Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 7

Talk Page Archive
Archive 6 has been created with a link at right. Archive 7, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 7" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. 5Q5 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add disambiguation notice
I notice over at the telepathy article they have a short disambiguation notice at the top and I'm looking for consensus to see if we should add the same or a revised one to the PK article.

The PK article is about the alleged real intentioned and spontaneous ability, hoaxed ability, and alleged hoaxed ability, and discusses magic here and there only as part of the hoaxing issue, but it is not an article devoted to magicians simulating it as entertainment, which they do discuss in the mentalism article. And should we revise the line?

Magical and magic are not necessarily the same thing. Real PK could be described as magical (like magic), yet still be real. Magic act is pretty clear in meaning. I prefer the second one. 5Q5 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation templates should only be used when a term is genuinely ambiguous. When magicians perform mentalism, they will refer to it as a feat of telepathy.  But I've never heard of magicians performing tricks of mentalism and refering to it as psychokinesis.  I don't think anyone searching wikipedia would be expecting that either.  I have no problem with mentioning mentalism in the main body or the see also section as places to go for more information.  I think even it's use on the telepathy page is a bit of a stretch, but I am not totally down with my magician lingo. -Verdatum (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagre who makes you so sure that magicians will never rever to mentalism as psychokiensis? Lots of magicians have different patter and without a reliable source stot he contrary and I see no reason why a disambiguation should ne be inclurded. Smith Jones (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that it isn't done, but you can prove that it is.  My larger argument is no one would type "psychokinesis" into the wikipedia search bar, and when presented with this article, go, "Hey! this isn't what I wanted at all!  I wanted information about the 'ancient performing art in which its practitioners, known as mentalists, use mental acuity, cold reading, hot reading, principles of stage magic, hypnosis and/or suggestion to present the illusion of mind reading, psychokinesis, ESP, precognition, clairvoyance or mind control'!  How on earth will I know what to search for now??"  Show me a book definition for psychokinesis that says it has to do with this, and I'll change my mind.  Disambiguation is about genuine terminology confusion, not about showmen misrepresenting their techniques. -Verdatum (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine your right. I did some research and I found ceveral sources describing psyhcokiensis and mentalism: Smith Jones (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * here is a orsurce depicting "psychikinesis" as a form of psychic magic tricks.
 * another source describing psychokinesis in stage magicians as a stage magicians term
 * another psychokinetic magic trick
 * I can understand why you are baffled. I hard ot use a very powerful search engine to discover these sources. I will take your acuiescenece in lieu of a formal apology. Thank youf or playing! :D Smith Jones (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first link is the only arguable one. The second link is a straight copy of some revision of this article.  The third link only refers to PK in terms of a spoon bending book, and spoon bending is specifically addressed in this article (yet not in the mentalism article). The book in the first link makes it clear that there is a difference between PK and the illusion of PK; They call it "PK-magic" or "PK effects".  Other uses of the term are within that specific context.  So I still don't think there is any reason to believe the difference between PK and mentalism as terms are in any way ambiguous.  Think of it this way, flying is a regular phenomena.  Copperfield flies in one of his illusions.  The act is refered to as "flying".  But no one would argue for a disambiguation notice on Flight_(disambiguation) saying "for the illusion of flying, see Magic (illusion)". But no matter, I think 5Q5's solution is a good one. -Verdatum (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sd uou wish. Of oourse, you would have your own "Reaseons" for dispensing with my sources. Very well, Its a not consequential debate so I cam willing to concede and al low you to win this round. HOWEVER, I still throw my endorsement behind 5Q5's sugestion as per our consensus agreement reached on the talk page there. Smith Jones (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want it on the PK article, I was just throwing the idea out there. I see pros and cons to having it. We can suspend the idea pending further visits to this talk page and comments from other editors; maybe some will be from the magician community. Here is an online magic magazine that says: Another aspect of mentalism is Psychokinesis which involves affecting inanimate objects with the mind. http://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php/. The mentalism article, which I'm sure was written by them seems to make the connection. Verdatum is correct though, that the general population doesn't think of the word mentalism when they go looking for info on PK. I use the word disambiguation because unfortunately that's where the original template is located 5Q5 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thinking about Verdatum's comments some more, perhaps all we need is to add a mention in the "Magic and special effects" section in the article. Maybe "See also mentalism" under the section title? 5Q5 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. 5Q5 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in the lead
"influencing the output of a random number generator"

