Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Talk Page Archive

Archive 5 has been created with a link at right. Archive 6, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 6" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia: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) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo ideas for the article (cont'd from Archive 5)

It'd be nice if someone could track down a Public Domain or Creative Commons version of this image, the cascading balls at Princeton. What they'd do is drop the balls into these 19 collecting bins, and ask participants to try and PK the balls away from the center (normally the balls form a bell shape with more in the center than on the outsides). They'd then measure for a statistically significant deviation of the balls from the baseline (bell shape). I've wanted that image for the parapsychology article for some time but can't find one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like a perfectly appropriate image. I take it most people would be opposed to merely recreating the subject of the photo artificially, otherwise we could do that. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I myself would not be opposed to creating it artificially - this article could use some images, and it doesn't look like we're going to find many that are available for our use. Perhaps a bell curve showing statistical probabilities as used in the online PK "tests" might be used also? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo for the intro should in some way reflect PK in action or as a result. Photos for other sections can correspond similarly. The PEAR lab photo with the cascading balls is probably owned by Robert G. Jahn or Brenda J. Dunne, whoever operated the camera that day. Good luck trying to get them to donate, though who knows, one of them might, now that the lab is closed and the glory days are over. One other option is ask for a PK claimant on one of these psi forums if anyone has a photo or video still of one of their claims. You might get a large choice to choose from, but they have to be willing to make the claim in the Wiki photo page description and the image has to look good. Yet another option is that photos over 100 years old are in the public domain, right? Maybe there's some pre-1907/8 seance photo out there that has a PK effect in it. The seance aspect of PK is mentioned in the article in early history. Maybe there's an ancient painting or drawing. Early history is a fitting place for an image like these. 5Q5 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any old, free comic book images we could use? Something instantly recognizable? Antelan ^talk 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain images found. Let's begin a discussion and choose the best one (or two?) for the PK article and I will upload it/them to Wikipedia. Suggest where they should be placed in the article. Not sure if all can be uploaded without designating an article at the same time, so if anyone wants them for other articles, go ahead and upload them and let us know here. As I post this, I could not find any of these already on Wikipedia. 5Q5 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886) levitating himself at a seance.
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
2. A child levitating due to the influence of witchcraft. Published in Saducismus Triumphatus, London, 1861 by Joseph Glanvill.
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
3. Withdrawn - Unable to verify. "A poltergeist phenomenon witnessed by Father Tinel in 1850 in Cideville, France." This image looks like it might have been on Wikipedia at one time, but I cannot find it. View here Update: I am unable to find the needed information to authenticate and qualify this image for uploading. The only place I can find the image in print is in the Time-Life encyclopedia Mind Over Matter, 1988, pg 37, where the caption accompanying it reads: "Tables, chairs, and even a dog and cat sail above the heads of an astonished Father Tinel and his housekeeper at the parsonage in Cideville, France, in 1850." The source for the image in that book is "Jean-Loup Charmet" which is a photo library now included in the Bridgeman Art Library in the UK. However, they no longer have the image in their database, at least not under "Father Tinel" or "poltergeist." Furthermore, I am unable to establish that a Father Tinel ever witnessed poltergeist activity or that the image even depicts Tinel. Without a publication and date to cite, this image cannot be uploaded at this time.
4. H. Mairet, Séance with Eusapia Palladino at the home of Camille Flammarion, France, 25 November 1898. / Eusapia Palladino levitates a table at a seance on November 25, 1898. This particular psychic was endorsed as genuine by magician Howard Thurston. She was also known to resort to trickery when her talents failed (sound familar?).
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
5. "A Mandolin Levitating During a Seance with Eusapia Palladino 13th March 1903." I guess the mandolin is the striped baloon-looking object. This one is interesting because it appears to have originated on an old photo card with a German spelling of "telekinesis" in the caption. Back then telekinesis was a term used to refer to a power channeled through the medium. Later that was changed to mind power as the source.
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
6. French spirit photography hoaxer Édouard Isidore Buguet (1840-1901) demonstrates telekinesis in this 1875 photo titled Fluidic Effect.
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
7. A 14-year-old domestic servant, Therese Selles, experiences poltergeist / spontaneous PK activity in the home of her employer, the Todeschini family at Cheragas, Algeria, as featured on the cover of the French magazine La Vie Mysterieuse in 1911.
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page
8. The medium Eva Carrière with a light manifestation between her hands and a materialization on her head. Carrière also performed under the names Eva C. and Marthe Béraud. Photograph taken in 1912 by German photographer Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1862 – 1929).
   • Uploaded - View Wikipedia photo page

