Talk:Clairvoyance/Archive 1

npov

I'm kind of sketchy on the idea that this discussion of the topic constitutes a neutral point of view. It implies that the scientific community considers the existence of clairvoyance an open question, which I don't believe to be the case. There are certainly people who believe that clairvoyance does exist, and they are entitled to that belief. But that doesn't make it a mainstream scientific perspective, even if they're right. rhaas 23:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

about encyclopedic

* Clairvoyance, voluntary and involuntary, the pituitary body and the pineal gland, unused sex force, types of sensitives, children.

About this link - one among those removed - the most you may say is that it is not scientific and that is correct, according to our mainstream science tenets; however, it is an anlysis of Clairvoyance from the esoteric point of view, and this is a valid - encyclopedic - view, as it expresses points not available in the scientic view. The function of the encyclopedia it is not to make science experiments to validate the veracity of the facts, but to state in a logic NPOV or MPOV way the knowledge available. So, the stated link goes back to its place again. Regards, --GalaazV 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

The Marquis de Puységur

Re CREDIT. Well, I am glad to read in the article that the earliest recorded report of somnambulistic clairvoyance is credited to the Marquis de Puységur. Who else but the Marquis de Puységur would deserve the honor. Greek and Roman historians, not to mention the Bible, have written on the theme at length, but that, of course, was anecdotal evidence. With the Marquis de Puységur we are dealing with SCIENCE. Credit where credit is due!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re DULL-WITTED. Victor Race, the peasant mentioned in the article, may well have been dull-witted, but no evidence for this can be found in the report of the Marquis de Puységur. The Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire et à l'établissement du magnétisme animal (1784) are nevertheless well worth reading, if only for the passage where the Marquis and his brother the Comte de Puységur, also a scientist, bring a dead dog back to life through magnetism.
Note, however, the comment by a famous Parisian wit quoted in the Petites Affichages that a man who submitted on his own free will to a treatment by the Puységurs cannot have been anything but dull-witted.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Non-NPOV Tag

At the moment it seems like this is taking the fact that all of this stuff is all "esp", why is there nothing about Cold Reading? All I can see is one negative sentance. I don't want to offend anyone, too much, so I was wondering what other people think! Help plz 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs the tag. There are some quotes of dissenting opinions at the bottom of the page, but the entire article treats the subject as if it were an accepted reality, which it is not even close to being. I'm not really the expert here, but I think the statement that "scientific opinion appears divided" is extraordinarily misleading. Chalkieperfect 04:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and put the NPOV tag on if you want, but this is really rather moderate relative to the state of the research. Read the parapsychology article for more. There are quite a few high-ranking scientists who think psi has scientific support. Also, it doesn't really matter whether it is "accepted" or not, it matters what the WP:V sources say.

How are you going to cold read something miles away? Cold reading is a magical act for an audience. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, cold reading applies pretty much exclusively to one individual using audience reactions and body language to tailor a series of generic responses to an individual. You can't cold remotely, doing so would be a psychic ability in itself. perfectblue 09:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters category

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 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but I definitely believe that this is a very good idea. Go for it! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I made the article NPOV by saying outright that it is about parapsychology, by sourcing it, and by taking out the weasel words. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Tauist arts / Qi

I think the way this aspect of the article is written is a little misleading. While I am no expert, I am familier enough to know that translating "Qi" as "air" does not convey an accurate idea of the concept. While there is no direct translation so it is difficult, "life force" is generally thought to be closer to the mark. The factual statements regarding the abilities taht can be developed using Tauist technique might want to be framed a little less catagorically?

hi mate

hi mate....i thought you might be interested in the ongoing debate and drama at the Clairsentience page.... dont worry..if you`re not too bothered about it.Thesource42 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i did a whole new section placing clairsentience in the context of altered states with references to mckenna , tim leary , gordon wasson .... shamanic use of ayuhasca , iboga.... shamnic drumming and dancing... the protestent shaker movement ... the whirling dervishes .... and even a mental health section showing how all of the phenomena thought meaningfull to one group was equally thought to be symptomatic of various mental health diagnosis.....