What? Where did that come from? I see the sources, but still, it shouldn't be in the lead. Any objection to moving it, and replacing it? Beam 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i thik its there as an example of a psychokinetic power. Smith Jones (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a peer-reviewed published paper reference to the line from Psychological Bulletin, July 2006, which indicates that the positive results seen " could in principle be a result of publication bias." However, the results could also be real; hence, the controversy with scientists on both sides of the issue. The line is appropriate as worded and maintains WP:NPOV in the article. Thanks for inspiring me to find a more formal reference, even though other editors originated the sentence and two other refs. I deleted the first reference because it also went to the same website as the second, parapsych.org. 5Q5 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One in eleven
Where does the claim of 1/11 chance for rolling dice come from? Presumably we are discussing evenly-weighted cubes, which gives 1/6 for each side of one die, 1/36 for each result if two distinguishable dice are rolled. Probabilities for the sum of two such dice equaling a particular number are: 2=1/36; 3=1/18; 4=1/12; 5=1/9; 6=5/36; 7=1/6; 8=5/36; 9=1/9; 10=1/12; 11=1/18; 12=1/36. Neither 1d6 nor 2d6 lead in any obvious way to a 1/11 chance, or even ~9.1% probability. If non-standard dice are being discussed, this should be mentioned. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible new notable claimant
There is a possible new name for the notable claimants list in the article. A Texas psychiatrist, M.D. named Colin A. Ross has made a claim of being able to make energy beams come from his eyes or eye. He has applied for the JREF prize. The situation needs monitoring to see how it plays out. To me, it looks like his device is just sensing moisture in the eye socket. When you open your eyes, moisture is released. Hold your eyes open long enough and you begin to shed tears. The conductivity of the air in his goggle is increased, amplified, and made to operate a switch. I could be wrong. I played the video, but had the sound off. See here: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/08/colin_ross_has_an_eyebeam_of_e.php and also a Google search for his name. 5Q5 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That explain seems unnecesarily convoluted. As per Occams Razor, it seems lime more logical that he does have some sort of psychokinetic or othewise above-human powers, or at least that his device has the power to create such an operant electrokinetic effect. In any case, we should wat until someone reports on this issue before incorprating it into the article. It could do better in the JREF article or the James Randi article if it is good enoughf or that. Smith Jones (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use Occam's Razor here, then we should favour the explanation that doesn't require a currently unknown phenomenon. To do otherwise would be to introduce a new assumption: "the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions". Brunton (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly.  The simplest solution is that he's a cheat or deluded.  Every claimaint so far has been. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thats your opinion, and one that is thus far unprovible. But the point is moot; a claimant to the JREF challenge belongs on the JREF page more than it sodes on here. We dont list every dowser in the world on the dowsing page or every psychic in the world on the [spsychic page. Smith Jones (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, where's the opinion in that? Which is simpler? That all of known physics is wrong, or that one person is a cheat?   Every claimaint to the challenge has failed and is therefore either deluded or lying about their abilities.  But of course you're right, he doesnt belong here unless he should manage to pass the challenge, then I'll add him to the page while I eat my keyboard.  How many different ways you could fake that video...13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs)


 * um, nowhere in pshyics does it say that psychics and psychic phenomonans can never exist. its your opinion apparently that psychicds dont exist, and many powerful people agree with you, but not evefrone does and thats important to take into account. we cant go stating opinions as facts. I honesltly don't see what someone pasing or failing one of the JREF "tests" has anything to do with psychokinesis. Any minor developments with those inquiries should go to the JREF page instead. Smith Jones (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and as for faking the video -- can we have some good faith ehre? Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean that they are con artists. Smith Jones (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of you who may keep track of this story, the mystery has been solved. The sounds played on the computer were caused by the blinking of the claimant's eyes. The electrodes connecting the claimant to the computer are used as input for a EEG software. There is apparently a well known EEG artifact called the Bell's phenomenon. From the EEG article: "there is reflexive movement of the eyeball during blinking which gives a characteristic artifactual appearance of the EEG". You can hear a more detail explanation on the always excellent Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Here is the link to this week's episode. The relevant segment starts around the 26:20 mark. An email from the claimant to James Randi read during the episode says that while maintaining his energy beam claim, he admits that the sounds are indeed caused by him blinking his eyes. --McSly (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

External link inclusion query - poltergeist caught on video
(This is about the South Shields poltergeist case, England 2006.)

I included the post below in external links because of the possible spontaneous PK of the suspended water bottle shown in dramatic footage and an editor removed it an hour later because of the secondary back scratching. Any consensus on if it contributes to the article and thereby qualifies for restoration? I did include it in the poltergeist article, but poltergeists are also mentioned in this PK article. 5Q5 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Poltergeist caught on video, The Sun UK newspaper, August 9, 2008. Footage of a water bottle suspended at an angle and wounds appearing on a victim's back. Location: Borough of South Tyneside, England.
 * Hello, I'm the one who removed the link. First you are right, my reason to remove the link should have been about the water bottle, not the cat scratch so let me rephrase my reason to this:

"Ok so they put a few drops of mercury in the bottle in order to move the center of gravity so it will be stable when tipped, no big deal"
 * Joking aside, a two minute, low resolution video with no context, published on the Sun website of all places is no proof for anything. Especially in a domain where fakes and hoaxes are legion. So before we assume that all known laws of physics are in fact wrong, maybe we get at least some evidence, I mean, real ones. And in the meantime, let's remove the video and from the poltergeist article too. --McSly (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I'll go with no link here but it does qualify for the poltergeist article. The Daily Mail also did a story on it. I also found a response to criticism FAQ here on the investigator's official website. It looks like the Sun article is the first release of footage from the case. 5Q5 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ...I haven't seen the video yet. but...you don't need mercury to make a bottle of water stand on edge...a plain bottle of water will stand at an angle so long as the bottle is partly filled with water and the water isn't sloshing....It's the same trick as standing an egg on it's end (which contrary to urban legend, does not only work on the equinox). -Verdatum (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When you view the video, you'll see that a hand reaches out and tries to knock it over. It almost looks like it's resting on a cushion of electrostatically charged air, which then dissipates resulting in the bottle finally falling over. Other objects on the table don't seem affected. Looks hard to duplicate by practical means, would have to be sophistcated cgi. In checking the case's website, I see it has a lot of participants. That's a lot of people to agree to a hoax. The researchers apparently have hours of footage, published a book, and are trying to get a media project going. I think they believe it's a ghost or something and not PK, so the link is okay for the poltergeist article for now can be used as a reference if or when the case is mentioned in the article itself.. 5Q5 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Sophisticated cgi?'... how about a bit of clear sticky putty on the edge of bottle, just sticky enough to hold it there for a minute or two, like a bit of silicon caulk.  How's this for a demo of PK and spontaneous wounding [] Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * be REASAONBLE, Guy. that video is clearl y a lode of nonsense. i mean seriously, a real pyrokinetic phenomonate would not be as flashy as it is portrayed in htat film, and the effects would be more psychokinetic than cartoonic. In any cas,e it is clearly of the same caliber as the poltergeist experiment and i think that there is a bad reason to include this into the article simply because it offers viable and good faih researched proof of psychokinetic paraphrenormativity which can help balance out that (quite correct) scientific POV that is in this article. of coure it shouldnt have a large section but it should be addressed in either this article on in poltergeist r parapsychology article. Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am confused. If the video is clearly a "lode[sic] of nonsense", why would you want to insert it anywhere? The reason I removed the video from this article in the first place was because it's so easy to fake as other editors have pointed out. Again, this video is no proof for anything, at best it is just useless. And my rejection is not coming from a lack of good faith, but from a lack of any kind of compelling evidence. Incidentally, their website raises pretty much all the red flags for a Fake/Hoax/Money making scam. From a complete lack of data, but a lot of testimonials, to all the proof that they have but won't show unless you buy their book on Amazon from the convenient link present on every page. Oh, and they also have a lot of videos apparently, but again they won't show them to you either because they are negotiating to film a documentary. Anyway, as you said and I agree with you, it's all nonsense, so let's remove the video from the poltergeist article as well and in the future, when their documentary is released, or when they get their Nobel price (whichever comes first), we can discuss about re-inserting the video. --McSly (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean, i just said that I thought that the video that GuyOnTheSubway posted was nonsense and that it doesnt belong on the argument seriously did you look at it? it shows a little boy shooting a fireball out of his eyes and incinerating his hand. that wasnt realistic at all!!!
 * as for the other video, i dont really care one way or another. to me, it sems like frontier scientific sources are being stifled a bit, but i can see why you dont want to include at this time. I personaly have no problem with you removing this link at this time, as long as your okay to readd it if it meets the conditions you stated. Smith Jones (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had in fact not clicked on the link (this is embarrassing). So cool, we agree then, no video.--McSly (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * its good to know that we were all on the same page re: the video. Smith Jones (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry... forgot the sarcasm tag. My point was that its easy to fake a video and that a video of a plastic bottle falling over is pure crap as a demonstration of anything.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concern
[To OrangeMarlin] Please don't try to edit war your change into the article. That is wording which is 1) obviously true and 2) has the consensus of other editors here. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There is no "known science" because you are implying some magic that is outside of the testability of science.  "Science" works on hypotheses, testing of the hypotheses, and then revising the hypothesis. Science requires falsifiability.  Implying or outright statements that there is some other science out there is just POV editing.   "Unknown science" is a canard that just doesn't exist.  I also find your warnings to be uncivil.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down folks. wp is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. this is a realy minor technical dispute and not something wroth reverting muiltiple times overr