---

What's with the HTML tags? Anyway, fine effort, 5Q5! Of these images I'd fairly strongly support image 5. It supports the more traditional and popular (according to popular culture) manefestation of PK/TK. 4 does as well, but the image is of a lower quality (I couldn't particularly tell that the table was levitating). Levitation is fine, but a bit more appropriate/specific to levitation. I'm not fond of using images of poltergiests because (and this is certainly arguable) the relationship between poltergiests and PK is less intuitive. Any of these images would be acceptable, I'd just prefer the image to be something intuitive to the casual enquirer to PK (at least for the first image). Not something that illicits, "Huh?? How is that related?...oooh yeah, I suppose so, how about that." It would be nice if we could have one image where the practicioner claims it to be true PK, and one image of a fictional representation of PK, but because most popular references in fiction are more recent, copyright issues generally prevent that...I'll keep thinking, and it's obviously worthwhile to continue the search for quality images (I'll see what I can do later). -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also like images 4/5. Antelan ^talk 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nix 5. Click on the "zoom" link on that photo's page for an enlarged version and you can see she's not even trying hard. She's partially hidden behind the curtain and the mandolin is also right up close to the curtain. If I had seen this more clearly, I wouldn't have even offered it as a candidate. These seance photos were taken in darkened rooms with flash powder. As the Church Lady saying goes, "how conveeenient." New photo: I found a really good candidate in number 6 by a 19th century French spirit photographer who made and sold faked telekinesis and ghost photos. You can see what's going on in the photo in seconds. It would fit right in the Early history section. In the caption I would indicate that it was fake. I even have an AP news story source that says he was arrested and spent a year in jail. Both the publishing date and date of his death are well over a hundred years old, so it's definitely PD. I'm still looking for more photos, and feel free to add your own candidates for any section to the above list, but right now 6 is my top choice for Early history. It should reduce in size nicely to the right of the section. I think the intro should be reserved for a modern era image. What do you think? 5Q5 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your arguments completely rule out image five. However, I think this new image is excellent, a clear photo and a classic example of TK. I also agree with your thoughts on the caption. I think it sorta knocks 4 and 5 out of the running. Once again, great find. -Verdatum (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a nice photo and would be good here. Antelan ^talk 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I used html to create the numbered list above because the Wiki markup number sign # only works for words, phrases, or short sentences. But the blockquote tags weren't really needed so I removed them. I'll work on uploading pic 6. It seems uploading a PD image is different. I have to create a new registration at Wiki Commons and upload it there. If I upload any of the other images, I'll note it as a link in the above list so that they can be used in other articles. Depends on how much qualifying info they need to upload. Can't see the upload form until I register. Hey, four hyphens creates a faint separation line, at least on this Mac Safari browser; will check my PC tomorrow. Didn't know that. 5Q5 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These are great!! We don't have to choose only one, do we? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded pic 6 and inserted it into the Early history section. I will upload the others as I have time. I have to gather more info on them for the form. Finally, Houston, we have photo. 5Q5 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the creator of the spoon bending photo if he was making a claim of PK for it, but he hasn't logged into Wikipedia since May 1, 2007, so that looks like a lost cause. 5Q5 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded Pic 1 and Pic 2 to Wikipedia Commons. Feel free to place them in any appropriate article. I am continuing to gather information on the others. 5Q5 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pics 1, 2, 4-7 have been uploaded. Pic 3 has been withdrawn; unable to verify. I'm done for now (I have one more famous image pending). I don't intend to insert any more of these images into the PK article. See all available paranormal images at Category:Paranormal phenomena which is a subcategory of Category:Occult. 5Q5 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture 8 of the medium Eva Carrière uploaded. 5Q5 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert M. Schoch notable witnesses reference

For the record, here's the full source quote from Atlantis Rising magazine Jan/Feb 2008 issue for the ref on Robert M. Schoch in the Notable witnesses section, article written by Schoch: Although I was extremely skeptical at first, after spending years of studying the topic, based on literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and first-hand experiences, I do believe that at least some PK is real. ... Clearly to my mind, the PEAR studies (and similar studies in other laboratories) have demonstrated that micro-PK exists. ... I will admit that once I personally observed a minor poltergeist incident (a book "jumping" off a shelf when no one was close to it, and there was no shaking or other tampering with the shelf, and this occurred with a woman in the room who has had other poltergeist incidents occur in her presence). 5Q5 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Phrase "On the other hand Macro PK..." needs improving

