Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Changes to lead

On 1 Feburary 2014, I revised a sentence in the lead saying, "There is no scientific evidence that psychokinesis or telekinesis are real phenomena", to instead say, "It is generally agreed that there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis or telekinesis truly occurs", and in the edit note I explained, "Besides that the claim itself is epistemologically unverifiable, the citations seem to not make that claim" [1]. A Wikieditor reverted the edit by wholly explaining, "Undid revision 593463863 by Occurring (talk) revert weasel-worded spin. the lack of scientific evidence is self-evident" [2]. If it is self-evident, why add two citations and falsely summarize them to state it?

Besides the sentence as I found it being unverifiable, it cannot even possibly be self-evident unless one resolves the question, unresolved by philosophers of science, of what actually constitutes all of the evidence used in science, or what, really, a complete definition of science even is. Notwithstanding, it is a first tenet of science that there are no self-evident truths even within science, or else there would be little point of science, which would have remained on geocentrism. Did the Wikieditor finds the self-evident truth through pure reason via introspection, not observation and experience?

One cannot find it self-evident except by faith or circular reasoning, presuming that any evidence of it is by definition unscientific, since one cannot possibly know all scientific findings, hypotheses, and theories and all properly scientific interpretations. I made an accurate statement, which is not to be contradicted by replacing it with a crude, irrational, ideological, confused, but dogmatic statement. Paradoxically, since not all evidence is scientific, my sentence is actually stronger, not "weasel-worded", but within the context that all evidence occurs by humans' interpretations, not any objective God's eye view beyond humans' opinions. The other Wikieditor's wording, apparently fixated on the authoritative air of "science" as a worldview omniscient on all of nature's possibilities, actually leaves open the question—which my wording answered—of whether there is other compelling evidence to support the phenomenon. — Occurring (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-philosophical Wikilawyering bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead of merely namecalling, will you share the philosophical and scientific truths, or at least show where the citations indicate that there is "no scientific evidence"? Your assertion of the "self-evident" of "no scientific evidence" disputes the two citations. Literally stating that there has been some scientific evidence, the second says, "Scientists have been investigating PK since the mid-19^th century but with little success at demonstrating that anyone can move even a feather without trickery involving something as simple and obvious as blowing on objects to move them" [Caroll RT, "Psychokinesis (PK)", Skeptic's Dictionary, 15 Jan 2014 (updated)]. It also says, "Dean Radin claims to have gotten some impressive PK results with people using their minds to try to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, but he admits that he can't be sure his results aren't due to precognition (Radin: 1997)" [ § "Dean Radin"]. The first quotes Vyes saying that "most scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated" [Vyes SA, Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition, 2^nd edn (N Y: Oxford Univ Pr, 2013), p 156]. I summarized the sources closely by referring to general agreement about compelling evidence, not that there is "no scientific evidence". — Occurring (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're citing ref 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 25, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 105, 106, and 112 to support that. There's some very clear sources in there, like this one. If your claim is that there is scientific evidence for psychokinesis, you would have to support that, because I don't see any reliable secondary sources which support that notion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As a first principle of logic (theory of reasoning) and epistemology (theory of knowledge), a negative existential (none exists) cannot be proven true (unless it is selfcontradictory), whereas a positive existential (some exists) can be proven true (requiring only one instance). Nor am I the one who claims that some exists; the sources indicate that some exists but is not convincing. So why do you conjecture that my claim is that there is some scientific evidence? I clearly stated what I meant, in summarizing the sources, that most scientists agree that there is no compelling evidence. Why contort that into your speculation contradicting the sources cited for that specific sentence?

You claim I would need to support my hypothetical claim—which I never made—"because", as you say, "I don't see any reliable secondary sources which support that notion" of existing scientific evidence. What more citations do you need than the two citations already there for the exact sentence that I edited? My talkpage post immediately above quotes one, Vyes in a 2013, second edition published by Oxford University Press, specifically reviewing some scientific evidence suggestive of PK, but reinterprets it and summarizes that most scientists find the evidence unconvincing (not nonexistent). So how do you justify your leap from unconvincing to nonexistent? Ignoring Vyes, you put a bunch of numbers on the screen, and claim that those citations include "some very clear sources in there", whereupon you show snippets of three pages in one: Kendrick Frazier, The Hundredth monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal (Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books, 1991). Yet none of even clearly addresses PK. Further, even if they did, they contradict your suggestion that there is "no scientific evidence", and confirm my summary that most of the considered experts find the evidence not convincing.

