Talk:Psychic/Archive 1

message: this should be a article on its own, and not a redirection..
:I agree with the statement above, I will look into adding some unique content in the near future. Solar 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article, not redirect

message: I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology. There is a complete sub-culture based around the 'Psychic' and for this reason it warrants its own article with extra focus on the cultural side. - Solar 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested article guidelines 

message: Project Jason-Voice for the Missing "Working to stop psychic frauds from harming families of the missing"
http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/30606-pmp-introduction-to-psychics-and.html
Smiloid
:I think this link would be more relevant in the psychic detective article. - Solar 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomoreb, please link the stringent scientific verification on the article page. It sounds highly relevant. Skeptics form a significant, often scientific point of view, and are therefore valid and, heck, practically necessary for Wikipedia to include. fel64 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed external link

message: I have removed the comment about Parapsychology being ‘generally’ considered a pseudoscience, as I feel a citation should be included to a recognised and respected scientific source showing this, at the very least. Beyond this, the point is clearly covered in the parapsychology article and the paragraph already contains 'These claims are widely disputed by mainstream science, and are regularly attacked by skeptics' which maintains the NPOV policy, adding the point about pseudoscience is clearly an attempt to make the article POV. - Solar 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If of course the negative comments at the top of this thread related to the methods of parapsychology and the Ganzfield experiments undertaken by Daryl Bem are true, then the anonymous user who made them can simply add citations to prove his/her point and show that scientific method such as double blind experiments have not been used. This would then be acceptable within Wikipedia policy; otherwise it is simply opinion and should not be included. It is a simple matter of backing up statements made, especially when they are so serious to the nature of the article. With regards to the parapsychology article I made the comment that it is already covered, as my reasoning for starting the psychic article was to focus on the cultural aspects of the subject, not to simply repeat endless arguments related to the reality or not of psychic phenomena. I think the science could be covered in a short paragraph with a link to the parapsychology article for those who wish to learn about the scientific debate. I hope that we can agree on this and move the article forward. - Solar 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parapsychology]] being ‘generally’ considered a [[pseudoscience]] 

message: I took the liberty of placing a link to the JREF, as there is at least a whole paragraph about Mr. Randi. Readers should have an external link to the man himself.Smiloid 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomorebs, I think that the $1,000,000 challenge is worthy of inclusion. It may be logically fallacious (only, though, if it claims that non-fulfillment is proof that it cannot be fulfilled, which has been rebutted quite nicely here) but that's not the point. It is extremely relevant. It's a very famous challenge that is often referred to, fallacious or not. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does need to include noteworthy things, even if logically incorrect, even if they attempt to deny the existence of the article's subject. fel64 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: James Randi

message: I feel that there are so many precognitive/precient characters in fiction, it demands its own category, and I'm surprised to find it doesn't have one. What should the categroy be called, for example, the telekinetic characters have the category :Category:Fictional psychokineticists. The category could hold a lot of characters like Buffy Summers, Phoebe Halliwell, Cordelia Chase, Cassie Newton, Sam Winchester etc... there are literally hundreds... would anyone like to be a part of this? Feel free to discuss on my talk page too. Zythe 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional psychics 

message: In addition to the current use of the word, "psychic" was also a concept in certain kinds of Gnosticism. Wikipedia needs a whole lot more information on this subject, I'll grant you - the only thing that even mentions the concept is the stub on hylics - but nonetheless I'd thought I'd make the link in the article right now. I would suggest this is just a temporary thing until someone writes a Psychic_(Gnosticism) article; then we can put up a disambigution page. As it is, this is the best I can do for right now. --Brasswatchman 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added bit about the term "psychic" in Gnosticism

message: Psychokinesis is a well known PSI or Psychic power.  .  The very definition of Psychic  is of one who has paranormal powers.  Psychokinesis is a paranormal power.  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for Psychokinesis

