Jxm I inserted the phrase purporting to examine back in January I believe it is the most appropriate phrasing because 1 PEAR only claims to be examining psi legitimate scientists don t think that there is any psi to examine 2 Even if telekinesis were real PEAR s experiments wouldn t have proven its existence anyway because of their methodological flaws 3 The reliable sources seem to be suggesting though not outright stating that PEAR was probably involved in deliberate fraud The fact that one of PEAR s own staff was an experimental subject who had a significant effect on their results coupled with the fact that PEAR s results are not reproducible seems to have created some suspicion While I m not proposing that we add PEAR to one of Wikipedia s lists of hoaxes I don t think that it would be appropriate to use any language that might give the reader the wrong impression The mainstream seems to regard PEAR not as honest but misguided bunglers but rather as malicious pseudoscientists who started at their conclusion and worked backwards We should avoid asserting that PEAR actually studied telekinesis in Wikipedia s voice 76 107 171 90