First, Frazier says, "It found lack of scientific justification for the parapsychological phenomena it examined. It found ambiguous evidence for the effectiveness of a suggestive accelerated learning package" [p 150]. In epistemology, including philosophy of science, justification is not synonym to evidence. Justification establishes, through experience (empiricism) or reasoning (rationalism), or both, human knowledge, meaning "justified true belief" or at least "justified belief". Thus, Frazier's inferred "lack of scientific justification" is upon "ambiguous evidence" (not nonexistent evidence). Second, Frazier says, "So the committee examined 'the best scientific arguments for the reality of psychic phenomena' " [p 154]. Clearly, "best scientific arguments" require some scientific arguments, apparently based on evidence acceptable in science. Third, Fraizer says, "In drawing conclusions from our review of evidence and other considerations of psychic phenomena, we note that the large body of research completed does not present a clear picture" [p 158]. That is, the "large body of research" merely shows no conclusive evidence (not nonexistent evidence). This, your own source nullifies your claim and justifies mine. What more do you want to argue your point—magic next? — Occurring (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I didn't get past your first sentence. We're not discussing epistemology; we're just looking at sources. We have sources that say there is no scientific evidence demonstrating psychokinesis. You'd need to provide sources to show that there is such evidence, and it is sufficiently accepted in the scientific community to receive due weight in the article. If you think our current sources don't say what I'm suggesting, you should take them to WP:RSN. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, you also did not read my version of the sentence in the Wikiarticle's lead, did not read the citations for it, and—in utter absurdity—did not read your own citation, either. — Occurring (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Be clear. Which source backs up the idea that the scientific community accepts psychokinesis, outside of a fringe group? All I need is "I propose "this wording", backed up by this source".   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would I cite a source to show "the scientific community accepts psychokinesis"? My first edit fully stated, "It is generally agreed that there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis or telekinesis truly occurs" [3]. My second attempt fully stated, "Most scientists find no convincing evidence that psychokinesis or telekinesis truly occurs" [4]. Cited both for the Wikisentence as I found it and in my second talkpage post above is Vyes, who states, "The process of altering physical events through mental effort alone is called psychokinesis (PK), and most scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated" [Vyse SA, Believing in Magic, 2^nd edn (N Y: Oxford Univ Pr, 2013), p 156]. Please, practice your protocol and show which source coheres with your preferred Wikisentence stating, "There is no scientific evidence that psychokinesis or telekinesis are real phenomena". My final paragraph in my talkpage post before last shows that your citation does not even address PK specifically, but about putative "psychic phenomena" overall finds "the large body of research completed does not present a clear picture". — Occurring (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. If the only support for psychokinesis within the scientific community comes from a fringe group, then we cannot say "most scientists..." I've already provided sources that say there is no scientific evidence for psychokinesis. You've cherry picked from them to imply they say something diametrically opposed to what they clearly indicate. If you think my summary of the sources is incorrect, then bring the sources to WP:RSN. There's nothing more to say until you do that or bring new sources that say something new.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You cannot even recognize the correct topic. No, you did not provide any source saying that there is no scientific evidence for psychokinesis: either you are lying or have severe difficulties with reading comprehension. How in the world is my indicating "no convincing evidence"—what I actually said—indeed, as you allege, "diametrically opposed" to sources that you assert say "no scientific evidence" but, once I checked your own clear reference to one, did not even address PK specifically but, about "psychic phenomena", claimed there is "ambiguous evidence", "scientific arguments", and that "the large body of research completed does not present a clear picture". — Occurring (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PA. Your comments are out of line. I won't be repeating myself further.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, you refused to even read my response, so why did you even respond to something that you did not even read? The talkpage is not the place in the first place to merely opine off topic without even reading. Occurring (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

More references can be found here. They may be useful for the article:

References that reveal psychokinesis has no scientific evidence

• Robert Cogan. (1998). Critical Thinking: Step by Step. University Press of America. p. 227. "When an experiment can't be repeated and get the same result, this tends to show that the result was due to some error in experimental procedure, rather than some real causal process. ESP experiments simply have not turned up any repeatable paranormal phenomena."

• Charles M. Wynn, Arthur W. Wiggins. (2001). Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins. Joseph Henry Press. p. 165. "Extrasensory perception and psychokinesis fail to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method. They therefore must remain pseudoscientific concepts until methodological flaws in their study are eliminated, and repeatable data supporting their existence are obtained."

• Terence Hines. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. p. 144. "It is important to realize that, in one hundred years of parapsychological investigations, there has never been a single adequate demonstration of the reality of any psi phenomenon."

• Mario Bunge. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Springer. pp. 225-226. "Precognition violates the principle of antecedence ("causality"), according to which the effect does not happen before the cause. Psychokinesis violates the principle of conservation of energy as well as the postulate that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did no experimenter could trust his own readings of his instruments.) Telepathy and precognition are incompatible with the epistemological principle according to which the gaining of factual knowledge requires sense perception at some point."

• Thomas Gilovich. (1993). How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Free Press. p. 160. "A scientific panel commissioned by the National Research Council to study this area concluded that "... despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist."

• James Alcock. (1981). Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Pergamon Press. p. 196. "Parapsychology is indistinguishable from pseudo-science, and its ideas are essentially those of magic... There is no evidence that would lead the cautious observer to believe that parapsychologists and paraphysicists are on the track of a real phenomenon, a real energy or power that has so far escaped the attention of those people engaged in "normal" science."

• Mario Bunge. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Springer. p. 226. "Despite being several thousand years old, and having attracted a large number of researchers over the past hundred years, we owe no single firm finding to parapsychology: no hard data on telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, or psychokinesis, and no hypotheses to explain these alleged phenomena."

