Talk:Spoon bending

message: This article shouldn't be taking the view that spoon bending can only be done manually or as a trick. It should also allow for the possibility that Uri et al actually bend spoons with their minds, and that spoon bending is a psychic phenomenom (even though it isn't). - 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's really funny! No, what really should be looked into is the rumour that the legendary japanese magician Dr. Sawa published the first known spoonbending effect in the english magic magazine "Abra" in the 60's, and that a young budding magician in Israel named Uri Geller subscribed to that magazine around that time. I have not checked out those rumours due to a lack of intrest, but that's how the rumour goes --TStone 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: However the reports were met with skepticism by most scientists, and many reported performances were eventually exposed as tricks and frauds by professional stage magicians such as James Randi.  
Two problems with that sentence:  most scientists is an impossible claim, unless every scientist in the world has stated their opinion and more than 50% were skeptic. Also, the performances weren't exposed as tricks by Randi, etc. He merely suggested his own theories on how Uri Geller could have performed the spoon-bending. 
A third problem with the sentence is it could be construed as accusing James Randi and other stage magicians of fraud and trickery. 70.233.129.84 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Randi/NPOV 

message: A while back I saw a documentary about this on the Discovery Channel. At one point it featured a "school" of sorts with kids that were supposed to have some sort of psychic gift. They put the spoon in a plastic jar, closed the jar, then worked their magic remotely, without direct contact with the spoon. Then the jars were opened, with the spoon now bent. Of course there is always the possibility of a simple trick, in this case including the camera.
In another segment of this show, they also demonstrated (using thermal imaging) the apparent ability of a man to generate inordinate amounts of heat simply using his bare hands. He was even able to make wet towels create steam. There doesn't seem to be any way to dismiss that other than offering some explanation about conditioning the mind to learn how to control body temperature, which isn't *too* supernatural since the subconscious brain already does it (as with breathing or heart rate, and these can also be controlled, to varying extents). This segment also showed monks sleeping in freezing snow, wearing nothing but light robes (which did not even cover the entire body), and yet they were able to maintain a normal, warm body temperature, presumably through temperature control.
I wonder if these phenomena are related -- in holding and attempting to bend a spoon and "focus energy" on it, the person is actually learning how to adjust the temperature in his fingers, to the point where the metal becomes warm enough to be flexible (this would also depend on the strength and quality of the metal). And since metals are thermal conductors, the heat would transfer readily across the entire body of the spoon, not just the point of contact, so the person would be able to bend not only the neck of the spoon but in some cases the actual bowl (or more easily, the prongs of a fork) as has been claimed in some of these reports. Of course, if there is a scientific, biological principle of heat generation and transfer at work, it doesn't explain how the kids were able to bend spoons through a plastic jar. Perhaps magnetism has something to do with that.
At any rate, the sheer amount of documented evidence that this phenomenon does occur, and the outright freakiness of it, warrants research funding. This is one of those things where people (mostly Westerners) are justified in skepticism, but this is due mainly to certain biases in how Westerners  approach science. It's a lot like acupuncture. Even many Western doctors acknowledge that it works, and there probably is a scientific explanation for it, but Western scientists are not motivated to find that explanation, relying instead on building their chemically-oriented knowledge of medicine and ignoring the possible role of electromagnetism and similar subtle realities that may affect the human body -- realities which will only become more poignant as we increase the number of invisible radio transmissions shooting around on a daily basis. Recently, Western doctors also widely accept that a person's psyche affects their physical health, something that they just as easily dismissed just a few decades ago, lacking better understanding of brain chemistry.
So I don't think that spoon bending is ultimately a supernatural phenomenon, simply one that has not been researched enough to have a solid scientific understanding. The fact that it freaks people out is simply indicative of our ignorance on the subject. Given that it could yield applications in medicine, I think it is perfectly deserving of research grants -- Madonna's or anyone else who cares to give it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.99.30 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The heat generation thing is easily explained. I saw it on YouTube where someone posted the clip from the show. (I can't find it now; it may have been removed.) It's a simple "bar-bet" type of trick that was performed on me many years ago by an amateur stage magician. If you pay close attention, you will notice that there's always a piece of foil involved to "distribute the heat evenly", sometimes layered between the towels, and that that towels are always damp. The foil is actually essential to the trick. One simply applies a bit of mercury chloride, which used to be commonly available as an antiseptic, and ordinary chemical reactions take it from there. Nowadays it's commercially available as "hypno-heat".   The pain-relieving effects demonstrated -- no cure was claimed or demonstrated -- were temporary and indistinguishable from the normal effects of a heat pack. So I'm afraid the psychic world will have to do better than that, and other cheap tricks like bending cutlery. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery Channel thing 