Smith Jones (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You could put in "current scientific understanding." That is what everyone meant, and I believe it is what the reader would understand. I doubt anyone here ever before dreamed it could be interpreted as you did. "Current scientific understanding" is what was meant all along. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This really isn't worth an edit war. Just leave out the words "known" - it makes no difference to the idiomatic understanding, and is also technically correct, and is not encyclopaedic language. Verbal   chat  06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The very last thing anyone I know of claims is that they are ouside the laws of physics, or outside the realm of science. This is a real slap in the face to people, equivalent to calling them kooks.  They are as interested in science as anyone.  I'd like it if you wouldn't mind changing the first "known" back, so it says "by means outside the known laws of physics."  On the second one I put in a compromise wording. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about what motivated OM to make this change, and whether you view his actions as a slap. Take that up with him. The fact is the article is better without the word known there, and an emotive argument is a poor argument. Writing "science" rather than "known science" is not a slap or an allegation of kookiness; I think you are overreacting. Verbal   chat  07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. If it's against science it can never be science.  If it's just not in accord with known science then it might be figured out to be in accord with scientific understanding sometime in the future.  It's a slap in the face to those who attempt to study the matter in a scientific manner.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is no such thing. Please stop trying to be personally offended by a simple change from "known science" to "science". Verbal   chat  21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He ScienceApologist, once in a while I disagree with your edits, but in this case I think you did well. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's a good edit. Verbal   chat  18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Known science" is meaningless as the root of science is scientia "knowledge, that which is known or understood".    &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * technially, "known science" i sjust redundant. There is nothing wrong wit it as a locution but just saying "sciencE" would be tighter. Smith Jones (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and neither form is insulting. Verbal   chat  20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute
The definition "denotes the purported ability of the mind to influence matter, time, space, or energy by means outside the laws of physics." is POV, as it puts psychokinesis utterly outside the potential for scientific investigation. I have never seen a source which claimed such a thing. However, sources will say things such as that psychokinesis is not the result of known physical forces. But they will not state that it is outside the laws of physics (as if we knew what all of those were). This definition makes psychokinesis supernatural, not merely unexplained. It is also a statement not supported by the sources. I have therefore added the totally disputed tag to the article, since both the facts and POV of the article are now in question. One cannot change the very definition of a thing without changing the POV of the whole article.

We can go to mediation on this if you wish, but since the source does not support you, nor do the bulk of other reliable sources, I suggest you allow the article to return to the previous NPOV and consensus wording. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This "it is not in accord ... with reality" is hilarious given the topic. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Source from the OED "1. The supposed phenomenon whereby physical objects are moved or affected by mental or psychic effort alone; the ability to do this. Cf. telekinesis n. at TELE- comb. form 1." &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this source does not support the definition. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will file for mediation later today if things do not progress. It is a cut and dried case on not being in accord with the sources, and no need to drag it out. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Laws of physics clearly indicates that they describe only that what is known and not what is unknown. If psychokinesis exists and it relies on physics not yet understood then it lies outside the laws of physics which are a set of descriptions of known observable phenomena. According to the definition provided in the reference, psychokinesis relies on an energy that is not known to physics. Therefore, we can safely say that it is outside the laws of physics.