• Terence Hines. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. p. 139. "After all this time, there is no clear way to obtain results showing any psychic phenomenon reliably. By far the most reasonable conclusion is that such effects do not now and never have existed."

• Robert L. Park. (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press. p. 200. "No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like Jahn and Radin, and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments."

• Eugene B. Zechmeister, James E. Johnson. (1992). Critical Thinking: A Functional Approach. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. p. 115. "There exists no good scientific evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena such as ESP. To be acceptable to the scientific community, evidence must be both valid and reliable."

Other references

• Martin Gardner. (2012). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover Publications. p. 307. "For decades Chicagoans have played the "26 game" in their bars and cabarets. Ten dice are shaken from a cup, the player betting a certain number will show up at least 26 times in 13 rolls. Obviously the tired and bored dice-girl, who tallies each roll, doesn't care one way or another. Obviously the player is doing his damnedest to roll the number. How does it happen that these tally sheets, year after year, show precisely the percentage of house take allowed by the laws of chance? One would expect PK to operate strongly under such conditions."

More references of what? What statement or statements are you trying to cite? Occurring (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for psychokinesis (psi) that's what the sources say. Psychokinesis also violates well established laws of physics. I will be adding some of these references to the article, I will store them here for now. Goblin Face (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Can someone explain the expansion tag dated March 2014 in the Etymology section that says, "This section requires expansion with: examples of individual psychokinetic and telekinetic abilities such as pyrokinesis, cryokinesis, aerokinesis, and flight". It's unclear what the tagger wants/wanted but it reads as if they want "examples" of abilities that don't exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, it looks like someone is trying to say the section needs more references [5] but hard to tell. In any case, the template being used is the wrong one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the article into correct sections, the tags have been removed. Goblin Face (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Physical violation

In the article under physic is states the following "The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum"

However the idea that you are able to deliver force though an unknown medium with your mind as a catalyst does not in my understanding violates any of these laws, at least it doesn't have to. This needs to be expanded and explained why psychokinesis should violate these laws. And if it cannot, the mention of them should be dropped all together. The only reason they seem to be mentioned is to make people that think that psychokinetic abilities could exist look like idiots, because of course these three laws have to stand, they are fundemental. Rphb (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have edits to suggest, suggest them. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from the references written by physicists that psychokinesis violates the laws of physics, there are more than enough on the article but perhaps others could be added with expanded information. It's a well known fact that physical signals decrease in intensity over distance following the inverse square law - but according to parapsychologists and proponents of psychokinesis (PK) this does not happen with alleged PK energy as it does not decrease with any distance. Thus the statement that PK violates the inverse square law is accurate. As for conservation of energy of course PK violates this law because the psychokinesis proponents are claiming that a psychic energy literally appears out of nowhere. If this psychic or PK energy really did exist it should exist all the time and not during only alleged PK occurrences but as the physicist John Taylor wrote "there is no scientific trace of such a force in physics, down to many orders of magnitude". Goblin Face (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Title of the article

Coming to this article from this discussion, I'm surprised to see this article under the title Psychokinesis instead of Telekinesis. Isn't "telekinesis" the WP:Common name for this topic? I've always heard people state "telekinesis" instead of "psychokinesis" when referring to this topic. Perhaps among the WP:Reliable sources, especially the high-quality WP:Reliable sources, "psychokinesis" is the common name (or the more common name)? Then again, I know that the two terms are sometimes distinguished, as shown by looking through the article's edit history; for example, I examined some of the edit history from this point (2014) to 2012. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also see what the Etymology section states about the two terms; for example, telekinesis being a subset of psychokinesis; that aspect is one reason that "Psychokinesis" should remain the title of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Continuous edits to Etymology section of article

I have this article on my watchlist, so I have noticed a rotating IP making small but continual changes to the Etymology section of the article. It's been going on for a long time. Sample IP roster, from just the past 5 months….

• 81.157.20.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 31.52.174.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.148.187.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.149.174.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.146.165.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.152.50.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.143.47.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 09.150.200.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.157.21.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.140.160.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.140.33.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.149.175.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.172.85.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.138.201.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.146.166.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.153.176.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.168.67.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.136.130.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.149.168.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what's going on, but checking and cleaning up this random stuff takes time from editors who could be doing more productive work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all the same person. He/she also has a tonne of other IP addresses (they all trace to the same location). See similar edits from them on Quantum mind, Dermo-optical perception, Dean Radin and more recently Energy (esotericism) (the IP is on many other articles as well). Just an example of some more of their IPS:

• 109.150.204.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.149.174.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.146.160.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.149.170.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.153.178.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.146.248.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.157.116.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.146.249.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same behavior and pattern in their edits i.e. first deleting references and using the Reflinks tool to fill them back in. Admittedly this is useful and there is no problem with this but they seem to mess around with various references i.e. adding then deleting the same ones or moving them around many times. See the Quantum mind article for an example of this. They also have an obsession with adding unneeded templates all over the place but never actually attempting to improve any articles. So yes they are making a mess on some of these articles but I think this user is doing good faith edits and they do not seem to understand that over all in some cases they are making a bit of a mess of things. Looking at some of the other articles they have edited, I guess this will take some time to fix. Goblin Face (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Also see their edits on the Mind over matter article. Goblin Face (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't use edit summaries or Talk pages, but I left them a message on their most recent IP user Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They are currently using these two IP addresses:

• 86.139.137.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.157.20.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed they edited the etymology section of the psychokinesis article again, hopefully they can explain what they are doing because it is confusing. I will not look into this any further though. Goblin Face (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting and source addition

Editing this article is part of an assignment, I intend to add sources to improve this article and minor edits to clean up grammar Cgarza3 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

I am sorry but telekinesis is a type of psychokinesis so can anyone edit it for me please? Pigs1111 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In the "subsets of psychokinesis" section, we say "Certain phenomena such as telekinesis,[26] psychic healing,[7] and retrocausality[30] are considered types of psychokinesis." Is there a reason that is not sufficient? What other information are we trying to get across by changing the article? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a source on my wall it's from psi.wikia.com. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope it is a good source and helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigs1111 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What is theology anyway it is on you user page. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We never cite wikis - they don't meet our standards as reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok but it is a wiki just like Wikipedia and can be useful and helpful. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jess what is theology? Pigs1111 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Look in up in a dictionary (or on Wikipedia) - it has nothing to do with the Psychokinesis article, which is the only thing we should be discussing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I know it's a long read, but our page on "reliable sources" discusses what kinds of sources we use here. Wikis can be great for doing research in your own personal time, but they don't meet our standards for adding content on wikipedia. Yes, that means that wikipedia isn't a reliable source for adding content here either. To answer your other question, check out our article on theology. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to sleep talk to you later then. Pigs1111 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

unfortunate consequences an argument against it?

"(If it [PK] did [occur], no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.)"

isn't this an implied argument that belief in, or evidence of PK would undermine empirical science, and that that's simply unacceptable?

such an argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is not scientific, or logical.

FYI, i do not believe in PK. I am only criticizing an implied argument against it.

76.19.63.222 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian

Yes. See Argumentum ad consequentiam. I don't think Bunge was at the top of his form when he wrote this, if he did (I do not have the source), and I think this reasoning should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

skeptics of Randi point out that no one has actually been given the full test

Regarding the addition of the line that critics of the Million Dollar Challenge say Randi has never allowed one person to take the challenge, Randi himself says each applicant must pass a "preliminary test" in order to qualify for the actual test. He has allowed people to be tested in the "preliminary test," but admits that no one has ever supposedly qualified for the actual test that would grant the $1 million. For more information, see: http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanswerman109 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Part of the testing process is the preliminary test. No one has passed the preliminary test, which is not to say that no one has been tested, or that Randi has not allowed anyone to participate in the test. There have also been several instances where the million dollar prize was put up for grabs during the preliminary test (largely because of media attention during those events). The daily grail is not a reliable source, and we can't use it here in the place of reliable sources to imply that Randi's prize is somehow fraudulent.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Created illusions contribute to belief in phenomena

Regarding this edit, my understanding of the literature is that this is a significant part of the discussion of the "reality" of psychokinesis. I'm not exactly clear on why it would be good to remove. Could someone elaborate? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) "Furthermore, some experiments have created illusions of psychokinesis where none exists, and these illusions depend, to an extent, on the subject's prior belief in psychokinesis." -- Nothing to do with the previous sentence (despite "Furthermore..."), should go elsewhere in article - but reworded (something like "Researchers have set up experiments to fool people into thinking that PK has occurred, with the following results/conclusions"). zzz (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And bear in mind that the LEAD is supposed to summaarise the article. This sentence is not only NOT summarising anything in the article, but it is (deliberately?) misleading. zzz (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point on summarizing the article. My recollection is that used to be in the body, but if it isn't now, it definitely should be. I think you're misunderstanding the point of the sentence, though, so perhaps rewording would be useful. The point is that prior belief in psychokinesis contributes to the effectiveness of illusions of psychokinesis. In other words... when scientifically studying PK, we find that it's difficult to replicate the effects objectively, but easy to reaffirm the existence of the effect to those predisposed to belief. This is somewhat significant in understanding the psychic community, and their (fairly ardent) claims of the provability of psychic phenomena.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Explanations in terms of bias section has several paragraphs about illusions of psychokinesis. --McGeddon (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Psychokinesis experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability.[9][10][11][12] Furthermore, some experiments have created illusions of psychokinesis where none exists, and these illusions depend, to an extent, on the subject's prior belief in psychokinesis." This is a non-sequitur, except that it looks like it is saying "Experiments are all flawed anyway" when this is not what the refs are actually supporting. zzz (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No, we're definitely not trying to say the experiments are flawed. We're trying to talk about the role of prior belief in acceptance of "evidence" for the phenomena. Zzz, do you have a suggestion on how we could reword it (based on the sources) that would get that idea across better? It makes sense to me, personally, but there still might be a different phrasing that will work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The section linked begins "Cognitive bias research has suggested that people are susceptible to illusions of PK. These include both the illusion that they themselves have the power, and that the events they witness are real demonstrations of PK." Something like that in the lead would be fine. The sentence beginning "Furthermore..." is not only not a summary of that section, but it is unacceptably misleading. zzz (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. I had to delve into the 3 refs before I realised that they were just 3 experiments designed to create an illusion. As opposed to 3 refs confirming what the sentence appears to say, that academic sources claim that experiments all have weaknesses built in. zzz (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, if you want to summarise the cognitive bias section, that is fine by me. Meantime, the "Furthermore..." sentence has no place in the lead; I suggest moving it to that section (as I originally stated in my edit summary) zzz (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples in Lead