message: I took out the bit about the million dollar challenge in the pic caption because it is only offered to celebs now, and also it wasn't appropriate to a caption.  It was editorializing. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I returned it because the challenge is open to all untill March 6, 2010. I think it's an interesting factoid, but would love to discuss it's appropriatness for a caption. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I notice that Martin is editing this actively on the main article page. Perhaps you would care to discuss your edits on the talk page before making them? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may very well be right, but then go correct the main article, which is what I'm working from.  If you do that and you're wrong, you'll get corrected fast enough.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe detailing all of the minutae of the challenge is excessive. Randi is relying on the press and academics to do his initial filtering, he is not, like you claimed, limiting the challenge to celebrities only. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Since April 1, 2007 only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic are allowed to apply for the challenge.[12] The resources freed up by not having to test obscure and possibly mentally ill claimants will then be used to challenge high-profile alleged psychics and mediums such as Sylvia Browne and John Edward with a campaign in the media.[12] 
Looks like limiting it to celebs only to me, as what I mean by "celeb" is "high media profile."  But that is immaterial. What is of importance is that we do say who the challenge applies to, and we do not state it is everyone. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge in caption

message: If this were a more substantial article, I'd think this would better serve in a trivia section. In any event, however: what is the purpose of referencing the "there is no spoon" line? As I understood it, that line was in reference to the non-existence of the world around (the Matrix), not some sort of common sentiment among paranormal spoon-benders.--Seed-kun (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Matrix reference?

message: I took out a few edits which eliminated relevant information.  I also rephrased to make a non-controversial statement instead of one which was controversial.  I took out the source, because the source did not mention spoon bending except once in the beginning, and I don't think it supported the statement at all, especially as it was mainly concerned with micro-PK, UFOs and whatnot.  Anyway, RS do not make statements about negative evidence- it isn't scientific, and such statements would be red flags.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: : This is copied from my talk page, since it is relevant here. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "Not" in the heading (which I have tweaked so the TOC will show what the subject is about), but your addition of this sentence ("Spoon bending also refers to the apparent bending of metal objects by paranormal psychic means.") was unnecessary since the claimed paranormal and psychic connection is already mentioned in the lead and in a section. Also the use of the word "apparent" implies that it actually does happen by such means, a claim that has never been proven. Such additions are not NPOV and are actually advocating the paranormal POV as a reality. If spoon bending or other claimed paranormal phenomena were an unquestioned reality, such edits would be uncontroversial simple statements of fact, not advocacy, which is allowed, but until such matters are well-proven to be reality, the types of statements you often add are forbidden "advocacy" type statements. You have already been subjected to ArbCom sanctions and negative attention because of this behavior, and I had hoped you had learned to not do it. Your advocacy of fringe POV needs to stop. Be satisfied with simply presenting the fact that such POV exist. THAT is allowed here, and in fact required by NPOV, if there are V & RS that do it. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not 

message: Why does the picture have toes in it. Seems an odd place to have toes. I mean, it's normal that they're attached to a foot, but it's odd that they be in this particular picture. --Buddy13 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random toes? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion