though, is that, as well-documented by the research I've referenced, anomalous cognition is a real phenomenon. Amidst all the mud, there's a real pearl down there. I'm happy (more precisely, driven) to get down in the mud to try to find the pearl. The Randi followers are trying to argue that the pearl isn't real, and they seem to have taken over here. Due to my own many (admittedly anecdotal but they're still real to me) experiences, I KNOW the pearl is real. I would love to have a real discussion on what we really know about psychic abilities, how they can be developed, and so forth. Here, I feel like Galileo before the Church or Cervantes before the Inquisition. The controlling Randi people apparently just want to shut down all discussion. Speak no psychic, see no psychic, hear no psychic.

I hope, my friend, you can see how this vexes me. I don't regret any previous comments I've made, but I do understand how they can detract from the topic at hand, and will try to maintain more civility in the future, even in the face of what I consider dismissive rudeness. OK?

No More BS -- Nomorebs 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, come on. KSmrq, whether Randi Cultist or not (italic is double apostrophes wrapped around the text, by the way), wasn't doing that because you'd written it. I'm sure he didn't even know at the time who put it in. It might have been rude to you, but heck, WP:Faith. Those books sound interesting. I assume, by the way, that "Extra-Sensory Perception: After Sixty Years" was not edited by Rhine et al back in 1940? bAre the articles in those books, or the works they summarise, published (after peer review), somewhere?
 * And, really, why don't you add some of this to the article?
 * Randi and Geller are relevant in that they are in the public's eye when it comes to psychic stuff, I guess - in the same way as linking to self-proclaimed psychics is. They may not have anything to do with the discovery of whether or not psychic things exist, but they are still relevant.
 * No more BS - now that's a toast to drink to! fel64 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional psychics
I feel that there are so many precognitive/precient characters in fiction, it demands its own category, and I'm surprised to find it doesn't have one. What should the categroy be called, for example, the telekinetic characters have the category Category:Fictional psychokineticists. The category could hold a lot of characters like Buffy Summers, Phoebe Halliwell, Cordelia Chase, Cassie Newton, Sam Winchester etc... there are literally hundreds... would anyone like to be a part of this? Feel free to discuss on my talk page too. Zythe 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Added bit about the term "psychic" in Gnosticism
In addition to the current use of the word, "psychic" was also a concept in certain kinds of Gnosticism. Wikipedia needs a whole lot more information on this subject, I'll grant you - the only thing that even mentions the concept is the stub on hylics - but nonetheless I'd thought I'd make the link in the article right now. I would suggest this is just a temporary thing until someone writes a Psychic_(Gnosticism) article; then we can put up a disambigution page. As it is, this is the best I can do for right now. --Brasswatchman 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things about the article
1. If psychics are people who have psychic ability, then the article needs to state that there are no known psychics. That's why I put in "claimed", which was taken out.

2. What randomness tests have proven psychic ability? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to answer your first question: a psychic is a psychic.  If a person doesn't have the psychic abilities described, then they aren't a psychic.  There are people who claim to be psychics, those can be referred to as "claimed" or "claim to be" or "believed to be" - such as Sylvia Browne or John Edward, but a psychic is a person who has those powers; claims don't enter into it.


 * definition of psychic


 * There is no proof that I'm aware of that there are no "known psychics" - there are many who would strongly argue against that point. Further, that statement, as well as using terms such as "claim" in this particular article, strikes me as POV - there's already a skeptical flavor to the article - no need to overdo it....  :)
 * Dreadlocke ☥  03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your question number two, I believe the most well known study using random number generators is Ganzfeld, and Dean Radin talks about testing that was done along those lines. Dreadlocke ☥  16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In order for there to be "known psychics" there has to be indisputable evidence that they can do what they claim to do. There isn't. The fact that we are having this debate tells us that. We don't debate the existence of gravity or that earth is round, do we?

The opening statement implies that it is a fact that people possess ESP. A more accurate opening would be something like "Psychics are people said to possess ESP etc."

Does anyone concur? 212.42.10.194 12:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't concur. That's not the correct definition of a psychic (as I stated above).  A psychic isn't just "said to possess", they either do or they don't - if they don't, then they're not a psychic.  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your definition is wrong. Your definition assumes that psychic powers are real. That reality of these powers is at the very least questionable. You say that a psychic is someone that has ESP etc, and someone that hasn't, isn't. It is widely maintained that nobody has these powers, and yet there are people who describe themselves and other as "psychics". Your definition cannot be made in an encycleodedia. You can say that a psychic is someone who is believed to have, or claims to have, or presumed, or is thought to have, ESP. You CANNOT say "has" as that implies that they truly do.


 * Anon user, you need to sign your posts with four tildes (~) . The entire argument you use above is an informal fallacy, since anyone who does not have the powers would not be a psychic - even if they are "believed" to have such abilities.  The definition is for what a psychic is defined as.  If they don't have the abilities as described (even if they "claim" to), then they are just not psychic.  "Claims" do not enter into the equation at all, it doesn't matter what they claim.  It is also incorrect to say that "it is widely maintained that nobody has these powers", this is false - as a matter of fact, studies show it widely accepted that psychic and esp abilities do exist.


 * The opening statement does not imply that "it is a fact that people possess ESP," it very clearly states what ESP is defined as but makes no judgement as to whether it actually exists or whether people actually posess the abilities. Anything to the contrary is a mistaken reading of what it actually says. The article itself contains detailed information on the dispute as to whether or not psychic or esp abilities exist, which is more than sufficient to meet the needs of NPOV.  Dreadlocke  ☥  23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Psychokinesis
Psychokinesis is a well known PSI or Psychic power. . The very definition of Psychic is of one who has paranormal powers. Psychokinesis is a paranormal power. Dreadlocke ☥  03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
What needs to be cleaned up in the article? Dreadlocke ☥  17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement "The claims of psychics are widely disputed by mainstream science" needs a citation, or to be removed, as it appears to be facially false. Whoever wrote it is apparently unfamiliar with the theory of bio-entanglement and well over a century of other scientific research into psychic phenomenon. The links to Randi-related sites should also be removed as wholly irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.148.216 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 November 2006 UTC


 * While I agree with your sentiments, we have to go by Wikipedia policy and guideline WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I know I can source the comments about mainstream science widely disputing psychic claims, but I'm not sure I can back up bio-entanglement or even other research that has been going on for decades, in order to excise the skeptics point of view.  I'll look into sourcing the mainstream science thing.  As far as Randi, yep, I totally agree.  Irrelevant.   Dreadlocke  ☥  17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two points with that statement, firstly, I wrote it to refer to psychics, in the sense of Uri Geller who make all sorts of claims, which even to many contemporary parapsychologists seem dubious. Secondly, having said that I'm not sure I was accurate to say that mainstream science disputes all psi, which that line implies. Surveys that have been done on the subject such as those by Gallop show a roughly 50/50 split on the subject, with those with scientific/academic training having a higher level of belief in psi. I have changed the statement to "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities actually exist is still controversial within science; however, recent polls do show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics." I think this is more neutral, I think that the original statement was the result of reading too much sceptical propaganda and this version is much fairer. In terms of the bio-entanglement side, some mention of Brian Josephson would be interesting on that level, his paper: Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality is excellent. Best wishes. - Solar 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, Solar! Dreadlocke ☥  05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

site inclusion
Please include Knowing Souls under this site. We are honest and accurate and ethical psychics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.161.152 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC). Please add Infinite Advice under this topic. This is a psychic website that actually features psychics and psychic readings. It will give a viewer a good idea of what a psychic actually does.