"Examples of psychokinesis include moving an object and levitation." The reader can read the article to find examples. The lead already just stated what PK is. This sentence is ridiculous and totally unnecessary. zzz (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Stephen E. Braude

A new section was added on the parapsychologist Stephen E. Braude claiming there is evidence for PK. This is completely undue weight to a nutty fringe view. Nobody in the scientific community takes Braude seriously. JuliaHunter (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosopher Stephen E. Braude has written that parapsychology in general, and the investigation of PK in particular, has suffered from the exclusion of strong anecdotal evidence. In The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy Of Science he argued that there exists "outstanding evidence for a degree of PK far surpassing that apparently demonstrated in laboratory experiments". In ESP and Psychokinesis: A Philosophical Examination, he recounted such anecdotal evidence from the writings of the founder of analytical psychology, Carl Jung, emphasising the importance of Jung's synchronistic philosophy that "meaningful connections are built into nature", and proposing that "synchronistic explanations must be causal explanations".

I think this should remain in the article, along with criticism of Braude, and a section on synchronicity, and criticism of synchronicity. zzz (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I restored it, because I can't see anything undue. zzz (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Does Braude give any reasons for including what he calls "strong anecdotal evidence"? There are good reasons for excluding it. Does he address those reasons? From your paragraph, it seems his reasoning is on the argumentative level of "I disagree". ("Why?" - "Ummm..."). Lots of people say that, employing the same level of sophistication. Why include Braude? What makes him special? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If critics agree with you that Braude's published work lacks sophistication, then that should be added along with any other criticisms, as I said. The first reference in the section is a favourable review in a peer-reviewed journal, of Braude's The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy Of Science, so the relevance for this article is clear. There is now about the same length of material in this article about Braude and Jung combined as there is about "James Hydrick, an American martial arts expert" for one example, and a variety of stage magicians, so it's not currently undue weight. I would obviously not be opposed to explain his reasoning further in the article, but that would take more article space, and as yet Jung is hardly mentioned at all. zzz (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I could not find his actual reasoning anywhere, especially not in your review link. But according to RationalWiki, he seems to use the common canard "when the scientific method is applied to this thing I believe in, the result is negative... therefore the scientific method is not applicable to that thing!" where a rational person would conclude "therefore my belief has no basis in reality".

Not impressive. This is also how homeopaths and astrologers traditionally think. Jung's reasoning is not any better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Braude's opinions are barely-notable as evidenced by an almost complete lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure a mention in an obscure philosophy journal would warrant any space at all in our article, much less a paragraph devoted to explaining Braude's take on synchronicity, Carl Jung, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz, I do not understand why we need an entire section sourced to Stephen E. Braude's fringe view on psychokinesis, even if you did then you would at least have to acknowledge the criticism of the book as well. On the Stephen E. Braude article itself we read "Wendy Grossman in the New Scientist wrote Braude's book The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science (1986) relied on anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony of séances with physical mediums, in particular, Eusapia Palladino and Daniel Dunglas Home to prove that psi exists. According to Grossman "[Braude] accuses sceptics of ignoring the evidence he believes is solid, but himself ignores evidence that does not suit him. If a medium was caught cheating on some occasions, he says, the rest of that medium's phenomena were still genuine." So the book The Limits of Influence is not without criticism. Braude believes that fraudulent mediums are genuine. There is no reason to be citing this pseudoscience book. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that criticism should be added, and more about Jung. Any editor can add this. zzz (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz, Braude's comments are absolutely classic woo-pushing. Robust evidence completely fails to back his beliefs, so instead he asserts that crap evidence should be allowed instead. The official Wikipedia policy position on this reasoning is: No. There's no reason to include lunatic fringe views in the article, especially when they serve to advance reversal of the hierarchy of evidence in order to reach a desired conclusion, the very definition of pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, the "official Wikipedia policy" relevant here is that