my aproach was agnostic and included all aproaches with equal validity so that any curios reader could follow their own path of reasoning and research....

i thought from the nature of your remarks elsewhere and your chosen study area that you mighht be sympathetique.... cheers Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

childish redirect

(the article presently on the main Clairsentience page .. if it stays there for 5 minutes ... is the old first draft before months of work was childishly trashed and a meaningless redirect to the clairvoyance page put in its place...Thesource42 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the playground games continue...

ive posted this on the clairvoyance talk page after someone completely removed the clar#irsentience article which had gone through a process of months of work , rewrites , endless discussion , removasl of personal matereal , edits for style and content .... endless work on correct sourcing and wikpedia referencing and formatting..... the article which had been arrived at with co operation and discussion over many weeks and v man who himself put some hours into grammer , punctuation ... re editting for stlye and content ... and much help in correct sourcing and referencing .....Thesource42 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

this article was the sum of many peoples input , effort and hard work so i dont know how or who removed it so thoughtlessly and put the meaningless redirect to the clairvoyance page... any help would be great.... cheers..Thesource42 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

hi guys

i see youve redirected the clairsentience article.... let me ask....what was the point of the weeks of discussions and rewrites if you guys were going to redirect it anyway....you should have told me t get lost out of here...... what was the point of it all? why did i listen to you ? at all? why did i remove all personal references? why did i reference and source all of my matereal diligently and in great detail ? why did i edit and re edit for style and content ? why did i make additional references to religios , anthropological ,socialogical , philosophical ,medical , physics , chemistry , botany , mental health etc so that all views were included and respected? why did i fulfill all of the above hurdles and hoops to fulfill wikpedia formatting and guidlines for you too to delete months of hard work and effort. your actions are without integrity or honour .....Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

fair enough

its a fair point...... but why oh why did i do so much fulfilling all of the wikpedia guidlines for personal content , editting style , correct sourcing and referencing , wiki formatting etc .....months tireless work on an article which was to be so casually consigned to the dustbin.......Thesource42 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

however much i respect your views, a redirect to the clairvoyance article would however be entirely meaningless... one is not exchangeable for the other... like cheese isn`t milk etc.....

covering the groundwork general background to establish a context for understanding extra sensory phenomena in general needed to be done and it might as well happen at the Clairsentience page for now.....

the reason i did it there was because fundamental doubts were being expressed about my earliest article`s conents were concerned implicitly announcing that the background for understanding extra sensory phenomena in general had not been done.... which was ... as remember saying to you a few weeks ago the frustrating context which motivated the writing of the second article with all of its references to the background research of brennan , lylle , mckenna , bohm , wilber , sheldrake etc......because this background had to be established before any specifics about clairsentience could even be begun to be aproached ....... thus the many weeks days and months of toil which has been endured to even get this background matereal into a wikpedia format and guidlines shape ...... all of which criterea have been met .... or at leasst were until the finished product was mindlessly deleted...

the new additional altered states matereal was a tentative beginning into finding a context for tentatively describing the specifics of the clairsentience phenomena itself...

but , agian it was trashed with no thought or care....

clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsaentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....Thesource42 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

-Current thinking in clairvoyant circles posits that most are born with clairvoyant abilities but then start to turn them off as children are brought up to adhere to demonstrable social norms. Numerous institutes offer training courses that attempt to revive the abilities present in those early years.-

to my opinion, this is true as I myself and most of my family have such ability although a weak version of it. To me, there's no such thing as lose of this ability but more of an evolution of the ability to suit, adapt and compansate the growth of the child and the person themself as I've saw this change in my own self although it's still a weak version of clairvoyance. This is ability most can't belive as the effect and result is rather subjective and variable to the extend that neither could be reproduced in any manner unless for a particular person themself.

personaly i believe what they say that we all are psychic just not psychics. i believe that we teach our selfs how to use this um ability. i have experienced all except for("seeing" through opaque objects) i am yet for that, that i know of they did not start for me till i was 14 for reasons i would not like to go into. i am also wondering if any of you happen to be like some of my friends who some share something like it in a way but not enought of it and for simmilar reasons and that we all seem to be coming up with a year i shall not specifi for other reasons but if you do please post here

^^^^ What????????? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, but this page is not for general discussion and personal experiences. It's for talking about the article itself.