 * These are both commercial links -- see WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Phone Psychics
I think we need a section on phone psychics, or comercial misuse of psychic claims, and how that relates to those who make subjectively honest claims to psychic ability. How bout yous?


 * Argreed, though that may need its own article. Of course, proving which psychics are charlatans and which truly believe they have these abilities would be nearly impossible, since all of them claim to be "real" psychics, and with such a subjective experience it would be very difficult to disprove them (especially the popular ones with lots of believers). -- Noclevername 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Phone psychics" have their own individual articles. I doubt whether the subject has enough information to warrant an article, and it does not seem to really be an approprate subject for this article. Dreadlocke  ☥  21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Noclevername 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that such a section will invite large amounts of vandalism and attract trolls. I think it's subject better left to the individual articles on actual phone psychics.  This is already a controversial article.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no links to specific names given; Perhaps a list of those who profess to have psychic abilities, either here or better yet on its own page, could be added. I searched WP and couldn't find one. Noclevername 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, very similar to the list of mediums in the Mediumship article. Let's definitely not dupe the list of mediums, though. Dreadlocke  ☥  21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Steiger article


The phrase "recent polls show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics" seems to me to be an overstatement of the article by Brad Steiger which is cited (see ). In summarizing the survey of Farha and Steward published in the Skeptical Inquirer, Steiger says "their poll of college students found that seniors and graduate students were more likely to believe in haunted houses, ghosts, telepathy, spirit channeling and other paranormal phenomena than were freshmen." As Steiger says, the study compared freshmen to seniors and graduate students, not "scientists and academics" to non-scientists and non-academics, and I can't find anything in the rest of Steiger's article which relates to a comparison of the latter sort (in fact, Steiger does't use the words "scientist(s)" or "academic(s)" at all). I've scanned his article, and as far as I can tell the only other comparisons it mentions are from "a nationwide Gallup Poll in 2001 that found younger Americans more likely to believe in the paranormal than older respondents", which also does not compare beliefs among academics/non-academics. (Note: The results of this Gallup Poll from 2005, 2001 and before are here). For these reasons, I've modified the phrase so it applies to the Farha/Steward poll. If I've misunderstood something, please set me straight! &mdash; Elembis 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm not certain what an opinion poll was doing in the opening paragraphs anyway. Are there polls to see who "believes" in gravity? Either a thing exists or it doesn't; if it does, the evidence will eventually support it. If not, belief won't make it so. I favor moving the poll results to a footnote or trivia section. Noclevername 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The poll belongs in a more significant location than a "trivia" section (which doesn't exist in the current article) nor as just a footnote. Dreadlocke  ☥  21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should an opinion poll (only one of many, I'm sure) be given so much weight in the article? This isn't an article about "Popular opinions about psychics", it's supposed to be about psychics themselves. (Oh, and creating a trivia section for the article is fairly easy.) ---Noclevername 12:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be expanded, not shrunk. If you think the weight is too much, then add other material.  It doesn't belong in a trivia section, because that would trivialize the poll - it is not "trivia".  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to create an article on "Public Opinions of Psychic Phenomena", that would be an appropriate place for poll results. --- Noclevername 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that the cultural aspects including public opinion should be given slightly more weight in this article, when I started it in March, I wrote: "I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology" (See 'Suggested article guidelines'). I still stand by this statement, for a strong article dealing with the many beliefs and sub-cultures related to professional psychics it would be most productive to have a small area dealing with science and links to more in-depth articles such as parapsychology. This article would then be free to explore the sociological, media and cultural areas in depth. I would like to suggest we come to a consensus on the structure of the article and leave the endless debate between sceptics and supporters of parapsychology for personal talk pages or a forum. Best wishes - Solar 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, in Daryl Bem's paper on psi he cites a poll which was of academics and scientists with the following results: "A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%." I will see if I can find any more recent polls of academics and scientists either for or against psi. - Solar 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Solar, I seem to remember you quoting that poll in the article, now it just says "college seniors and graduate students". Can you make sure your reference and edit are still there and correct? Dreadlocke  ☥  19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here or WTA talk page
 Discussions of each article should be on the page of the relevant article. There is more to my rejection of the use of "claims" in this article than just WTA. I refer you to my arguments in the Two things about the article section. Dreadlocke ☥  23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The repeated discussion about this issue tells us that many people feel a subtle POV in the current uncontextualized, unmoderated statement "A psychic is a person who has the ability to experience ..". Whether or not the word "claim" is the best to use here is open to debate, but I do believe some moderating adjective or verb is necessary to achieve an NPOV that all parties can agree upon. This is issue is unlikely to go away until such a compromise is found.


 * Part of the problem is that your implication that a person who is a fraud would not be a psychic by this definition is not apparent. For instance, John Edward states that Edward "performs as a psychic"; the article "psychic" then tells us that psychics have certain abilities. There is no point in the sequence where one would be told that this is merely a claim by John Edward, believed by some but not taken seriously within the scientific community, which disregards any claims of psychic abilities, and actively disputed by illusionists who claim to have achieved identical results to psychics using suggestions and trickery.


 * In short, the current wording lends itself to uses where the sequence the reader encounters is clearly POV.


 * The article mediumship describes people who claim to be mediums as people who "profess mediumship"; this may be a good wording to use here as well. Alternatively, the intro could be contextualized similarly to the way prophet begins with "In religion", e.g. we could begin it with "In parapsychology".


 * The ideal article should not unambiguously state that psychics clearly are all charlatans; it should, however, clearly reflect the beliefs of the four key groups, a) "psychics", b) believers, c) the scientific community, d) the magic/illusionist community. In whichever context the article is referred to, e.g. from another article or category, it should be applicable to the group of people who are not either unambiguously psychic, or unambiguously fraudulent (which is essentially the group of all people using the label "psychic" to describe themselves, as very few have been unambiguously shown to be frauds to the satisfaction of all believers, and none have been shown to be "true psychics" to the satisfaction of skeptics & scientists).--Eloquence* 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with you and was in the process of preparing a lengthy answer, I think this is now a moot issue considering the new version by editor Martinphi that I believe addresses both our concerns.


 * I would just like to point out that I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted from the Mediumship article and then described it as “good wording”. However, in this article as a part of the definition of "psychic", it does not fit - anyone can profess to be a psychic, but that does not make them a psychic – so this is a false description of “Psychic”. Dreadlocke  ☥  03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite fine with your suggestion "Alternatively, the intro could be contextualized similarly to the way prophet begins with "In religion", e.g. we could begin it with "In parapsychology". " That's great and exactly what MartinPhi did!  Which is, in essence, adding detail to the article - as I suggested.   Great job Martin!!  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The new introduction is an improvement, but heavily loads the article with parapsychologist jargon. It is equally necessary to emphasize and clarify that there is no recognition of any psychic or paranormal phenomena within the broader scientific community.