Part of the issue may be that some think that the "laws of physics" are somehow a theory of everything or some "writ in the clouds" list of explanations for all known physical phenomena. Any physicist will tell you that despite this "popular notion", this is manifestly not what the laws of physics are. When people refer to the laws of physics they are always referring to what we currently know.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I am bothering, but, Physical law, the redirect of laws of physics clearly indicates that they describe only what is observable, and not what is unobservable. That is not the same as what is known or unknown.  laws of magnetism existed decades before anyone had a decent explanation of the nature of magnetic force, and existing explanations have still yet to be "proven" true.  It was possible to draw up such laws because magnetism was observable in reproduceable experiments that yeilded consistent results.  So the counter-argument is, "if PK could be shown to exist, we could observe it, and then make some laws to describe it."  Whether "laws of physics" is in reference to the existing explicitly described laws of physics, or the universal laws of physics from the omniscient perspective (which would indeed be some form of theory-of-everything) is a rather silly argument of semantics.  Claiming that a phenomena is outside of such universal laws of physics would be special pleading; but I don't believe anyone is doing that. -Verdatum (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent
Excellent- SA this is true, but we should communicate it in a way which people will understand without having more than the communderstanding of what the laws of physics are. As far as I am concerned, the problem has been solved by the current edit. Thanks for the explanation of physics, and thanks to jossi for the edit (: BTW, if anyone wants to challenge the source, there are other good refs avaliable.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I came here to see if i could manage an acceptable wording, and found that Jossi had succeeded far better than what I would have done. DGG (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited out: Anecdotal evidence & Illusion of control
On August 21, 2008, an editor performed a major edit and deleted the above two sections from the article without proposing and seeking a consensus and with no explanation in the history log. See edit history here. The two terms anecdotal evidence and illusion of control were moved to the See also list, but those articles do not include a mention of PK, so I imagine the two terms will eventually be dropped from that list. I want to note this edit here in case a future editor of this PK article complains that there's no mention of anecdotal evidence or illusion of control. I suppose the article could do without them, but we need to acknowledge the edit at least, since there was no talk page discussion on it and regular editors may have missed it. 5Q5 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good. I think that was too much detail, really. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current state of the article, I believe both terms can and should be worked into the "statements of skeptics" section as common arguments given in dismissing the existence of PK (and obviously removed from the See Also section thereafter). I agree that taking the time to define each term does not add to the article, that's why we have wikilinks. -Verdatum (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I think they needed better sourcing, didn't they? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be nice. I have no reason to doubt they are used.  I've seen various bits of infotainment on tv that invoked them in the skeptical side of the discussion of PK issues, but I have no references off the top of my head...Penn & Teller: Bullshit! perhaps... -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure there are sources, I don't have them either right at hand. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will go and lok for sources as to that efect, because I am ver certain that skeptic scientists have used these concpets to explain alleged PK phenomoenon. Smith Jones (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a soucrce. here we go. I am not completely sure that it suits WP:RS, so im not going to incorporate it into the aritcle until its been "vetted" so to speak by you epople on the talk page. Here is a quote:

Where the coincidence is between a person’s own action and an event external to them, the same effect may be at work but the assumed cause will be personal control; or in the context of psi, it will be PK. This has been called the "illusion of control" by Langer (1975). Sheep have been found to show a greater illusion of control than goats in a psi task (Ayeroff and Abelson 1976, Jones et al. 1977; Benassi et al. 1979). One might argue that if PK occurs then the perception of personal control in such tasks is not an illusion. This is less likely, given that no PK was found in these experiments. However, to rule out this as an explanation for the difference, Blackmore and Troscianko (1985) used a covert psi task. There was no evidence of PK and a greater illusion of control for sheep than for goats.