That said, this article is waaaaaay NPOV. What a joke!~`~~

NPOV and credibility issue with remote viewing research

This section doesn't feel neutral and leans towards crackpot-speak (with phrases like "astronomical proportions" and "billion billion to one"). In addition I reviewed these papers with a variety of statisticians and the overall consensus was that these papers and the corresponding meta analysis were unscientific and littered with errors (selection bias etc). In addition, this section does not jive with the following section (ie, if this was true, why haven't these guys won the James Randi prize). This needs a serious revision. -Scotopia 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical analysis of clairvoyance

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit in the Research section. Please review. Thank you. -Scotopia 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption about brain useage

"The vast majority of people only normally use one-third of their brains and one-third of their lungs." - this is either an incorrect or badly worded sentence. All humans use all of their brain, just not all at the same time. Automatic functions aside, the visual cortex is nowhere near the language or auditory sections of the brain. So unless a person is creating an opera while attempting to visually distinguish similar birds while being chased by a chainsaw wielding maniac during digestion... and even that wouldn't use the whole brain at once, but a fair amount of it. Point being, it's incorrect. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_028.html and wikipedia's own Human Brain

Allow me to add a link referencing the usage of the human brain. While not 100% proof, I would take it as a more reliable source that points to the 100% usage of the human brain.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.115.195 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 

Re: incorrect assumption about brain usage.

The articles that you have provided do not back up what you have stated. Please provide actual links to proven information that specifically states otherwise, Cecil is no expert on brain usage. The wiki article does not state information that directly falsifies what was stated in this entry.

please elaborate.

general

ummm.. isnt this supposed to be on clairvoyance? anyway, i don't know if anyone agrees with me or not, but, i believe that every creature — humans and animals and insects and, everything really — is clairvoyant, at least in their dreams if nothing else. i mean, really though, have you ever tried to tap into that power? anybody? you in the nice, soft, comfy computer chair at home or at the office when you're supposed to be working on a spreadsheet? or you, in the hard, wooden chair in study hall at your laptop? really? nobody? okay. well i'm not going to say that i know how, but it is true. have you ever dreamed a bout some thing, then a week, or the next day, or years later even, have it happen? okay, now, you, and you.. oh! so now you believe me? no? i didn't think so. i have to go now. but before i do, one more example. have you ever been sitting at home or in the car, or where ever, and some show or song pops into your head? yes, okay, almost everyone. kay. so, how many of you have had that song or show come on in a minute or the next day? okay, still almost all of you. okay, before you ask, im not a college professor, or even a teacher. im still IN school. --always - dadark 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Brain usage

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

The idea that one only uses a portion of the brain is absurd, and has been repeatedly disproved by neuroscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witchzenka (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of definition in lead by Martinphi

I have reverted the lead to the consensus version. It had been reverted by Martinphi without discussion, which he is not allowed to do, if I understand correctly.

Substituting a definition for a well-written WP:LEAD is not satisfactory, especially when that definition is not NPOV, but is written from a true believer's POV that assumes that clairvoyance is a real and legitimate phenomena and is written with that type of language. We can't have a lead that is NPOV and reliable if it misleads readers with the use of language based on the assumption that this unproven nonsense is real. If the definition is to be used anywhere in the article, it must be made clear to readers that it is a definition written from the believer's POV, a POV that is not accepted by scientific sources. -- Fyslee / talk 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And Martinphi's attempt to use an "Arbcom ruling" to justify his action is unacceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless very specifically backed by a particular ArbCom ruling, that type of justification is generally unhelpful, especially as an edit summary. Antelan ^talk 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi was incorrect in creating a lead that was clearly POV, and his justification for doing so was bogus. Nice catch Fys. •Jim62sch• 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, he was mis-using edit summaries (e.g. "Revert per ArbCom on the Paranormal. I was hoping for further ArbCom instruction on this, but it seems we're back to enforcing it as is.") and mis-using the Arbcom to get his way, defending "his" version against all comers. "The Arbcom" should not be used as a substitute for Talk Page discussion, as clearly, a number of people have a problem with "his" definition. - LuckyLouie 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom said what the ArbCom said. If you don't like it, please just add your names to the requests for clarification. Otherwise, you need to accept it. If the ArbCom does not give clarification, then it must be that the meaning is as obvious as it seems- we simply don't need to use those words. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice serious flaws in this paragraph? "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%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979)." Just how reliable is this source? •Jim62sch• 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is online. And here is another citation of that stat. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

These are NOT credible sources. Give us a break. Whining about scientists who are skeptical about this data is ridiculous. I know of 0% of Natural scientists who believe in this stuff. What's my reference? The total lack of peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals that support this hypothesis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving this Article

In the interests of journalistic fairness and balance, I am improving this article by adding three concise and well-referenced paragraphs and a few sentences, without deleting anything. This is a second attempt to make this improvement. Yesterday someone by the user name of Antelan deleted this edit. Such immature misconduct will not be tolerated. This discussion page has the purpose of allowing editors to respectfully discuss differing viewpoints, and to agree on a balanced article without sabotage. Otherwise, the help desk has advised me that other steps can be taken.RAmesbury (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The help desk comment is [1] by me. RAmesbury referenced it somewhat selectively. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be best, RAmesbury, if you outlined what you wanted to include for "fairness and balance" here rather than trying to push it through in the article space where there are a number of users (including myself) who see your edits as entirely too biased, unreferenced, and giving undue weight to paranormal believers' opinions. I recommend, for example, that you look at WP:FRINGE if you want to know the direction this article will take. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal Evidence

My training is essentially in the sciences ("prove it"), and I am not one to believe what I can't see --- I should've been from Missouri ("show me").

However, speaking from personal experience (arguably, what other kind is there?), I know that extrasensory perception is real (specifically, clairvoyance of the precognition variety). Of course, my contention (and that of others) is only anecdotal. And such may always be the case, if I am correct in my belief that ESP by nature and definition is a phenomenon that occurs only in one's mind --- at this point, something that is impossible to quantify.

It would follow, then, that the qualification of one's ESP experiences is filtered through one's perceptions, which could possibly be skewed or selective(ly biased), as psychologists have argued in "debunking" claims of ESP experiences or abilities. However, I'm not sure what positive psychological "need" would be filled by publicly claiming such experiences, per the experts, since most such people would be subjected to negative reactions including ridicule, persecution, or worse.

Again, speaking anecdotally, I am positive that from adolescence to early adulthood I experienced numerous dreams (basically, static tableaux) that came to pass in the course of my life several weeks or months later. The most vivid of these were of instances/situations that were unique to me (i.e., in places and/or with people that I had never seen before).

Regarding the idea of "selective bias" among people who claim such experiences, I can only theorize that we can't prove for or against such because they may be mostly or all random occurrences --- such abilities may not be truly controllable (and this could very well be where the true charlatans come in, who would claim to have such control). Also, I believe that people could have clairvoyant/precognitive dreams, but that many of those dreams simply do not come to pass because their realization would fall along a number of different paths that our lives may take.

Anyway, that's my take on ESP. It can't be proved scientifically (and may never be), but I believe, at least, in the existence of the one aspect of possible ESP experience that I have had (clairvoyance/precognition) --- and I'm sure other rational people could report similar experiences. 66.28.244.68 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)tiGGer2-too

Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for discussion of the subject of the article. You may want to bring up your thoughts on a forum or other place dedicated to clairvoyance, as you will probably get more response there. Antelan ^talk 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I do not know of any Wiki rule or policy that gives one editor the right to censor the contribution of another editor. If anyone has a problem with the contribution I am trying to make to the Clairvoyance article, please intelligently and articulately communicate your concerns on my Talk page. Simply clicking on Undo, as you have done before, is not science. It is censorship. If it continues I will have to commence DR action. Best wishes.RAmesbury (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the place to discuss your edits to this article is here, at this article's talk page. Also, common usage is to add new sections at the bottom of the page; so I will move this section appropriately. As to your edits, they appear to push a WP:FRINGE theory. I suggest you attempt more discussion of specific edits on this talk page prior to making them. If discussion on this page does not produce a consensus, perhaps you should pursue dispute resolution. I would note, however, that consensus does not require unanimity. Dlabtot (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Why is the NPOV tag on this article? Who placed it? When? What exactly is in dispute? Where, specifically, can we find in the article, the sections, paragraphs, sentences or references that are disputed? Dlabtot (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

dffsdfsdfsdf

Is seeing things in the page which do not appear in the source also a form of clairvoyance? Anyway, I see the text 'dffsdfsdfsdf' in the 'see also'-section, but cannot find it in the source. What is happening here? 145.97.226.75 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ah seemed to have been vandalism on the infobox. Thanks to whoever fixed this. 145.97.226.75 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rv

Reverted per many talk page discussions in other articles. Specifically, that statements about the scientific community such as that [2] exclude parapsychologists from the scientific community. "No reliable source indicates that parapsychologists who do accept paranormal phenomena are in the scientific community." Not true, why don't you look at quotes from James Alcock, James Randi etc. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 07:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Alcock nor Randi say that parapsychologists who believe in paranormal phenomena are members of the scientific community. They say that parapsychology is a scientific study, but that is a different statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And neither does the statement in the article, which says "Claims for the existence of paranormal psychic abilities such as clairvoyance are highly controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but the existence of such paranormal phenomena is not accepted by the scientific community outside of parapsychology." The sources mentioned say that parapsychology is science, or parapsychologists are scientists, making no distinction between those who do and do not believe. Your statement says that parapsychologists are not scientists "the existence of the paranormal is not accepted by the scientific community." Per the paranormal ArbCom, parapsychology is a field of science. I will therefore change the statement back to the NPOV version. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By saying "outside of parapsychology" you are implying that there are people inside of the scientific community who think that paranormal psychic abilities exist due to their evaluation of the science. This is patently false. There are no sources which indicate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are people outside of parapsychology who accept there is enough evidence to to accept that there is something more than the physical. I personally know several psychologists, and psychiatrists, a Professor of Cosmology, medical doctors, physicists, engineers, etc., etc., and have attended a number of conferences to that effect. Your research capability is clearly as poor as your science. anyway, none of it is paranormal or supernatural; it is perfectly normal and perfectly natural. The "para" and "super" appendages are simply conveniences for those of limited senses, limited knowledge, limited understanding and, clearly, very limited scientific and research capability. MartinPhi is fair in his treatment of these subjects in general and certainly gives the impression of having a far greater grasp of science than you do, ScienceApologist. I have long felt that your pseudonym (any chance of you having the courage to say who you really are) is sort of appropriate but the wrong way round as your brand of science comes over as an apology for science. You would have quite a job on your hands amassing many marks if you were a student of mine. RichardKingCEng (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your personal say-so, and the personal say-so of scientists who believe in psychic powers do not serve as sources for the implication that there are people inside the scientific community who think that paranormal psychic abilities exist due to their evaluation of the science. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are only your personal say-so. Searching on Google "bibliography, research, psychic" and picking the decent returns out of the dross, is easy. Anyone claiming to be science minded would have no problems with that. Entering "pdf", ".ac.uk", ".edu", etc., in the research terms helps, let alone using Google Scholar. Of course you need to weed out the sources where the majority of editors do not know what they are talking about, particularly Wikipedia of course. I am getting the distinct impression that you would consider any references that go against your prejudices as just say-so on the basis of the researchers, peer reviewers, etc. As I have said elsewhere, I strongly advise students to only use the basic subjects in Wikipedia as a general guide and not to use it beyond that, and would mark them down for quoting Wikipedia. That is all down to the poor quality of editors, of which you manage to be a good example. That is also why I only drop in here occasionally. Wikipedia is, mostly, a lost cause in the lunatics have taken over the asylum, students have taken over the university, sense. it is those who have not a clue and whose "science" and "logic" is at the junior, even infant, school level that are in the majority. By the way, you are still hiding and not prepared to show what you have to offer, unlike all those you would come across if you were capable of research. RichardKingCEng (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism

"According to skeptics, clairvoyance is the result of fraud.." A true skeptic would not make such an assertion. The correct term here would be non-believers or opponents.109.148.15.119 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No true scotsman fallacy, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Crown chakra

Why isn't there any mention of the crown chakra and abilities related to its development? I accidentally had mine start working and I clearly hear others thoughts randomly all the time. I often will say what another person is thinking before they do verbatim, the light of the words travels faster than the sound wave. Lots of people have observed me do it and some hav commented. I know I'm not the only one and I'm a Caucasian westerner that didn't believe before it happened to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.81.220 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, then win Randi's million dollars in order to prove to everybody that clairvoyance is real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Clairvoyance conflated with scientific topics

I'm quite surprised to land on this page and find that very little of this article on the subject of clairvoyance and it has instead devolved into a debate into the scientific evidence for psi. In this article, clairvoyance is conflated with ESP, remote viewing, and ganzfeld experiments - indeed anything having to do with being psychic.

The idea of clairvoyance existed far before there was a field of parapsychology and parapsychology is not the only field concerned with it. I recommend that we strip this article of the un-referenced material and re-frame it as a description of the cultural and historical concept of clairvoyance - with the parapsychological study of such being merely a footnote. I feel like the parapsychological studies are getting undue weight here. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if clairvoyance is real, it can be studied scientifically. So rational skepticism and parapsychology debate upon whether clairvoyance is real. Historians have no access to the supernatural and could therefore describe only claims of being clairvoyant, they could never tell if clairvoyance is real. When discussing something alleged to be real, it is very relevant to see whether mainstream scientists consider it proven or just pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly reason to discuss the epistemological status of clairvoyance somewhere on the page, but that could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs - and stated after its historical and cultural relevancy has been discussed. Right now 'clairvoyance' is described as if it is a uniquely parapsychological concept. Clairvoyance is generalized to psi nearly from the start, and in some places experimental results are presented without referencing. I think we could do better here. (By the way, thanks for cleaning up the footnote. Sorry about that.) Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Very little of the Bible, Koran and so on would fit in the category "clairvoyance", even taking their texts at face value. And very few of those sanctified by various churches actually claimed to be clairvoyant. Apparently there is more to religion than having visions. True, the authors of the holy books claimed to be inspired by God but the mechanism through which they were inspired does not get much attention in those books. Claims of hearing God speaking could be somewhere between clairaudition and telepathy, but it is difficult to decide which of these it could be in lack of reliable sources, besides rational skeptics would claim there is no such thing as God speaking to people. E.g. historians, even Bible scholars, default to Bible authors being unable to paranormally predict anything, and accurately describing "future" events is evidence for postdiction. That's part of how Bible books get dated, having insight through premonition isn't seriously considered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The prophets of the Bible were always cautious not to be conflated with soothsayers. Divination was somewhere between prohibited and despised (disreputable), according to the Bible. They were not claiming that they could see the future, they were claiming that God has shown them the future. Of course, people like Rudolf Steiner claimed that the prophets were clairvoyants, but imho he did not produce reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

High-Impact Peer-Reviewed Journals

I see the intro to this article claims that no evidence supporting Clairvoyance has appeared in "high-impact peer-reviewed journals", but later in the article it is explicitly mentioned that results by Targ and Puthoff - indicative, at least to them, of the phenomenon's validity - were published in Nature and the Proceedings of the IEEE. The article then discusses how there was a mainstream scientific debate over the results.

Thus, this initial claim, although apparently sourced (to an article explicitly about skepticism), does not appear to be true. I propose that it should be removed, as it implies a generality about the scientific community that is shown to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.226 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, there seems to be a general lack of specificity in terms, so I suppose without accepted definitions (something that will never exist on a subject that is not accepted) my argument is not relevant.67.163.161.226 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)