 * The pro-parapsychology bias in the primary topic articles on parapsychology is unfortunately readily apparent. For instance, a little research on CSICOP or even Google Scholar will turn up dozens of papers that contest parapsychological claims; yet, the only relevant work that was mentioned in this article so far is a single obscure study on random number generators. It will take a while to turn this into an NPOV article by assembling a solid overview of the many excellent articles that have been written on these topics by the likes of Randi and Sagan, as well as specific studies into the paranormal that meet a minimum scientific rigor.


 * Recognizing that the fact that this article, and similar ones, have been predominantly edited by individuals who openly profess a belief in the paranormal, is not a focus on the personal, but an objective realization of an obvious source of bias in editing patterns. This bias will have to be addressed by bringing more people with a scientific background to these articles, so that other perspectives are fully represented, and the state of the debate is made clear to the reader. It would be highly misleading to suggest to the reader that there is any controversy within the broader scientific community about the existence of these phenomena; they are simply not recognized at all. What is more, all the observable behaviors are reproducible without any supernatural influence, e.g., the entire communication pattern of a psychic reading can be reproduced by making use of well documented psychological techniques. Has there been any effort by parapsychologists to distinguish such demonstrations from "real" phenomena at all?--Eloquence* 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem adding terms and phrases from parapsychology, which you call "jargon" - a word that I do not agree at all applies to the terms and phrases in the article, there is nothing unintelligible about the article's wording!


 * As for skeptical information, such as the opinion of CSICOP (now CSI - they changed their name recently), please feel free to add it under the "Controversy and skepticism" section, that's what it's there for!The introduction is not the place for a detailed description of the controversies, a short, brief descripion in the intro, with details in the body of the article is all that is called for. Please reference Lead section for further details, which I admit is a guideline and not a policy, so a bit more flexible in it's application - but I do not believe the subject of an article should be attacked in it's own introductory paragraph!


 * I stongly suggest you stop commenting on the contributors, referring to their "professed beliefs" and their affiliation with pro-paranormal beliefs as you do, is damning them for their associations, which violates Wikipedia policy, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Dreadlocke ☥  21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite familiar with the lead section guideline, since I wrote it. The lead is meant to be an overview of the article synthesizing the key information. The fact that psychic phenomena are completely rejected within the scientific world (with the exception of parapsychology), is certainly a key fact. I did not dismiss or discredit your views; I merely pointed out the obvious source of bias in the history of this article, which is absolutely not in violation of any policy.--Eloquence* 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I applaud your contributions to the "lead section" guideline, as well as the contributions of the many other editors who contributed to it. I'm only asking you to quit commenting on the contributors here - which I believe to violate the spirit of Wikipedia policy on that regard.  I don't think commenting on the contributor's beliefs is a valid point to make, I find it dismissive of my own views, and I don't think it adds any value to your argument.  I don't see the purpose in continuing to make comments along those lines.  Dreadlocke  ☥  00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed
It is totally ridiculous to have 'proposed ability' in the intro, as it is completely irrelevant, the purpose of the article being to explain 'psychic', not to make judgements on it, or to get in a slight dig at 'psychics'. This article is POV form the outset, and i suggest a change of the intro, preferably followed by a complete rewrite. Rest assured, i am discussing the issue first, but i will take it into my own hands unless any other neutral, NPOV editor makes the required changes. Thanks Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely necessary framing. We do not state outright that unproven abilities exist, we state that some people have proposed, or vbelieve they exist. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom has addressed this directly:

That finding (unanimously supported) even uses the topic of this particular article as the illustrative example and states unambiguously that qualifiers for the term "psychic" are not needed. I don't believe in psychics, but also, I don't believe that omitting "proposed ability" or any other similar qualifier would lead anyone astray. ArbCom was correct in their finding about that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that that decision applies to this article, as here is where the framing for the article for a psychic occurs. I do, however, agree that the insertion of claimed, alleged or whathaveyou is often bad style. The lead and article should be written from a scholarly external perspective, describing psychic powers with due incredulity. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about "scholarly external perspective, describing psychic powers with due incredulity"; as I wrote, I don't believe in psychic powers and my comment that the qualifier is not needed is within that context; the article should not imply that they really exist. That said, I do see the ArbCom finding as relevant - they did not say that the topic is framed because there is a Wikipedia article about the word that does the framing, the idea of framing is larger than that and other sections of that arbitration apply also, including the finding on "cultural artifacts".  In any case, the qualifying words are as you said, bad style, and there are better ways to address concerns that a reader might get the wrong idea about the topic.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * we could ask them to clarify, but I really do not think they're going to say that it applies to the main articles on the subject itself. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the arbcom to clarify at Requests_for_arbitration. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So did we ever get a response? --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? This has just been edited back-and-forth again, it'd be useful to have a clear consensus or ruling to point to when doing so. --McGeddon (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'Claimed' from in the lead needs to be removed imho. It is misleading and inaccurate. For example, as McGeddon pointed out to me, it may also refer to fictional characters, so saying that they have a claimed ability does not make sense. In addition, the article is not meant to judge in this way, as the context is referring to psychic abilities in general, not anyone's claim to have them. Any thoughts? Spritebox (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be removed as it is not misleading, it is accurate (in the real world). However, the fictional point by McGeddon is a good one, and the use of the term in fiction should be addressed in the lead and the article. Verbal chat  22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least in the real world? To me that sounds a lot like a POV on the subject. The 'claimed' is an unnecessary buffer word to be anti-psychic, it seems. Whether psychic abilities are real or not is not the question in point, but rather when describing something it is not good form to pass an immediate judgement (and yes, I would say the same if the lead was pro-psychic). The word needs to be removed for greater neutrality. Spritebox (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of proof of the existence of psychic powers (let alone that certain individuals possess them), there's nothing POV about referring to them as "claimed" powers. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 04:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It immediately sets the tone for the article- and makes it obvious it is going to POV. And a large amount of parapsychologists believe there to be evidence pointing towards the existance of ESP, and they are the specialists after all. But regardless, it doesn't read well to put claimed as one of the first words in the article, and it is things like this that give WP its (increasingly) bad reputation. Spritebox (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Claimed" and "Proposed" are correct because the sources say that the theory has never been proved correct by science (the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, for example). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has previously been removed (see the consensus in the section above) as it adds nothing and the use of 'claim' is actively discouraged by policy. When describing something you state what it is- you do not inject an opinion into it Spritebox (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, '''there is nothing POV about calling something unproven “claimed”. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Parapsychologists? Why don’t we look that up… From the article on Parapsychology:
 * — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that this sort of question is discussed in philosophy of language, e.g. by J. L. Austin. The question of whether a "proposed ability" or (possibly falsely) "claimed ability" is a sort of "ability" is similar to Austin's question of whether a decoy duck is a sort of duck.

Let's say that I have devised a sort of pill, which I sell as a cure for cancer; but in reality this pill is merely an ineffective placebo. Someone might casually refer to my pill as a "quack cure for cancer" or "fake cancer cure", which suggests that it is a kind of cancer cure which has the property of being quack or fake. But being fake is not a property of some cancer cures; rather, saying "fake" is a way of saying it is not a cancer cure at all.