The opening words of this line in Measurement and observation: "On the other hand Macro-PK (also macro-TK) is a large-scale effect which can be seen with the unaided eye" seem inappropriate considering PK can involve the hands. Maybe just begin with "Macro PK..." or "At the opposite end of the range of effects is..."5Q5 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. I removed "On the other hand" from the sentence. 5Q5 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is in dispute, and yet since the inception of this archive there hasn't been any talk about it? Is someone who disputes its neutrality engaged with editors who actively work on this article? Are they contributing? I tend to dispute the neutrality of that neutrality tag... Eleven even (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree (again). I'm removing the neutrality banner. As I questioned previously (see talk page archive 5), the article has been flagged since May 2007 and it was changed from a neutrality check to fully disputed on 7 January 2008 by ScienceApologist, who never explained what the dispute was. The article has undergone a lot of improvement edits since May 2007. Unless the flagging editor is willing to identify the dispute on the talk page (and not just the history summary) so that it can be assessed and, if justifiable, resolved, then any other editor should be able to remove the designation promptly, as the dispute is just an empty label. 5Q5 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that. When a new archive is started, I will include a message to that effect ("Talk about your tag or have it removed"). Eleven even (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes good point. I think there are still neutrality issues, but honestly, I can't remember what they specifically are, and I don't think anyone else currently watching the article does either. If I remember, my main problem when I first read this article was the rebuttals of rebuttals, which should always be avoided as it essentially turns the article into a threaded discussion (there's a guideline or essay that explains this, but I can't remember which off the top of my head.). My other problem was an issue of undue weight given to one side which is discussed in WP:FRINGE. I haven't read the article close enough lately to recall the state of these issues, but I think a good deal of the infractions have been improved in the last couple months. If someone wants to claim NNPOV, they should raise specific grievences. -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Second subsection

Modern usage? What the heck? Seriously? This section is rediculous. The report on teleportation is comical at best, and a horrible waste of money at worst, and you're using it to try and define terms? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generic comments like "This section is rediculous." are not helpful in conveying your thoughts and justifications on how the article should be edited. As far as I know, the source specified is appropriate according to WP:FRINGE. Unless you provide a supported argument, it tends to come off as it's "comical" only because you disagree or don't like it. So any details you could give would be much appreciated. Further, it is often helpful when trying to collaborate on an article with a goal of neutrality to discuss issues in a more neutral, and less judgemental tone. Thanks! :) -Verdatum (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, being nice to people helps. Your edits are good so far, though. Insulting the article in those kind of terms is almost the same as insulting the authors, who have obviously worked hard on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Carson Clip

In response to 5Q5's revert comments, I saw a clip of the carson footage a couple months ago. If I recall correctly, he was given the option to bend spoons wasn't he? He was presented an entire table of things to do, and he decided not to try because he wasn't feeling in the right mindframe (hideously paraphrasing)...Either way, I don't feel too strongly about it, as it's documented better in the main gellar article, which is where such details probably belong. -Verdatum (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Randi was given the entire Carson interview, yet, being a master of misdirection himself, chose to selectively edit it to exclude any metal bending and to emphasize the failure of hand dowsing. The clip lasts for just under two minutes when the appearance of the commercial break title card is not counted. I don't know if he tried to bend metal on the show or not. We have only Randi's version over the years and he definitely is a biased source. A lengthy interview clip of his brother-in-law/manager Shipi Shtrang is on Youtube, during which he speaks of the Carson appearance and he says he seems to remember that Geller did manage to bend something a little. If so, that could be why Randi chose the hand dowsing portion and the myth of the Carson show career failure began. I think all of us would like to see Geller's entire appearance on that Carson show episode. Of course Geller is employing magic today, but that doesn't mean he always did. He could have lost his ability and had to cheat to keep his career going. Much like several of today's famous baseball stars unfortunately. So, yes, Geller can be described as hoaxing today and in years past, but someone would have to discredit all the scientist, magician, and journalist witness statements from the very beginning to say he was always a cheat and failure. I'd want to see a source for each one disproven. That can't be done, as many of the witnesses are now dead, so part of Geller's story, the early years, will always be an open question. Of course, maybe time-traveling remote viewers could solve this... :) 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that entirely depends on if time travel is predetermined or is able to have an effect on causality. As it could be the very act of traveling back in time that robs him of his powers. Furthermore, time travel is not allowed by Wikipedia editors, as it is a form of Original Research ;-) -Verdatum (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