Check it out. while is seems to refer to sheep and goats rather than epople (?) it seems valid to what you are trying to iullustrate vis a vis the primary skepdical arguments., Smith Jones (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sheep" and "Goats" are Blackmore and Troscianko's terms for those drawn to, and resistant to paranormal explanations. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (replying to 5Q5) Thanks for alerting us to this. I definitely think the illusion of control section needs to be included, and there are references enough in the Illusion of Control article itself. An article about people thinking that P should definitely mention a known, demonstrated perceptual bias that can make them think P when P is not the case. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored a referenced line about anecdotal evidence that I wrote for a previous version of the article. The actual quote from the sourced book can also be found by searching the history. Illusion of control was originated by other editors, so I'll let someone else restore a referenced a line for that. 5Q5 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice source, Smith Jones (: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Name
Isn't Telekinesis a much more common name for this than Psychokinesis? If so, should that be what the article should be called? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This was discussed in Archive 3 "Telekinesis vs. Psychokinesis". The current thinking, as supported by references in the article and this additional reference in Archive 6 "PK vs. TK - terminology difference" is that PK is the umbrulla term and TK (specifically moving objects, especially whole objects) is one of the specialties under it. The greater popularity of TK has a lot to do with Hollywood's influence, as parapsychologists prefer PK. 5Q5 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit and dispute flag
OM recently made some unsupported claims in the article, and then KillerChihuahua actually reverted them in. I've put the totally disputed tag on the article till others get around to repairing it. Thanks. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support OM and KCs version - it removals weasel words and is correct and verifiable, giving the significant scientific viewpoint. Verbal   chat  08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added "However," to the beginning of the line in the intro. It all reads okay to me. 5Q5 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The statement is that there is "no evidence." Get sources which give this negative proof, then we can remove the dispute tag. Else attribute well. We can go all the way to mediation and back and wherever, but such SYNTH and OR won't fly. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't you put a more specific flag, like which would limit the dispute to the intro only, or even just flag the disputed line with a citation required tag? I'm concerned a general flag is going to open the floodgate to all sorts of proposed changes throughout the article and we've already been through that. 5Q5 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea. MartinPhi wishes to make a detailed descussion of the dispute.  To do so, it should be here in the talk page.  That would mean  and pasting that info in this thread, or creating a new discussion section, putting the issue there, and changing the second variable appropriately. -Verdatum (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right.

You know, guys, that edit was just a POV push against a longstanding consensus version. The editor isn't here discussing. The WP:BRD cycle has thus not honored by KillerChihuahua or OrangeMarlin. Does anyone actually here on this page mind just going back to the other version. Else, ideas of how to improve it. I would put

Claims that psychokinesis can occur are disputed by critics such as Ray Hyman and Robet Todd Carroll, who ascribe positive study results to publication bias, fraud, delusion, error and statistical manipulation of scientific data. Alternatively, other natural phenomena have been identified possible explanations for some claimed instances of psychokinesis. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific evidence. Find a scientific study which shows evidence, and post the link here. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not my job. Find evidence for the claims. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about changing the current: However, there is no scientific evidence that this phenomenon exists. to However, there is no scientific evidence that has gone unchallenged that psychokinesis exists. That would give balance to the scientists (RNG experimenters) who say they have provided evidence and also to the scientists who say it doesn't qualify as evidence. Reference number 11 in the article provides a study that says there is evidence claimed by those pro-scientists but that the claimed evidence could be (not definitely that it is) the result of publication bias. What do you think? Can we hurry this along? 5Q5 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to be gone till tonight. Agree to put that in... would like it better "There is not unchallenged evidence that this phenomenon exists."  I think there's a bit more to do later though.  You can take the tag off as far as I'm concerned, but if people start revert warring or won't compromise later I'll put it back on.  Ok?  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sir, you are employing a double negative." -- Mr. Spock. 5Q5 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, sorry. Go ahead and do what you want. I have to be away tomorrow as well, but should be back the next day.  We can work out the problems then.  Problems:

"However, there is no scientific evidence that this phenomenon exists." statement which cannot be sourced, and which no scientist (speaking properly as a scientist) would make.

"Scientists have concluded that evidence supporting the existence of psychokinesis is subject to publication bias, fraud, delusion, and statistical manipulation of scientific data and cannot be experimentally repeated." First, this is not sourced. Second, it indicates that this is the conclusion of all scientists. It's not. Third, it implies that parapsychologists are not scientists, because they have, in some cases, come to a different conclusion, and their general consensus is that it does exist.