Similarly, saying that psychic abilities are "claimed", "proposed", or "alleged" abilities is necessary because the matter of controversy is precisely whether they exist at all. A "claimed" ability may be truly claimed, which is to say, it is an ability; or it may be falsely claimed, in which case it is no ability at all. To call it merely "an ability" is to exclude the latter possibility, since a falsely claimed ability is not "an ability" at all. --FOo (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether psychics exist in reality or not, the term applies to one who would have the abilities in question. The "powers" may not exist, but simply claiming one has them does not make them one. "I am a psychic." It says nothing. The "matter of controversy" is irrelevant to the definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.132.43 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply put, it would violate the Wikipedia NPOV tenet to write a biographical entry on a person, say Sherlock Holmes, and FAIL to mention that the person was the fictional creation of Arthur Conan Doyle. Similarly, presenting ANY discussion of "psychic powers" without indicating the lack of scientific basis for many of the claims of ESP, or to frame the discussion in a manner that omits this information is a failure of the most basic aspect of an encyclopedia. This article may relate the "beliefs" of ESP adherents, but should not require, reflect or imply any belief on the part of the article's authors/ editors. Hence, consider framing this article akin to a discussion on religion: we don't state that Christians "claim" Jesus was the son of god. But we also don't (or shouldn't) present it as a proven or accepted "fact" either. Seems to me this approach would be helpful here as well. Just IMHO. Thanks. Cynthisa (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Cynthisa (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Psychic warfare
Perhaps a section can be implemented on psychic warfare, warfare trough the use of paranormal abilities; eg sending of spirits (see Egungun/Orisha, ... The US Army has been investigating this too and some programs have been set up. See link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_genetic_engineering#Axolotl_and_other_genetic_modifications .Also see the article about Lubandi Mamba Mulozi, a congolese "sorcerer".

Review info and add in article. Thanks, 81.246.185.80 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I know about spirits is they're not exactly going to pick a country and join they're side, what can be done is combining remote vision with telepathy, it is possible to perform telekinesis in your remote vision just as telepathy has been performed through remote vision, thus having an remote army. It really depends on how far you want to take this ideaWiseguy12851 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There were high profile attempts at psychic warfare during the Karpov vs Korchnoi chess matches, those would be worth a mention. K2709 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is a psychic, The big misunderstanding
I'm a private researcher who has been specifically researching psychic for about 6 years, It's a misunderstanding, being born a psychic or developing psychic abilities is about as common as having triplets, psychic comes from a part of the brain that is, for some reason, normally not bridged or "hardwired" you could say into our everyday life's, some people are born with the ability already bridged and some people develop the ability later in life possible genetics involvement. A majority of the public go about their daily life's without such because it is rare to be born or develop such abilities, I classify these as natural born, because those are the people we refer to today as psychics

The human brain is capable of endless possibilities, There are cases where someone may experience one of the types of psychic one time in their life and never again, what is clear is that it is possible to connect the neuron's and create a bridge consciously to the psychic part of the brain, although you'd have more luck finding a needle in a dark maze than attempting to do that.

Everyone has the psychic part of the brain in them but whether they have conscious control over it or not is another matter, very few are born or develop in life with it bridged but a majority of the public goes about their everyday life without regard to such Wiseguy12851 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s called confirmation bias. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And of course, Wiseguy, you have evidence obtained via the scientific method to back up your assertions, correct?SuperAtheist (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting quote
I heard something like the following quote somewhere credited to Terence McKenna, but I can't find a source online for it. Does anybody know for sure where this comes from?
 * "How does one vertex of a right quadrilateral "know" that the other vertices are square? It doesn't, it simply exists in a relationship of similarity to those vertices. Similarly, I don't "know" what you're thinking. Our minds just happen to be at the vertices of the complex fractal called Cosmos. The net of a polyhedron looks like a fractal because it is. So, what shape does the universal fractal fold into?"

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. But has nothing to do with "facts" nor this article in terms of the requirement that an encyclopedia contain "factual" statements. Cynthisa (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading introduction
I realize I'm stepping into a war zone here, with strong emotions swaying in different directions - but for a first time reader, seeing the opening paragraph with a fresh pair of eyes, I could not in good conscience leave this introduction unedited.

The opening lines of any wikipedia article is intended to give a concise summary of the topic discussed, in a language understood by any reader regardless of their familiarity with the subject matter. The way the current introduction reads, the only reasonable interpretation is that the consensus of wikipedia is that psychic abilities are a real phenomena.

It must be stressed early on in the text that this in an alleged ability, no such disclaimer exists. The problem is further compounded by the contrasting second paragraph, stating the term also applies to "those who fake it", or emulate purely for entertainments sake.

Imagine an article that began.. "The Megatron 2004 Gauss rifle is an experimental military weapon. It could also refer to replicas of such weapons." - If the existence of this weapon was disputed, and this was not immediately pointed out, this article would clearly be misleading. Psychic abilities are no different. If you cannot see this, you have lost your objectivity.

While I appreciate that a controversial subject such as this evokes strong feelings in both proponents and opponents, as long as we can all agree, with a cool, level headed analysis, that this ability is not yet recognized as a real phenomena by the mainstream scientific community, any angling of the article that obfuscates this fact is inherently detrimental, and must be remedied.

I am adding the word "alleged" to the first paragraph. If you have a reasoned, well argued explanation for why it doesn't belong there, I would appreciate hearing your viewpoint before you revert me.