not really. while time travel remains impossible, ther eis no actual regulation stiipulating that time travel as a resaerch technique is invalid. if in theory someone could go back ni time and collect a quote/source that fits WP:V, then they could intheory introduce it. of course time travel is not possible so this is moot, but i feel i must corerct your unfair alleation. Smith Jones (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I considered this exceptional case before replying, but dismissed it. I believe you are correct. If you can use time travel to retrieve a verifiable resource, that would be acceptable. But to use techniques such as interviewing now-dead witnesses would not. Unless you got the interviews published and recognised as a reliable source, in which case, you should probably leave it to another editor to include, so as to avoid a conflict of interest....Wouldn't it be great if this discussion blew up and we had to take it to Arbitrartion to rule on the acceptibility of resources obtained via time travel? -Verdatum (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With parallel universes, all sides are covered. 5Q5 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I spy Burden of proof (logical fallacy). If you accept Geller's alleged powers on the evidence 5Q5 considers above, you'll accept anything.MartinPoulter (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

All External Wiki links are nofollow

Brief note to registered and unregistered editors. External links added to this or any Wiki article or talk pages will not be crawled by search engines. See the Jan 2007 Search Engine Journal article All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW. 5Q5 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PKE

I'm somewhat surprised to say, I think the Ghostbuster's reference is actually appropriate for the pop culture section (maybe not in the position found, but somewhere). The concept of the PKEmeter is often referenced when describing/explaining various instruments used in attempt to measure various forms of supernatural activity. It also validates the concept that popular culture aknowledges the relationship between ghosts and psychokinetic activity. -Verdatum (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never came across a reference to Ghostbusters or the fictional PKE meter (Google search) in all the material I researched for the article. You'd have to come up with a high quality reference. The poltergeist article doesn't mention the films, even though it has a poltergeists in fiction section. Keep in mind the article will one day need space for a likely lengthy and heavily referenced Hypothesized modes of operation section. That's one of the reasons we're trying to keep the section brief. I once suggested someone begin a new article: Psychokinesis (fiction), but nobody wanted to get it started. 5Q5 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is currently some contention and resistence to "in fiction" and "in popular culture subarticles. I think it will eventually be better resolved, but at the moment, concensus is still up in the air. -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PK / TK - terminology difference - 2nd reference

I want to store this second reference here because from time to time someone challenges the split in the two words' meanings. The book cited also has photo illustrated instructions for many of the tricks used by magicians to simulate PK and TK; these tricks then referenced by skeptics as the basis for debunking the entire phenomenon: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Street Magic, author: Tom Ogden, 2007, New York, Alpha Books/Penguin Group. ISBN 978-1-59257-675-3. Page 238: "Although telekinesis (or TK) is sometimes used synonymously with psychokinesis, it more specifically means the ability to make objects move by mind power." 5Q5 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to PK in Popular culture section - religion/mythology

Just about every medium is covered in the examples given except religious writings/mythology. An unregistered editor removed the following line of mine from the section on January 18, 2008 and I'd like to know if there is a consensus to return it or let's tweak and finalize it here: "There are also written accounts of psychokinetic events in ancient religious writings, most notably the Bible, in which, for example, Jesus is described as miraculously walking on water, transmuting water into wine, healing the sick, and reversing physical disability or even death by mere touch or thought." 5Q5 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the content; though ideally there should be a reference that describes such feats as being psychokinesis to avoid WP:SYN. -Verdatum (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing a discussion or two in my previous reference searches. When I have a chance, I 'll look again. The opening phrase of the line could be revised to "There are also written accounts of events fitting the description of psychokinesis in ancient religious writings, most notably the Bible,..." 5Q5 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed the new material in a Religion and mythology subsection because it doesn't seem to fit with a popular culture label. 5Q5 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a public domain image to the section: "The Resurrection of Lazarus" painting by Leon Bonnat. Of all the Bible-story images I researched, this is the best at depicting deity-level psychokinesis. Tweak the caption if it needs it. Note a peculiarity in Christ's arms: It is impossible for a normal human to extend the arms out straight like that in real life. Try it. 5Q5 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientists contend