• your WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment is totally irrelevant.
• this page is WP:NOTAFORUM. zzz (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the relevant policy is WP:FRINGE . See also Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia is reality-based, this is by design. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice synthesis, but irrelevant of course. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Jung's theory of synchronicity, or Braude, who's published extensively in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books on the subject of this article, cannot be in this article because they are lunatic fringe and pseudoscience. This article is strictly about science, then, is that it? This article is currently all about stage magicians, like "James Hydrick, an American martial arts expert", who have made fraudulent claims. Explain why these all need a paragraph each, but the founder of analytical psychology is too "lunatic fringe"-y or "pseudoscience"-y. zzz (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Carl Jung or synchronicity has nothing to do with psychokinesis. I am failing to see the relevance of Jung to this article. I have no idea where any of this is going. What improvements to article do you have in mind? JuliaHunter (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an accurate idea of how acceptable or common it is to connect PK with synchronicity, but in Jungian Synchronicity sheds light on the micro-PK mechanism it is, which has an interesting conclusion and list of references:

1.W. Pauli: ‘Scientific Correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg and others’ Vol.IV, part III, 1953-54, Ed K. v. Meyenn. (Springer 1999] 2.See exchange of letters between R. Jahn and P. Anderson in Physics Today, 44, Oct 1991, pp.14-15 & 146. 33..Radin, D.I. and Nelson R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundation of Physics 19, 1499-15144.E. May, J. M. Utts, S. J. P. Spottiswoode, (1995) Decision Augmentation theory: Toward a model of anomalous mental phenomena, J.P. 59, 195-220 5.Jung, C. G. (1952) Synchronizität als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhänge. In C. G. Jung & W. Pauli (Eds.), Naturerklärung und Psyche. (pp 1-107). Zürich: Rascher. English translation (1972). Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 6.Atmanspacher, A., Bösch, H., Boller, E., Nelson, R. D., Scheingraber. H. (1999) Deviations from Physical Randomness Due to Human Agent Intention? Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 10(6), 935-952. 7.Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., and Dobyns, Y. H., (1992) “The Portable PEAR REG: Hardware and Software Documentation.” Internal Document #92-1, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton, NJ. 8.Hurst H. A. (1951) Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 116: 770-808. 9.Feder J. (1988) Fractals. Plenum Press New York. 10.Pallikari, F. (1998) Application of Alternative Mathematical Models on PK-REG Data. A study of fractal character in records of PK data. Research report, IGPP, Freiburg, Germany. 11.Pallikari, F., Boller, E. (1999). A Rescaled Range Analysis of Random Events, J. Scientific Exploration, 13 (1), 25-40. 12.Barlow R. J. (1989). Statistics: A guide to the use of statistical methods in the physical sciences. (John Wiley, Chichester). 13.Tang Strait P. (1989). Probability and Statistics with Applications. (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., San Diego). 14.Mandelbrot, B. B. and Van Ness J. W. (1968) Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Rev., 10, 4: 422-437. 15.Jahn R G., et al. (2000) Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments. Research Report No 1. PEAR Laboratory, Princeton.

WP:FRINGE does not say that fringe theories should not be mentioned. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Mentions_in_other_articles states:

If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

Since this condition is satisfied (per the review in the philosophy journal Noûs linked above), the question is whether it should be just a mention in a WP:See also section. However, it has not been stated how the parahraph can be called WP:UNDUE in an article of this length, particularly in relation to the many descriptions of stage magician fraudsters currently included. zzz (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Jungian Synchronicity sheds light on the micro-PK mechanism appears to be a paper presented at the 43rd Parapsychology Association convention, so no matter how many references it cites (or how interesting you find its conclusion) it will never be considered a WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. And passing mention in an obscure philosophy journal hardly qualifies Braude as a suitable external link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, When you say the journal Nous is "obscure" do you mean "obscure in relation to other academic journals", "obscure in relation to other philosophy journals", or what? Regardless of what you mean, do you have any evidence that it is "obscure"? Also, it's a pretty in-depth detailed review, so it is definitely not accurate to call it a "passing mention". (Btw, thanks for specifying what that paper was.) zzz (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Noûs in full: "Noûs is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal on philosophy published by Wiley-Blackwell. It was established in 1967 by Hector-Neri Castañeda and is currently edited by Ernest Sosa (Rutgers University). The journal is accompanied by two annual supplements, Philosophical Issues and Philosophical Perspectives." zzz (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is Braude's musings on PK/Jung have been reviewed in a single article in a single journal, which the review author clearly identifies as extreme fringe views, so I don't think it's appropriate to give weight to these views in this article. Perhaps Stephen E. Braude is a more appropriate place for an EL link to this review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is, it seems that Broade's views on PK should be mentioned in the PK article, since they have been reviewed in an independent reliable source. I have no idea how many times his books have been reviewed thus, but the review in question is certainly a predominantly favourable one. In terms of weight, you haven't responded to my comments about that above, taking into account the context. zzz (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the term "obscure" to describe a single article in a single philosophy journal reviewing the philosophical concepts suggested by Braude's fringe assertions that parapsychology hasn't been treated fairly. Unless this viewpoint has gained some larger mainstream academic attention we're unaware of, it falls below the threshold for inclusion. I'm not sure what other question of weight and context I haven't responded to, but at this point, you must face the fact that four other experienced editors disagree with your proposal to add a section to the article devoted to Stephen Braude's fringe ideas on psychokinesis, synchronicity and Carl Jung. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out that according to WP:NFRINGE, Braude's views should be mentioned in the article, as they have been reviewed in an independent reliable source (which is the threshold for inclusion). You have raised an objection that the peer-reviewed academic journal the review appeared in is "obscure" and thus unsatisfactory, however that appears to be unsubstantiated (and you have now apparently withdrawn this complaint). Other editors have stated WP:IDONTLIKEIT, about Braude's views, which is of course irrelevant to the reader of the article. Is there any other objection? zzz (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that your arguments for inclusion have been proven correct. I also don't agree that other editors are merely objecting to inclusion due to personal bias. They DO appear to agree that your proposed inclusion of a minimally notable fringe viewpoint will not improve the article. I would be wary of ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS for the "arguments for inclusion" is that it meets the threshold for inclusion, as per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Mentions_in_other_articles (see above). No one has either disagreed with this, or raised any other policy-based objection. zzz (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't just declare you have consensus and ignore the objections of myself, JzG, JuliaHunter, Hob Gadling, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The others basically said they don't like Braude's opinions, which is insufficient reason not to include it. JuliaHunter said criticism needs to be added (which I have done), and objected to giving it its own section (I have added it to another section instead). You claimed the source is unreliable, and that it is just a "passing mention", but since it is a peer-reviewed academic journal, making a detailed review of a book by a professor of philosophy no less, no one is likely to take your opinions seriously. Since no one has raised any policy-based objection, the consensus view as described in WP:FRINGE is to include it. Therefore I will revert your revert. If you still wish to remove it, without trying to justify your action, the POV tag will have to remain. zzz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement from Stephen E. Braude that there is "outstanding evidence for a degree of PK far surpassing that apparently demonstrated in laboratory experiments" does not represent a consensus view, it is a serious fringe viewpoint not supported by the scientific community at large and is undue. It has been placed right near the beginning of the article as well, and none of it really makes sense in that context and it is misleading readers. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, it is unsuitable to be citing an extreme fringe proponent on this subject claiming there is 'outstanding evidence' for PK when there clearly is not - according to the majority of reliable sources on the subject. Braude's 'outstanding evidence' discussed in his book is actually Eusapia Palladino a long discredited fraudulent medium. It is true that Stephen E. Braude has peer-reviewed publications as do other fringe proponents such as Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake but there is no reason to be citing these guys because the position they represent is extreme fringe minority that has been widely criticized. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not represent a consensus view, that is correct: that is why it is in quotation marks, and attributed. It has been placed in the correct section - whether that section is near the beginning or end of the article is neither here nor there, AFAICS (originally I placed it at the end of the article - you didn't like that placement either). There is no Wikipedia policy to refuse to mention minority viewpoints. I have pointed out, above, that according to WP:FRINGE, the community consensus is clear that such viewpoints should be mentioned in the relevant article, which this is. Would you prefer to start a separate WP:FORK article Proponents of psychokinesis?? Here we have a professor of philosophy at a major university who has written several books describing his views about the subject of this article - and I have cited a favourable review of one of them in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The case for inclusion could not be clearer. zzz (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as Braude taking the claims of fraudulent self-professed psychics seriously, that is exactly what I explained in the article, and in my opinion that is a serious criticism - which is why I added it. zzz (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why you mean well I don't think you are understanding about fringe views and weight. There is absolutely no reason to be citing Braude's minority fringe view. I am not getting involved anymore on this, If I am wrong then I apologize. But I am not further reverting. Other users can decide. JuliaHunter (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Signedzzz, you have returned after a break with no appreciable change in your POV-pushing. Do we now need to take this to arbitration enforcement? Sometimes, when everybody tells you that you';re wrong. it's because you're wrong. This is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Everybody" here means you and a couple of dedicated "sceptics". "POV-pushing" seems to be what you are trying to de here, ie to keep this article as a one-sided promotion of your sceptic POV. User LuckyLouie tried, and failed, to offer a policy based reason to remove it: by claiming that a peer-reviewed academic journal is too "obscure" to meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, which he later appeared to have changed his mind about. The WP:WEIGHT argument for removing it falls completely flat since we are talking about a single paragraph in a fairly long article, to summarise the views of a professor of philosophy at a major university who has published books and articles explaining his views in major academic journals. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument is at best irrelevant (none of us can claim to have studied and made an expert evaluation of the writings in question, in any case). So, I am still waiting to hear a sensible, policy-based reason to remove the paragraph - which is why articles have talk pages, as I understand it. Not to discuss the intrinsic merits of a viewpoint, but rather to discuss whether an encyclopedia article benefits from their inclusion. I cannot think of a reason why this article doesn't benefit, in order to be a comprehensive, interesting article, but I am open to considering any reasons, if you can come up with any. zzz (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With regard to weight objections, I asked above how this makes sense when various cranks and frauds have a paragraph devoted to them, beginning with "Angelique Cottin (ca. 1846) known as the 'Electric Girl' of France" (who does not even have a Wikipedia article), and at least a dozen others. This question seems to have been ignored, in favour of endless repetition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. zzz (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem not to understands the difference between looking at an assertion and finding it baseless, and ignoring it. You are ignoring the multiple editors pointing out things you don't want to hear, we are listening to you and pointing out your errors. See the difference? You are using the opinion of a philosopher to assert that something which has never been objectively verified, and which is not possible according to our understanding of physics, might be true. This is the "God of the gaps" argument, but the gaps have become vastly smaller over the decades: what was vaguely plausible in the 50s is now not plausible at all. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you are incapable of discerning the difference between "using the opinion of a philosopher to assert something" (which I am obviously not doing) and merely describing the opinion of a philosopher, in his own words (hence the use of quotation marks). How on earth did you ever become an admin, I wonder? If you want to keep your tools, I suggest that you stop pompously lecturing, and instead actually read and try to comprehend the stuff you are supposedly trying to discuss. zzz (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you just take a look at Category:Parapsychologists, then explain why Braude, of all these people, needs his opinion written in the article, while all the others do not? They all have some cop-out excuse for calling what they do science. He and his specific cop-out are not in any way special, many of them even use the same one or a similar one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing science with philosophy of science (I assume, unless you can show where Braude has called what he does science - he certainly does call it philosophy of science, for example in the book title The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy Of Science). I've had a look at that list, but I can't find any that mention psychokinesis (it's a long list - maybe you could be more specific). zzz (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not "balance" scientific consensus with the opinion of lone cranks. What you are doing is cherry-picking. You have been advised of the ArbCom ruling on fringe subjects, I suggest you now leave this or you are likely to find yourself topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is a compelling case for you to be topic-banned, at the very least. But that is a side-issue. zzz (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go to ANI and request that if you think it's justified. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. zzz (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, you are aware of the ArbCom decision on fringe science, so you should also be aware that advocating fringe content falls foul of them. Your editing in other areas seems fine to me, but your whitewashing at Uri Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and your advocacy of Braude indicates a sympathetic view of fringe beliefs, and your tenacity in doing so here makes that a problem. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia. Come back when the scientific consensus changes. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My "whitewashing at Uri Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)": you failed to point out any "whitewashing" (there was none - I have as little, or less, regard for Uri Geller as anyone else does - as you would realise if you were in the habit of reading stuff before reverting), but instead you restored idiotic stuff sourced to a "sports fan" in The Sun - against policy - and you restored the multiple wikilinks to your skeptic hero James Randi - also against policy. Good luck explaining that at ANI or whoever else you think wants to know. By the way, describing someone's views in the appropriate section of an article is not "advocating" them - as I already explained above: what is so difficult to comprehend about that? zzz (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Belief" section