Thanks,

Weyoun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyoun1 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "reasoned, well argued explanation for why it doesn't belong" has already been made, and can be viewed at WP:ALLEGED. Also it is good to let the facts speak for themselves. The article already states what scientists (or rather, I should say, adherents to scientific methodology) think. It also states what those who believe in psychic phenomena think. Whether one or the other group of people has a stronger hold on the WP:TRUTH is not for us to say, but is rather for the reader to decide after having considered an editorially detached presentation of verifiable (but not necessarily veracious) assertions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another reason, by the way, is that on closer inspection, the statement, "the word 'psychic' refers to an ability..." is not really all that controversial in the first place. Both proponents and opponents are referring to the same ability when they say, "this ability exists" or, "this ability does not exist." Both sides have to have formulated roughly the same concept before either can respond meaningfully to the other's allegations/assertions/assumptions/arguments/claims/etc. about the concept. The lead does go on to note where the dispute lies. But both sides of the dispute seem to be large enough (opponents might even be in the minority), and to have made few enough headlines, that they haven't rendered the concept notable exclusively--or even primarily--on account of the debate surrounding it. It's at least equally notable, I would think, for its history and for its impacts on popular culture. So, no need to rush into the dispute--the article gets there in due time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A third point, which sort of sums up the second, is that "refers to" and "alleged" mean much the same thing, such that the phrase, "refers to an alleged ability" could be paraphrased as, "refers to what is referred to as an ability", which would be obviously redundant. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be an increasingly common fallacy here to equate science (&/or "facts") with belief. Again, as I noted below, IMHO, it would benefit this topic for all authors/editors to keep distinctions between the two firmly in mind. Basically, treat this topic as you would an article on a religion. Cynthisa (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Slight change to lead
I have changed the lead from saying skeptics only to "The putative powers of psychics are attributed to intentional trickery or self-delusion by critics and skeptics.", as not only sceptics are critics. This is a subtle, but I feel important, distinction. The references to my mind support this rewrite. The only other change is moving the attribution to the end, which flows better and is more usual. This was reverted saying that there was consensus to not make this change. I don't see this consensus, so would like to invite input here. Thanks, Verbal   chat  15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the wikilinks I missed off, and made a few other uncontroversial (I hope) edits. Verbal   chat  15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not object to the edit because there "was consensus to not make the change." I wrote "don't mess with consensus." The language of the lead was hammered out by many editors with quite some difficulty, and making changes to it for insignificant reasons, and without specific citation of source showing it's an improvement, is possibly disruptive. However, I don't see what harm the word "critic" does except be a bit redundant. How about we replace "critics and skeptics" with just "critics." And I'm not convinced that a wikilink adds anything at all to "critics." I'll edit accordingly. The real point is that this is something said about psychics, and I think we can all agree on that. I prefer the sentence with the subject leading, rather than using passive voice. --Abd (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, please don't manufacture dispute where none exists. If other editors not following me around have a problem then they can discuss it here. Consensus can change, but I see no evidence that these edits are controversial or go against previous consensus. There is a difference between critic and sceptic, perhaps if you read the links you might understand better? Please stop reverting me just because you don't like me. Verbal   chat  08:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, the one using pure reversion is you. You've done it here as you have done it elsewhere. I'm not following you around, but I noticed your activity in the blocking of an editor who had worked here and at Cold reading; and what did I find? Extensive use of pure reversion, long-term edit warring, in total disregard of the opinions of other editors. I've done fewer reverts than you; most edits aren't reverts at all, but attempts to find a compromise that I'd expect would ultimately find wide support, though quite possibly after modification. --Abd (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thought I'd offer my 2 cents per the invitation. I agree with Verbal that not all critics are skeptics, so perhaps instead of rejigging the sentence, just replace Skeptics with Critics i.e. "Critics have attributed the putative...".  I take the point that Critics mightn't link to anything, but I'm guessing skeptics get mentioned further on for a relevant link to be made?  As for the addition of 'only' before the 10%, I think that's probably redundant.  The reader should be able to infer how significant 10% is for themselves without additional verbal cues, otherwise I'd agree with the ordering from most to least significant results as just a straight statement of fact i.e. "96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP, 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged, and 2% believed in psi" Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think 10% is surprisingly low, while 2% is higher than I would have hoped (not sure if I'm surprised though!). It depends on the exact question for the 10 per-center. Verbal   chat  09:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit the nub of the issue there - others might be horrified by 10%, and others ecstatic over 2% !! I don't think we need to get involved though...  ;-)  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the differences in the lead and the changes are so subtle that I don't understand how anyone could have objected to them. And, frankly, the responses here seem to be suggesting that the edit was disruptive, which is nonsense. People do not WP:OWN this article, and if even such trivial unobjectionable improvements like that get such a strongly worded reaction then there is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND sentiment at work here instead of responsible editing. I suggest that more editors be brought to this page, because it's clear that the entrenched regulars (well known from other POV battlefields on th is project for advancing their own beliefs) do not want even the most minor edits to happen. 68.47.239.11 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I hope we can get back to improving the article. Verbal   chat  17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The survey reported in the lead:
From :
 * ''Robert McConnell and Thelma Clark report the results of a survey regarding attitudes toward parapsychology among the membership of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (who sponsored the Enhancing Human Performance report on mental development programs that was highly critical of parapsychology). The authors sent questionnaires to a sample consisting of 31% of the Academy's membership, 49% of which were returned. Only 2% of the members believed that the existence of psi has been demonstrated through scientific investigations, although an additional 2% believed that psi phenomena sometimes occur; 25% felt that parapsychological research should be discouraged, 63% felt that it should be allowed but not encouraged, and 10% felt that it should be encouraged. Neuroscientists were the most hostile to psi research of the all the specialty groups.

What we have:
 * ''In a 1991 survey of opinion amongst scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, 96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP, 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged, while 2% believed in psi.[8][9]

Our text has been heavily synthesized, if it depends on the source cited, and the effect is distortion. "Believed that the existence of psi has been demonstrated through scientific investigations" becomes "believed in psi." That's 2%. Another 2% "believed that psi phenomena sometimes occur." We could quibble: believing that something has been "established" as described isn't the same as believing in it; but let's assume that it is; that gives us 4% that "believe in psi." How many describe themselves as "skeptical"? Perhaps the original paper covers that, we aren't citing the original, but a review of it as quoted above. There is another review cited. I haven't been able to read it yet, though there is by one of the authors.

The original edit for this bit of text may be at Extrasensory_perception, by Tim314, 26 January, 2007. The 96% figure is supported in, p.258.

In this article, the first reference to this study was inserted by Martinphi, reverted by Orangemarlin, and the text with the present language about "96%" was inserted by John Nevard, 9 October, 2008. Because of the problem with 2% for belief in psi, I suspect that nobody has actually looked at the original source, and if that's true, the 96% figure is surely synthesized without sufficient grounds.

However, from the source, we could consider that at least 25% were "strongly skeptical," for skepticism in itself is not at all an argument against research; indeed, a good scientist maintains skepticism even when research seems conclusive, i.e., an openness to contradiction of what has seemed established. "Allowed but not encouraged" could also be considered especially skeptical, because an acceptance of the positive research as being of interest, one would think, would cause an inclination toward encouraging research, but this majority of scientists likely have a bent toward freedom of thought and investigation. So what I get as "skeptical," in the specific sense, a predominance of belief in non-existence, is 88%. I can see we will need to look at the original source. For now, though, we do have 4% as the figure for those that "believe in psi," if we are going to use that language. It would be better to hew more closely to source. Does anyone have access to the original? It was a paper published in Research in Parapsychology, 1990, by Robert McConnell and Thelma Clark, and there may be more coverage in McConnell, R.A., and Clark, T.K. (1991), "National Academy of Sciences' Opinion on Parapsychology," Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 85, 333-365. --Abd (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the rewrite, but I disagree with some of the long comment above.  Verbal   chat  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) comment cut in half by  Sifaka   talk  21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments shorter Abd, as you have been asked by ArbCom. It would help if you left out your "on-line polemic", to use your words. Maybe you've been around it too long! :) It is possible the rational arguments against further research and the existence of the phenomena, and lack of results so far, that create the scepticism - the sceptisism isn't an inbuilt prejudice against research. To say either, though, would be OR. Verbal   chat  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You misread the ArbComm decision, Verbal. Now, tell me, what was useful about your rather incoherent response that wouldn't have been accomplished with no response at all? --Abd (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the post starting this section was not polemic; it was a report of research, it includes, for example, material that might be in opposition to a stated conclusion of mine, though, in fact, I have no fixed POV here, beyond general skepticism. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval modified the lede to give the more specific survey results, putting a slightly fuller exposition in the body of the article. Perhaps if we can get the original source, we can expand that. I copy edited it to make it standard English, and added, in the body, a mention of neuroscientists as being the most hostile specialty to parapsychology. I also moved this to the section on Popular culture/Belief in psychic abilities. On the one hand, a general survey of scientists would not necessarily be authoritative as to scientific consensus in any particular field, for outside their fields, scientists are often more similar to the generally educated population than to specialists. But on the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences is a prestigious organization and it deserves high prominence, so I moved this text to the top of that section. I removed the citations from this sentence in the lede, and we should examine the rest of the lead, that's a big pile of complex citations for a lede. What I don't want to do is disturb the balance there. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I made my change without reading first in detail this section. Yes, the 96% thing is a mistaken synthesis of the source. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Biblical view
The Bible condemns any means of foretelling the future via mediums or psychics (see, for example, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:11, or 1 Chronicles 10:13). Thus, citing Samuel as an example of an early form of a psychic in 1 Samuel 9 is inaccurate. Captain Nutrition (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem as though if someone in the bible fulfills the definition of a "psychic" than he or she is a psychic, regardless of what the bible says. What you're proposing is related to the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" 119.224.94.110 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased
This whole article is hopelessly biased (like other Wiki articles on this topic, it is monitored constantly and systematically edited by members of a certain organization of "Skeptics" and "Critical Thinkers". Example: "In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is 'no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.' Fine. But why mention only this particular "study" (which was not based on research) when numerous other studies AND laboratory research have found positive evidence of "parapsychological phenomena"? Why only refer to the only "study" (that I am aware of) which failed to find evidence of psychic abilities? This is nonsense. Zak Martin zak@isis.ie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.28.130 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * China, Shanghai - Elliott. Pretty far from Florida. I didn't find the article at all biased. Wikipedia's (and any encyclopedia's fulcrum is not aligned between an equal number of contenders on each side of the issue. It is set between the availability of support for the existence or lack thereof of a thing. Psychic powers, and I'll be bold here as this is not the article, do not exist in any way shape or form. The article should be purely historical in nature and would be, were it not for the fact that some people still believe, and go as far as to construct rationales for the existence of magic for a variety of reasons. The information on these people is therefore contained within the article. If it has a pejorative tone, this is because it is (in part) about a group of modern day people who either lie, misplace their beliefs or both. It's been proved countless times that this is the case and I think that the article's summary of this fact has been scrupulously sourced. You are right in saying that a number of editors on Wikipedia are dedicated to ensuring that fringe theories do not get undue weight and that NPOV is not confused with providing a forum for nutcases who demand that their disturbing view of the world get the same attention as comparitavely lucid scientific research.


 * yes, this seems to be a major concerning issue on WIKIPEDIA (a resource should be representing balanced 'world knowledge') that needs to be pursued, I actually believe it is a minority group in Florida USA - you might even consider naming them the "cult group of Randi". Heated opinions and egos aside it is a extremely biased group that shouldn't be allowed to post ONLY its findings while deliberately and purposely deleting information from any other nations. When you have over 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians for exmaple, the views and sources of Asia should be respected. In a democracy, the voice of the majority cannot be ignored. In the Far East and Asia, psychic ability; Chi/Qi (martial arts/tai chi/feng shui etc.), ghosts, astrology etc. have a far greater impact and empirical knowledge base in science, they are not the seemingly distorted rantings of North American New Agers as this Randi group or the; "self appointed oppressors of curiosity" as Lyall Watson coined them, think. We can assume these edits are being made by parochial/provencial non-global travellers with a very limited world view, and are much younger than some of us, noted by their lack of maturity. Not the type that should be making edits at all. Western Science in many respects can be seen as a religion, which produces quite a large amount of arrogant intellectual bigotry. I think that edits made by these so-called 'science' fanatics should have their Wikipedia editing powers revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligentqa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing. 'Revoked' is highly unlikely as there are protective administrators who sympathize with their mutually barnstar'd cause. It's more likely your editing powers would be revoked, ha! I am curious about sources for Wikipedia that regard "psychic ability and... ghosts... [with] an empirical knowledge base". Please post and maybe they can be used in the article. It is the lack of empirical confirmation which has subjective knowledge reside in the disputed areas between science and religion. Intuition is plainly not empirical, though a few have tried to theorize otherwise; one of the more popular being Jung; psychology has an humanities weakness. The largest problem with Wikipedia is choosing 'acceptable' source material as all of Wikipedia is a rephrasing of WP:RS. You mention "Chi/Qi ...martial arts/tai chi/feng shui", perhaps there are well established spiritual texts that can be used as source material for the content that you have observed being undone, reverted, or deleted. - Steve3849  15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording and Clarification, + lack of source
I have two changes that I suggest for the article:

'Parapsychology involves research that does not rely upon scientific modeling'.

This is an unsourced statement, and is a fairly bold statement to make. Whilst it may be true, I would suggest a source be found with examples of said methodological flaws, otherwise it should be removed.

'Critics such as Ray Hyman suggest that parapsychology has no methodological flaws that can explain apparently the successful experimental results that parapsychologists attribute to paranormal explanations, and various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience.'

Now this seems to be intended to be against parapsychology, yet the passage reads that there are no methodological flaws that can explain the results. Given that most attacks on parapsychology are aimed at exposing results as fake or due to methodological issues, this doesn't make sense.

Additionally, 'apparently the successful experimental results' does not read well. If this is intended to be a criticism, then perhaps it should be phrased 'the apparently successful experimental results'.

Finally 'various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience'. I do not have as much of an issue with this, yet the sources given include Hyman and Wiseman, both noted skeptics. Whilst their credentials are solid, the later part of the section names them as independent researchers, which is open to debate given their a priori stance that psychic phenomena do not exist.

Thank you, Macromonkey (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're basing part of your argument on a version produced by vandalism, but that has since been repaired. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not forming an argument, merely seeking to improve the article. Now the vandalism has been reverted and the dubious statement removed, my suggested changes are almost completely implemented. I do, however, still dispute the categorizing of Hyman, Wiseman et al as independent researchers. It will probably be fairly easy to find independent research that does refute the existence of the phenomena, if that is the intended effect, but it should at least be done in a NPOV way. Macromonkey (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does the article state that Hyman and Wiseman, et al are independent researchers? I haven't noticed that, but you have, so please point me to it. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

<-- In the criticism and research section: '....various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience. This has largely been due to lack of replication of results by independent experimenters'

The references for this statement are as follows:
 * 1) Hyman, Ray (1995). "Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena". The Journal of Parapsychology 59 (1). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
 * 2) ^ Akers, C. (1986). Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 4. PesquisaPSI. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
 * 3) ^ Child, I.L. (1987). Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 5. PesquisaPSI. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
 * 4) ^ Wiseman, Richard; Smith, Matthew, et al. (1996). "Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments - Psychophysical Research Laboratories". The Journal of Parapsychology. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809. Retrieved 2007-07-30.

The way in which this information is given suggests that such researchers are independent. Just looking at the names of the studies, this can be seen as incorrect:

'Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology' 'Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology'

I am less aware of the reliability of the others, but using Hyman and Wiseman immediately rings alarm bells. Cheers. Macromonkey (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I may not be getting your point, but I'll try anyway, so be patient with me. When a scientific study of any kind is done and published, the conclusions of the study are often taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. Those results need to be confirmed by "independent" researchers, IOW other researchers who are "not connected to" the first researchers, and to make it really ideal (if it's very controversial stuff), who don't necessarily share their POV. If they also get the same results, the results are considered to be somewhat confirmed and are closer to being accepted by the scientific world. If the claims are extremely controversial, further research of a stronger nature may be required before others are convinced. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(removed)
(removed comment in foreign language) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.244.64.45 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that a literal translation of this might be a form of advertising? Correct me if I'm wrong. mechamind  9  0  15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. If it's useful, then it should be translated to English so other editors can understand it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pyschic
I've seen a lot of places that seemingly misspell psychic as "pyschic". I thought its probably just a typo, but I looked it up, and I found several other places with the same thing. Is it perhaps on purpose?