In my opinion, this sentence: "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist, and that claims that it does are based on publication bias, fraud, delusion, statistical manipulation of scientific data, or other naturally explainable phenomena." is not verifiable by the footnote provided, which gives this link. The linked article does not contain the words "fraud" or "manipulation". It does not contain the word "delusion" as such, but contains the word "delusional" only to describe a particular individual. I didn't find anywhere in the article any general statements about what scientists contend.
I suggest changing the sentence to "A long history of scientific investigation has had little success in demonstrating that people can move things without trickery." and possibly adding "Scientific studies attempting to demonstrate psychokinesis have been called "unimpressive", and a meta-analysis of 30 dice studies found that those giving positive evidence did not meet criteria for a conclusive PK test." In my opinion, these sentences can reasonably be considered to be supported by the reference given. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fair claim to say I originated and referenced over 95% of the article and supplied all the images over the past couple of years, then tweaked (improved upon) by others, but the line you are proposing changing was originated by (also regular) editor Martinphi on Jun 7, 2007 (Martinphi's briefer version). It has since been expanded and discussed by many editors to get to the consensus it now has. Your line sounds a bit negative POV to me and could get the article flagged with a neutrality check banner again, which we'd all like to avoid. May I suggest leaving the line as it now is but move the current reference to the points in the sentence to which they apply and then tag any others with citation required? Maybe Martinphi should comment on this (sooner or later he will if it's changed!) 5Q5 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If you could provide links or titles of section headings of the relevant discussions, that would be helpful. If not, I might find them myself anyway. I found this so far: Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 5#Neutrality check banner - remove or keep? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's completely POV to say "scientists contend" because you are making the decision that no scientist ever says psychokinesis is real. In other words, you are calling Brian Josephson, and others, a non-scientist. If it were attributed (not merely sourced), and actually was said in the source, that would be OK. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to stay out of this one. I never contributed to the line in question. 5Q5 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a tag, 5Q5. I had been thinking of putting a fact tag, myself. The sentence as it currently stands is not supported by the source, as I've explained above.

OrangeMarlin said in an edit summary, "Reverting. The change in sentence made less sense and is WP:WEASEL worded." Would you please explain what you mean by "made less sense"? It seems to me to parse fine. Please suggest an alternative wording which is supported by the source. Here's a suggestion which removes the weasel word problem: "According to Robert Todd Carroll, in spite of a long history of scientific investigation there has been little success in demonstrating that people can move objects without trickery." I modified the wording to attempt to convey the sense of the word "but" in the original. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problems with your formulation are those of applying particular attribution to a majority view and giving undue weight to a fringe view. Antelan^talk 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I decided that I don't want to put in a fact tag, for the following reason: there's a big difference between a statement that violates WP:V and states that psychokinesis does not exist, and a statement that violates WP:V and states that psychokinesis does exist. I agree with Casliber's removal of the lopsided tags. I suppose the number of scientists with an opposing view are probably a tiny minority and therefore don't need to be mentioned, per WP:UNDUE. I still think the current version is not supported by the source. Here's a source that might possibly be of some use: [1] It mentions "...scepticism within the scientific community at large against the very existence of psi..." and could therefore possibly be used to back up a statement similar to "Scientists state that psychokinesis does not exist."; although the source is generally pro-psychokinesis. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The lopsided tags were removed and this discussion continues in the Dubious topic below. 5Q5 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tag in intro line: "Scientists state that PK does not exist."

I tagged the above line in the intro with {{Who}} and {{Dubious}} because as worded it is false. The PK article itself gives the names and quotes by two scientists, Dean Radin and Robert M. Schoch and their stated belief in PK. The line in question was recently changed. It previously read: "Skeptics contend that psychokinesis does not really exist, and that claims that it does are based on publication bias, fraud, delusion, statistical manipulation of scientific data, or other naturally explainable phenomena." That was supported by the reference to The Skeptic's Dictionary, authored by an admitted skeptic and it balanced the line before it about paranormal researchers. I propose restoring the previous line, which existed in the article for a year or nearly a year. Consensus? 5Q5 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither the existence of, nor any proposed mechanism for, psychokinesis have been accepted by the scientific community, though there are individual scientists who believe in them. A number of known experimental and perceptual biases can create a false reports of PK. - Doesn't this sum up the situation? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The line is unencyclopedic because it false as worded. Name the scientists who "state that psychokinesis does not exist" or change it to "Most scientists," "All but a small number of scientists, "Scientists who are part of the mainstream scientific community," etc. I provided all the quotes in the article, pro and con. I could only find a quote by scientist Carl Sagan on the record as disbelieving in TK, and even he leaves himself an out for a final answer. Maybe the line should be "Skeptics state that PK does not exist." or "does not exist based on currently available scientific evidence. Please produce some referenced quotes by scientists to back up the claim. The line is unsourced as it now reads. I would love to get quotes by scientists on the record here! We could replace the ones I put in by skeptics Shermer and Randi with ones by scientists. 5Q5 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Those of you in favor of using the word "scientists" instead of the previous "skeptics," here is a possible line, but you have to find at least one other scientist: "Scientists, such as Carl Sagan <ref to ''Demon Haunted World'' quote> and [another scientist's name] <ref> have stated that psychokinesis does not exist." 5Q5 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the disputed line in the intro said before Orangemartin changed "Skeptics" to "Scientists" on 20 June 2008: "Skeptics contend that psychokinesis does not really exist, and that claims that it does are based on publication bias, fraud, delusion, statistical manipulation of scientific data, or other naturally explainable phenomena.[11]" The source goes to the Skeptic's Dictionary article on PK. I went through that article moments ago and I was able to verify all of the points in the sentence. It doesn't use matching words like "publication bias, fraud [uses trickery], delusion, but satisfactory equivalents in my opinion. Editor Coppertwig seems to prefer matching words. The sentence was recently broken up into two, with the first part now reading "Scientists state that psychokinesis does not exist." Well, I can also easily reference the opposing line "Scientists also state that psychokinesis does exist," and with first person quotes by scientists who, like Carl Sagan, have published books in science, have a media presence, given lectures, taught at universities, etc. I propose reinstating the original referenced line, removing my tags, and moving on. 5Q5 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Lazarus?

Note: The image being discussed below can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bonnat01.jpg and was last seen in the article on 28 June 2008.

Why the picture of Lazarus? That's reanimation, not psychokinesis, an altogether more impressive trick. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absoultey right. I have removed the offensing image and I am declaring a moratorium, with the force of concensus, against restoring the image on Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you speak like that here? Antelan^talk 01:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that reanimation by someone who is willing it to happen is not psychokinesis is, frankly, absurd. It could fall under the category of biological healing (dead tissue being restored), transmutation (dead cells missing elements transmuted to live cells containing them), and even shape shifting (a dead version of the person to a live version). What consensus was there to remove the image? The image, which itself contained an additional reference to justify inclusion, was removed without sufficient discussion to obtain consensus. I am restoring it. The image is relevant to the section discussing PK in religion. Wikipedia:Images: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." If you wish to propose removing it, please state a case as to why it is not relevant. 5Q5 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the power of movement to something by force of will is not the same as moving it by force of will. Removing it was a good decision. The image, especially with that caption, just looks like a non sequitur in an article about psychokinesis.MartinPoulter (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But using mental power to move atoms or subatomic particles to create new atoms in order to restore the ability of an organism to move and exist independently is what the image depicts. PK is also described as the ability to change events. The religious deity character depicted is reversing death, an event. I also added an additional supporting reference to the image by physicist Michio Kaku, who wrote that PK is the power of a deity. Tweak the caption if you don't like the one currently used. The image is the best example in the public domain art world that illustrates the historical cultural basis for PK, an ability that as you maintain, does not exist in real life. It is appropriate in an encyclopedia to discuss where this crazy notion of PK originated and if a free relevant image is available, to use it. 5Q5 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly! the Christian myricale of Lazarus is clearly an instance of resurecting the dead not telekinesis/psychokiensis. the whole article makes no reference to actually restoring life to a corpse and to add a random image without any explanation o r justification is silly and practical. With regards to your questioning of conensus, please see the statement made by talk. "Why the picture of Lazarus? That's reanimation, not psychokinesis, an altogether more impressive trick." This policy interpretation was made in good faith and complies with WP:BOLD, whcih is why I saw fit to implement this decison. Smith Jones (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this image is irrelevant, and I have removed it per WP guidelines and the apparent consensus here. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand 5Q5's argument, and I'm willing to accept that the article discusses ressurection as a form of psychokinesis, but concensus appears to be that the link between psychokinesis and biblical miracle of Lazarus is too link to warrant an image. I believe when people think of Lazarus, they don't think of PK, and when people think of PK, they don't think of Lazarus, even those that would affirm that the story of his ressurection is a clear-cut example of PK. -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"PK is also described as the ability to change events." - so you're saying that PK is so badly defined as to cover anything paranormal that isn't purely perceptual? If a god can change events (e.g. resurrect people) and if one changes events by invoking that god to do so - then that isn't PK because it isn't one's own power that's doing it. Please let it go, 5Q5. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to reopen this and take this matter to WP:RFC in the future to make sure the removal of the image is not an anti-religious issue, since sufficient relevancy has been established in my view. I will likely wait, however, until I come across a more specific reference equating PK with restoration of life, even though I feel "biological healing" (curing gangrene for example) and "influencing events" covers it. 5Q5 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing agianst religion and ia hve nothing against the Biblical account of LAzaruss' ressurection. Isimply feel that it would belong better on an article discussing Christ, miracles, resurrection, reanimation, death, life, and not on an article discussing psychokeinsis. my concept of psychokinesis and the one discssed in the article indicates more or less moving things with your mind such as levitating objects, bending spoons, et cetera rather than actually resurrecting the dead, which falls mroe under resurrection or even necrokinesis rather than telekinesis. Smith Jones (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is anti-religious. I think a Christian would be more annoyed that a divine miracle is being "cheapened" by association with obvious nonsense. It's a nice picture, but it's link to this article is tenuous to say the least. I think quite a few theologians would disagree with your conclusions about healing also, and again the link to PK is tenuous. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peacock Terms