As things stand, in view of the above, the section Psychokinesis#Belief should be removed, since it describes various individuals who have advocated the existence of PK. There is no plausible reason to exclude Braude from this, except that the views of a respected academic are harder to ridicule, and thus less useful for promoting the skeptic POV. zzz (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Psychokinesis VS Telekinesis

The word psychokinesis actually covers more then just telekinesis, it's an umbrella term that includes cryokinesis, pyrokinesis, electrokinesis, cyberkinesis and much, much more. Teleninesis refers only to the movement of objects/matter through "willpower" alone. Shouldn't this article be entitled "Telekinesis" as this page is actually about telekinesis and not "-kinesis" in general? 173.209.109.236 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Never heard that before. Do you have a source for that definition? If you have, why is it more definitive than other sources that say the two words are synonymous? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for Telekinesis

This research seems to support the existence of Psychokinesis, or a psychophysical interaction as the paper puts it. Could someone please incorporate this research into the article http://www.quantumbiosystems.org/admin/files/QBS%206%20(1)%2082-98.pdf

Conclusion (From the paper) "A series of six experiments using a single-photon double-slit apparatus detected significant evidence for a form of psychophysical interaction that appears to exist at the quantum scale. Interpretation of this interaction is more in alignment with a goal-oriented effect rather than a passive observational effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.163.47 (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt that strange quantumbiosystems.org website is a viable source for publications. Beside that, there's enough criticism on Dean Radins way of working. The conclusion in it's own study is just totally weird if you read the whole thing. Only one of six experiments gave him a good z-value (Table 1) and he used different statistical methods (see 2.9) until he found one that did not refute his idea of having a positive result. (And imho the chi square test doesn't sound like it would be a good choice for that kind of experiments) --91.133.119.97 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this source more acceptable? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272275825_Psychophysical_interactions_with_a_double-slit_interference_pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.101.207 (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if publishing articles like this one had anything to do with Science Citations Index dropping Physics Essays. In any case, it's still Radin looking for a signal in a noisy system and, without stronger results, it receives attention primarily from psi enthusiasts (looking through the 20-30 cites). I would not support adding this source to the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Unargumented reverts

Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. AVS (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Request

@Xavier Combelle: due to multiple unargumented, unjustified annulation by IP 86.146.75.6 of complete section. AVS (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• first revert
• second revert
• last revert

• Request for arguments

AVS (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)