128.100.71.45 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Steve


 * No, there are just a lot of people who don't know how to spell. SuperAtheist (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."[
researchers say a lot of things. i intend this statement broadly, but expect practical concessions. the brain is so little understood that it can hardly be said with confidence that a difference in "neuronal activity" (with no theory for quantification or qualification) must necessarily be equated with SPECIFIC differences in cognition, mentition, etc. with zero underpinnings for a theory of consciousness, how can such a claim be regarded as anything but biased presupposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So many fallacies in this statement, I don't know where to begin. But if you've got one single reliable source that has ever shown psychic skills, provide it.  In the meantime, I'll get some sleep.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good & Evil Sources
The section here about seers and prophets does not belong in a psychic article, and if it remains, it should be explained. Psychic ability if from ESP comes from somewhere or someone, as ESP is the means of communication, not the source. The source, and few psychics will want you to know about this, is from Jinn. There are both good and bad Jinn. I will not say all psychics, but most, becasue the line is clouded, deal with the bad Jinn. Prphets and wise men deal with the good Jinn. This is a distinction rarely made as the psychics would never want anyone to know they are dealing with the bad Jinn, evil Jinn - it would be bad for business, which is another distinction between psychics and prophets or holy people - they do not charge. Most psychics have no real idea who they are getting their information from. Those that do are the most proficient and able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.177.66 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, all you have to do to get the article changed is to come up with verifiabe evidence for your claims from a reliable source. We can wait. SuperAtheist (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Phycics
The opening line currently asserts that "psychic" is "some times [sic] spelled phycics". Can anybody verify this? The term "phycics" shows up in several Oriental scholarly articles on physics, but I've yet to spot a reliable source (even an online dictionary) to suggest that this is a legitimate variant of "psychic". Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor's reverts
Apparently this editor thinks my edits were POV, but he hasn't explained, even going so far as to call my edits vandalism. I feel the edit was fully explained in the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stick to article. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. Your explanation was nothing more than an attempt to delete NPOV. Just because YOU don't like what was written is irrelevant. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there were no personal attacks. However, accusing someone of a personal attack when there was none is itself a personal attack.  Please discuss content instead of whether or not you happen to like me.
 * 98.103.95.226 when you are editing a controversial page like this one, it is best to discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page first. There has been a lot of back and forth trying to get this page right for a long time. So it would be helpful if you took that into consideration. Also I see that you have been doing a lot of editing, might you consider opening an account? Sgerbic (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I am discussing on the talk page... or trying to. My position would be that if you want to include it in the lead it should be first added to the article.  And it's very iffy to include such ancient sources and then not adequately discuss more recent ones. And I mean, it's cherry picking a skeptical paper  when there are dozens to choose from.  98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. We could provide dozens of articles that show psychic is a fringe idea with no basis in reality. Or science. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean we should delete the NPOV. I would suggest you start reading WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This is a fringe article, and to eliminate any statements that show it's a fringe idea is a POV edit. As a new editor, it is incumbent upon YOU to understand how we treat fringe ideas. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)The lead summarises the article, its not necessarily a series of extracts. The paper seems representative of the literature as a whole.  If you have some evidence for counter sources then list them  Snowded  TALK 05:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a WP:WEIGHT problem. The sources have to be reliable, not just any old stuff. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do know that SR and so I suspect does the IP. A little politeness does no harm you know  Snowded  TALK 05:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that an IP is suspect, but I'm no one you suspect, and I don't know him... never ever had any contact with him that I recall. Anyway, no, the sources on parapsychology are really not what you think they are. One would hope that the normal standards would be applied to this article. THAT is what WP:FRINGE is about. And the normal standards would indicate that we should not cherry pick a primary source from one side of a debate, and that we should seek out sources which indicate a current consensus, not one of a quarter century ago. 98.103.95.226 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading the comment, it says that I suspect you know about the various policies referenced. Until you follow those there is little point in replying  Snowded  TALK 06:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were agreeing with me. My point, partially, has been that the lead needs to be a summary of an article, not be a series of snippets that stand alone, as what I removed.  I'm aware of WP policy, not sure what you think I'm not taking into account.  If you think Wiseman and French are representative of "the literature," well I'd ask if you've read the literature?  I'm sure you haven't, merely because no one does, but it's not representative.  And the other source is 24 years old and there is a very great deal of water under the bridge since then.  Thus, an out-dated source and a cherry picked source.  It's hard to find sources, I know, but my questioning them is legit.
 * To the above person, please sign your posts with 4 of these ~. It will help us follow your conversation.  When you find the sources that support your changes then bring them here to talk and we can discuss them.  Just make sure that your sources are published in reputable journals and so on. We can wait, in the mean time the page exists as it is. As I said above, the lede does not just happen, it takes a lot of back and forth between editors. Sgerbic (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
"The evidence presented for psychic phenomena is not sufficiently verified for scientific acceptance".

Hello:) Please note the above statement is incorrect. Research has been conducted by http://noetic.org/directory/person/dean-radin/ and he has conducted meta-analysis of all the research and it points to psi activity existing. More details are here http://noetic.org/topics/neuroscience/ Please do me a favour and add this material or I will add it myself later today, as contrary to this article's stance there is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that telepathy, clairvoyance and prayer affect not only humans but also animals and machines:) Veryscarymary (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychic
I think also that the whole article is rather misleading as it starts describing 'A' psychic, rather than psychic phenomena itself. Psychic-ness has been investigated by hundreds of thousands of people over time and still is. The article should be about the whole study of the mind's ability to do things other than think about breakfast.  In the UK we have Rupert Sheldrake who has written about and studied 'being stared at' http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/staring/ which is a fascinating peace of research...please change the intro to the article and make it about psychic (or what is now called psi research) and about the genuine, sensible, interesting people that are investigating what we all as humans have the ability for!! Here are some Pubmed articles on such real research.  Dean Radin a few examples  1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742672  2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907152  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608110  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16979104  Rupert Sheldrake  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906099 <BR> Abstract <BR> Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. This view is now undergoing a credibility crunch. The biggest problem of all for materialism is the existence of consciousness. Panpsychism provides a way forward. So does the recognition that minds are not confined to brains. <BR> This study by Hadlaczky G, Westerlund J. is especially interesting about sensitivity to coincidence <BR> 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22403933 <BR> This is also interesting by Rock on Quantum Healing (Expectation) <BR> 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22385565 <BR> Milan EG did a study on aurus <BR> 8.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22197149 <BR><BR> This article by Leary questions why scientists are so opposed to parapsychology? 9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907149 <BR> This one is even more interesting! <BR> 10.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158 <BR> Evidence for a communal consciousness. <BR> Bobrow RS. <BR> Source <BR> Department of Family Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. rbobrow@notes.cc.sunysb.edu <BR> Abstract <BR> Recently described social network phenomena show that emotionally connected people come to share certain traits, including obesity, happiness, and loneliness. These do not appear to be mediated by face-to-face contact. Other examples of groups with a common connection that act in unison are mass hysteria, menstrual synchrony, and the ability of a group to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. The animal kingdom abounds with examples of groups functioning as a single whole: fish school, birds flock, hoofed animals herd, ant and bee colonies work as a single organism. Try as they might, neuroscientists have been unable to find an anatomical seat of consciousness within the brain. C.G. Jung's realization of a collective unconscious began with an observation of a patient whose thoughts matched previous writings that the patient had never seen. The "emotional telepathy" of social network phenomena suggests a collective/communal consciousness as well. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. <BR> I won't add anymore at the moment as I have a writing assignment I need to complete but please would you change this article to be a bit more open minded to the work that real scientists are ACTUALLY doing in this field:) <BR> Thank you :) Veryscarymary (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Psychic" is also an adjective, and reference to that is needed
I am editing an article about a fantasy rock opera in which the main character unwittingly develops psychic powers. This is a fantasy story, and his powers are supernatural. If I link "psychic" from that article to this psychic article, the only thing readers will see in the lead is that psychics are real people who fool people into thinking they have supernatural powers.