To editor SesquipedalianVerbiage, who deleted Crichton's and Radin's degree information, have you even read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms?. It says use facts to show importance, not merely describe with praiseful adjectives. I included the credentials, for the skeptics as well, to maintain neutrality in the article. You've stripped the scientists in the article of their credentials, leaving the skeptics sounding more important. 5Q5 (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll strip them of any peacockery too in a moment (it might be a while as I'm busy). You do it if you like, but remember - only irrelevant facts should be removed. See the discussion above too. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

i never heard of Chritchton and Radin so i dont know what they are faous for. However, IF they ARE scienticest's then shouldnt their credentials be made known? if were talking about, say, a noted physicists's view on PK then wouldnt not we add their credentials -- ie any degrees, a university where they did their PK studies, etc -- while describing their views in the article. I dont really understand the objection since the WP:PEACOCK article seem s pretty straight forward on what peacock ters actually are and I dont see how adding someones actual credentials are peacock terms. If 5Q5 had said "Dr. Radin, the smartest man ever" then that would be a peacock term but if he simply added the mans scientific credentaisl then wouldnt that be in compliance with policy??? Smith Jones (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

on the artifcle on WP:PEACOCK it specifically laits out what a pea cock term si:

"In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why."

the artigle goes on to point out that that:

" * William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) was personal counselor to King Charles I, royalist general in the English Civil War, a chemist, poet, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded his family's possessions to include the proprietorship of the Province of New Hampshire and the hereditary Lord High Bailiffship of Guernsey and Sark." -- is NOT peacock terms.

There fore,thhis 5Q5's latest additions to the artricle should be included since it imparts real information and explains "why" the people in question (Chrichton, Radin) should be considered notable. Smith Jones (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it's trying to support the bias in the article that PK exists by reeling off a list of irrelevant facts that can be found simply by clicking the persons name. These two people are not the subject of the article, hence this listing of their achievements etc is unnecessary and is solely done to inflate the value the reader may give to their opinions, and your example fails. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, are these peoples views on PK notable? Is that established? It certainly isn't by this peacockery (I like writing that word, it's very satisfying). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for content. The criteria for content is verifiability. The facts given are indeed verifiable. The heading "notable witnesses" means that the witness is notable. These witnesses are notable people, as evidenced by their articles.

SesquipedalianVerbiage, you seem to be confused as to what peacock writing is. peacock terms are those are that are generic and not verifiable. Attaining a degree is a completely unambiguous and verifiable fact. The nutshell summary of the WP:PEACOCK article puts it well, "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance." It is perfectly valid (and in fact, reccomended) to include a brief bit of information to introduce new subjects in an article. So it's fine to mention facts like occupation, education, and relavant accomplishments. I should've have to read a wikilinked article to understand a subject, I should only need to do it if I want further information.

On the other hand, concerning the quality of the article, I can understand your point to some extent. I'm not interested in a full Cirriculum Vitae of an individual just because he saw some freaky shit once. I think this is where compromises and discussion come into play. No need to throw around policies. For mere witnesses, like the Chrichton section, I think it is sufficient to mention his highest degree atained, and that he is a bestselling author ('bestselling' is not peacock, it is a verifiable and non-dubious fact). Giving examples of his books is not nessisary, as his major works are reported on the lead section of his own article...Unless he's written a book dealing with PK, which to my knowledge, he has not.

I think the section as a whole comes off as extremely defensive. "Look! See? It's not totally crazy/stupid to accept PK! Look at all these non-crazy people who accept it! You respect them, don't you? Now please stop making fun of me." As far as what to do about it? I dunno, I'd love to see some better wording in that whole section, but it doesn't quite bother me enough to try and take a stab at it. -Verdatum (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the changes in greater detail...I kinda like most of them. I think it looks better to leave the actual degrees out in these cases. It looks to be sufficient to state their various occupations. It is obvious that a medical doctor would have a medical degree; it is obvious that an electrical engineer would have and engineering degree. If readers want to know specifically what degrees and where, then that does sound like a good time to visit the individual's main article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When I originated my objection to the edit, the descriptions of medical doctor and electrical engineer were edited out and not included as they are now; Crichton was merely a best-selling author and Radin a parapsychologist and author. My intention in writing the section was to make sure those quoted have equal space given to their credentials. This is a controversial topic where everyone's credibility is contested. 5Q5 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paring the Belief section

On this reversion:

1. The online survey of self-described magicians is not a WP:Reliable source.
2. On reflection, the descriptions in the citations should probably stay, albeit with a little tweaking.
3. Michael Crichton's opinion of psychokinesis is not really relevant, though my edit did leave him in the demographics section. I also updated the citation to his beliefs from a deadlink to a page in his book explicitly dealing with psychokinesis.
4. Dean Radin is notable as a parapsychologist, and his opinions may merit a section. The current section, though, does not establish why someone reading this article should care about his beliefs and experiences. A short summary section with a mainlink to his article would be fine. Mentioning his role when treating the Institute of Noetic Sciences would be even better.

Please tender suggestions, accolades, and counterarguments. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The skeptics section is giving opinions, while Crichton and Radin are giving personal witness accounts of PK. I included both competing groups to avoid an accusation of bias in the article. There is balance: pro and con have their say. What is in this PK article may not also currently appear in their biographical articles, so when you delete it here, it may be gone from Wikipedia for good. This is a nice game, by the way. First the witnesses' scientific credentials are diminished in the article, then the question is posed why should anyone care what they say. And since this is all my many years of researching and writing being affected, I cannot help but wondering why I got involved in the first place. I used to edit this article as an unregistered editor. Take a look at the article on June 12, 2006, the last version before my first edit. I'm the expert who answered the call. But I'm getting tired of all this, I really am. Somedays I just want to quit or take a leave of absence. 5Q5 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources is fine, and Wiseman's opinions are relevant and can be included. That survey, however, is meaningless. Pro and con should certainly have their say (in context of a wider article just describing what people mean by the term and its sociohistorical impact), though we should avoid presenting the illusion of equal validity. My point about Radin is that the relevance of his opinion is not established by that paragraph even with the laundry list of credentials. There are a lot of Ph.D.s in the world, but not all of them have something interesting to say about psychokinesis. A Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, on the other hand, is going to be relevant. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Radin's account not relevant by the description? Am I missing something? "Psychokinesis" > "Notable witnesses to PK events" > "Dean Radin" > "He described his experience . . ." What else does it need? Should I say he likes to play the banjo at work at the Institute? He's admitted that. C'mon. 5Q5 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eldereft, and think his edits were good. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be proposing an additional edit. It reads okay to me now with the edits that have already recently been done. 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the proposal is to revise Radin's intro to: "Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, author Dean Radin . . ." in order to improve notability, I think that would be worth a try. 5Q5 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did that - working at a parapsychology institute is relevant, as it recognizes his standing in the community and provides the context for his statements. The current quote, however, is just his tipping point, and does nothing more than establish his opinion. What is his research like and where does he fit into the broader community? - Eldereft (cont.) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Save for future reference - quote: no data yet to support PK

I want to save this quote in case any editor can use it to reference something in the future. The article does mention at the beginning that ESP and telekinesis are forms of psi, so it would have relevance to the PK article. 5Q5 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Data in support of psi have so far failed to meet the acceptable scientific standards of lawfulness, replicability, objectivity, falsifiability, and theoretical coherence.

— Amir Raz, Canadian cognitive neoroscientist, Article: "Anomalous Cognition: A Meeting of the Minds," by Amir Raz in Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2008, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 36-39, pub. by Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Amherst, NY.