"Other natural phenomena have been identified as being able to explain certain claimed instances of psychokinesis." Technically ok.... but combined with the rest strongly implies that they have all been explained. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the top section flag and did some revising to the two lines. Tweak as needed. We also discussed this issue in Archive 6 in two sections there. The line used to read "scientists have contended" and someone changed it to "scientists have concluded" at some point. I agree with Martinphi about that description being too definite; for example, like him or not, Radin is a scientist and he certainly hasn't come to a negative conclusion about PK. The history log makes it seem part of my edit was to add the line Other natural phenomena have been identified as being able to explain certain claimed instances of psychokinesis. but for the record that line was already there. I just moved the reference away from that line back to the one it originally supported. 5Q5 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your changes look good. I was going to change it thus, but need time to get sources.  If sourced, would it be OK?

There is no unchallenged scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists. Skeptics and psychologists such as James Alcock and Ray Hyman have proposed that evidence supporting the existence of psychokinesis is subject to such problems as publication bias, fraud, delusion, and statistical manipulation of scientific data and cannot be experimentally repeated. Other natural phenomena have been identified as being able to explain certain claimed instances of psychokinesis.

Nearly all the skeptics who are scientists are psychologists. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, mostly it is the psychologists who are willing to comment publicly on the subject. I do like your idea above of being more specific; sounds good. Sagan, an astronomer, commented about TK as quoted in the article, just calling it pseudoscience. "There is no unchallenged" is a double negative phrase. I used a negative in two separate clauses in the current line. Tweak that fuller line if it needs it, maybe to There is no scientific evidence regarding psychokinesis that has not been challenged by skeptics and . . . (I don't know, just a start). 5Q5 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no scientific evidence regarding psychokinesis that has not been challenged by critics. Skeptics and psychologists such as Holger Bösch and Ray Hyman have proposed that evidence supporting the existence of psychokinesis is subject to such problems as publication bias, fraud, delusion, and statistical manipulation of scientific data and cannot be experimentally repeated. Other natural phenomena have been identified as being able to explain certain claimed instances of psychokinesis.


 * Like that? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, reads better than my tweak; I support your revision. Soon I will have to archive this page. I will wait for a period of inactivity. 5Q5 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you notice this source


 * Bösch, H.; Steinkamp, F.; Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators- A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 497-523


 * I think there is enough out there to write a good section on the science which could not be easily assailed to create a mechanism for debunking. That, combined with just a few sources some of the other work, is all we need to create a good section.  Radin's criticism of it would go in, as a counter opinion.  Basically it is a very fair article. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to take on the chore of adding a new section, by all means. I'd like to see somebody else add a new section for a change. The above article you mention, the abstract anyway, is already used for ref 11 in the article. What the PK article could use is a section on proposed modes of operation, but a full library of historical parapsychological materials is needed to research them all and it is often very difficult finding the originator of a hypothesis or theory because modern researchers sometimes attribute vaguely. They assume everyone else has such a large personal library of English- and foreign-language books and articles available. I don't have such a library but maybe there are a few modern books that have covered the basic proposed science. If a new section is added discussing just one or two ideas, I can foresee a lot of visitors jumping in with their own unsourced pet theories. That's why I've refrained from doing it. I'd want as many as I could find in my initial post. Or when you say "a good section on the science" do you just mean in the RNG experiments? 5Q5 (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Men Who Stare at Goats movie
This PK article used to have a section discussing The Men Who Stare at Goats psychic powers issue. See archive here. There is now a major Hollywood military comedy movie in production based loosely on the book starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor ( Star Wars ), Kevin Spacey ( K-PAX ), and Jeff Bridges ( Starman ). I'm the editor who removed that section from the article but I later returned the book as a reference (#56) for military personnel who were notable witnesses to PK events. Because there is a PK element to the book and a lot of Oscar winners and nominees starring in the movie, we will need to monitor this to see if it should be added to the pop culture section in 2010 when it comes out. This appears to be the first real-world PK movie ever made with many Oscar-winning and -nominated A-list actors involved. I think that's notable and there will be a lot of promotion for this movie and this article will get increased views as a result as more people research PK. Here's a UK newspaper article with more. 5Q5 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)