I understand the need to emphasize the skeptical view in this article, but the lead should at least describe what it is. Psychics claim to have psychic powers. So what are psychic powers? Dcs002 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, the rock opera is called Pink World, in case you are interested in seeing how the term is used in that article. (See the Plot section.) My only point is that psychic powers are a staple in the science fiction and fantasy genres, and should be described on their own. Just a brief mention that the term refers to supernatural brain powers or something would be fine.
 * Also, psychic powers redirects to parapsychology, which poses essentially the same problem as a reference. If there is an article under a name I'm missing that describes the adjective psychic or psychic powers, please let me know. That would be helpful too. Dcs002 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added fictional character, psychokinesis, and adjective use to the lead. I don't think any of it will be controversial. The OED lists two definitions of "psychic" as an adjective before defining it as a noun. Dcs002 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"A psychic is a person who claims..."
I'm not sure about this as a definition. I would have say that a psychic is a person who does use (such-and-such special power)", with the qualification that there are no (proven) psychics. Someone who merely claims to do so is not a psychic. Would someone who only "claims" to do magic be a wizard or witch? I think not. 31.54.58.79 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who 31.54.58.79 is, but I think he sums up the whole problem with this article better than all the other commenters put together! Richard27182 (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure that was me. Thanks! But I see the problem has not been addressed in two years. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Contactee has the exact same problem discussed here. 86.155.78.195 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's now been seven years. The article reads as though people can be whatalever they wish. I'm a scientist because I claim to be one. I'm the president of the US because I claim I am. I'm a three legged stool... Etc. Absolute nonsense and all the arguments about whether or not the country ncept is real or not have NO relevance to this issue. I find the claims insertion to be neither anti nor pro psychic, anyway.

Earthquake prediction
The page on "earthquake sensitive" was deleted, as it was, as written, too close to a fringe theory. I propose discussion of psychic ability to predict earthquakes be mentioned in this article, as a subset of psychic ability. Like psychic ability, it is unmeasurable with the standard scientific measurement tools that are currently available. Userafw (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Earliest use of word
Article credits the word to Flammarion but this is incorrect. OED has following:

1845  Dublin Univ. Mag. Jan. 496/1  The nightmare..may indeed be a mere phantasm or psychic image.

1858  J. Martineau Stud. Christianity 259  It was necessary that the Logos..should..by preoccupation have neutralized the action of the natural (or psychic) element throughout all the years of his continuance among men.

1860  W. D. Howells Let. 14 Nov. in Sel. Lett. (1979) I. 64  We talked chiefly about psychics... I am going largely into skepticism at present. 1874  E. W. Cox What am I? II. ii. xxiii. 289  He had previously exhibited considerable power as a Psychic.

1871  Proc. Royal Soc. 20 119 (title)   Psychic force and modern spiritualism. 1887  F. Johnson New Psychic Stud. i. 7  These studies are termed psychic in a modified sense; they pertain not to the ordinary operations of the mind, but to the unusual, such as thought-transference, somnambulism, mesmerism, clairvoyance, spiritualism, apparitions of the living, haunted houses, ghosts [etc.].

It's clear that the word had its modern meaning by about 1860. "Psychic force" seems to have been coined by William Crookes in 1871; Flammarion took up the term later:

[1871  W. Crookes in Q. Jrnl. Sci. July 17  Respecting the cause of these phenomena, the nature of the force to which..I have ventured to give the name of Psychic [etc.].] 1871  W. Crookes in Q. Jrnl. Sci. 1 339  Experiments appear conclusively to establish the existence of a new force, in some unknown manner connected with the human organisation, which for convenience may be called the Psychic Force. 1900  tr. Flammarion's Unknown vi. 228  We are compelled to admit the existence of an unknown psychic force, emanating from the human being, and capable of making itself felt at great distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclicpsychic (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Theological interpretation of psychics (sublimalities/nth differencials).
Throughout history 'psychics' (sublimalities) have been considered to be aberations, witches, b.efriended of 'satan' and 'lucifer', for those whom would be of an Ara(B) enslaving process.

These include all and every individual with an understanding of science, medicine, neurology, and include Darwin, Einstein, all and every engineer & physicist in history, all and every single one of these individuals being and having been factors in change or catalysts for/in change.

And then there are those whom definitely would be considered demented. Those whose neurology & nurture have been affected by asimetries in such a manner, that they would allow none other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Psychic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_/ai_20615402
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n3_v56/ai_13771782/pg_5
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15400020
 * Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818094952/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621043016/http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf to http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207093521/http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf to http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204071623/http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html to http://ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm not comfortable editing, but I did find a copy of the article that was referenced by the in Reference #1 on the page:  Matthew Nisbet (May–June 1998). "Psychic telephone networks profit on yearning, gullibility". Skeptical Inquirer.[permanent dead link]. If anyone feels it would be appropriate and would like to fix that link, the complete text of the original article can be found here: https://www.allthingspsychic.com/PsychicPhoneNetworks.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psychic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223348/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Belief in psychic abilities
I believe that it is beneficial to add to the section of belief to further show the percentage of who believes they possess this power but the lack of belief in others.

"Many people have also felt that they possess the ability of clairvoyance. It is recorded that only 22% of US adults have visited a psychic for a reading but 34% of these respondents believed that have encountered their own personal psychic episode. Although this vast percentage of people claim to have their own psychic abilities, only 24% believe there are others that have this ability."

1 in 3 Americans feel they have experienced a psychic moment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2017/10/31/1-3-americans-feel-they-have-experienced-psychic-m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwarriner4 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this would really qualify as a reliable source. This is a YouGov poll, timed to coincide with Halloween, in their 'Entertainment and Celebrity' section, conducted by e-mailing a link to an on-line survey to a self-selected sample of slightly over a thousand people. I think we'd want something a bit more substantial to rely upon.Girth Summit (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I do agree on the source. What about the topic being discussed? I am still looking for more information and ultimately a more reliable source to relay this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwarriner4 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There may be more recent surveys, I really don't know, but the 2005 Gallup survey that is already featured in our article is still cited in contemporary writings such as this. Unless the YouGov survey detail which you find interesting is cited by reliable secondary sources, we have no policy-based reason to include it here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Bwarriner4 - I am writing you a message on your talk page now. I have already reverted you three times today, so I can't do it again today without breaking WP:3RR, but your last edit is (a) sourced to a Wikipedia page, which is not allowed, and (b) improperly formatted, as you can see by looking at the page. Please could you self-revert. You can use your sandbox to work up edits and make sure they are formatted properly before publishing on main space. Thanks! Girth Summit (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
psychic

this article says that there is no proof but there is no biologic studies about it, people are frighten because of this, whoever did it will be criticize and not allowed to be an editor Noahhelm (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)