message: What needs to be cleaned up in the article? Dreadlocke  ☥  17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your sentiments, we have to go by Wikipedia policy and guideline WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  I know I can source the comments about mainstream science widely disputing psychic claims, but I'm not sure I can back up bio-entanglement or even other research that has been going on for decades, in order to excise the skeptics point of view.  I'll look into sourcing the mainstream science thing.  As far as Randi, yep, I totally agree.  Irrelevant.   Dreadlocke  ☥  17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two points with that statement, firstly, I wrote it to refer to psychics, in the sense of Uri Geller who make all sorts of claims, which even to many contemporary parapsychologists seem dubious. Secondly, having said that I'm not sure I was accurate to say that mainstream science disputes all psi, which that line implies. Surveys that have been done on the subject such as those by Gallop show a roughly 50/50 split on the subject, with those with scientific/academic training having a higher level of belief in psi.  I have changed the statement to "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities actually exist is still controversial within science; however, recent polls do show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics." I think this is more neutral, I think that the original statement was the result of reading too much sceptical propaganda and this version is much fairer. In terms of the bio-entanglement side, some mention of Brian Josephson would be interesting on that level, his paper: Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality is excellent. Best wishes. - Solar 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, Solar! Dreadlocke  ☥  05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Please include <a href="www.knowingsouls.com">Knowing Souls</a> under this site.  We are honest and accurate and ethical psychics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.161.152 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are both commercial links -- see WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  site inclusion 

message: I think we need a section on phone psychics, or comercial misuse of psychic claims, and how that relates to those who make subjectively honest claims to psychic ability.   How bout yous?
: Argreed, though that may need its own article. Of course, proving which psychics are charlatans and which truly believe they have these abilities would be nearly impossible, since all of them claim to be "real" psychics, and with such a subjective experience it would be very difficult to disprove them (especially the popular ones with lots of believers). -- Noclevername 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Phone psychics" have their own individual articles.  I doubt whether the subject has enough information to warrant an article, and it does not seem to really be an approprate subject for this article. Dreadlocke  ☥  21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Noclevername 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that such a section will invite large amounts of vandalism and attract trolls.  I think it's subject better left to the individual articles on actual phone psychics.  This is already a controversial article.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no links to specific names given; Perhaps a list of those who profess to have psychic abilities, either here or better yet on its own page, could be added. I searched WP and couldn't find one. Noclevername 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, very similar to the list of mediums in the Mediumship article.  Let's definitely not dupe the list of mediums, though. Dreadlocke  ☥  21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone Psychics

message: <refactoring to remove resolved objectionable edits>
The phrase "recent polls show a high instance of support amongst scientists and academics" seems to me to be an overstatement of the article by Brad Steiger which is cited (see ). In summarizing the survey of Farha and Steward published in the Skeptical Inquirer, Steiger says "their poll of college students found that seniors and graduate students were more likely to believe in haunted houses, ghosts, telepathy, spirit channeling and other paranormal phenomena than were freshmen." As Steiger says, the study compared freshmen to seniors and graduate students, not "scientists and academics" to non-scientists and non-academics, and I can't find anything in the rest of Steiger's article which relates to a comparison of the latter sort (in fact, Steiger does't use the words "scientist(s)" or "academic(s)" at all). I've scanned his article, and as far as I can tell the only other comparisons it mentions are from "a nationwide Gallup Poll in 2001 that found younger Americans more likely to believe in the paranormal than older respondents", which also does not compare beliefs among academics/non-academics. (Note: The results of this Gallup Poll from 2005, 2001 and before are here). For these reasons, I've modified the phrase so it applies to the Farha/Steward poll. If I've misunderstood something, please set me straight! — Elembis 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm not certain what an opinion poll was doing in the opening paragraphs anyway. Are there polls to see who "believes" in gravity? Either a thing exists or it doesn't; if it does, the evidence will eventually support it. If not, belief won't make it so.  I favor moving the poll results to a footnote or trivia section. Noclevername 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll belongs in a more significant location than a "trivia" section (which doesn't exist in the current article) nor as just a footnote.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should an opinion poll (only one of many, I'm sure) be given so much weight in the article? This isn't an article about "Popular opinions about psychics", it's supposed to be about psychics themselves. (Oh, and creating a trivia section for the article is fairly easy.) ---Noclevername 12:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be expanded, not shrunk.  If you think the weight is too much, then add other material.  It doesn't belong in a trivia section, because that would trivialize the poll - it is not "trivia".  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to create an article on "Public Opinions of Psychic Phenomena", that would be an appropriate place for poll results. ---  Noclevername 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my opinion that the cultural aspects including public opinion should be given slightly more weight in this article, when I started it in March, I wrote: "I have started this article to focus mainly on the popular cultural, etymological and social aspects rather than the scientific areas which are already covered in articles such as parapsychology" (See 'Suggested article guidelines'). I still stand by this statement, for a strong article dealing with the many beliefs and sub-cultures related to professional psychics it would be most productive to have a small area dealing with science and links to more in-depth articles such as parapsychology. This article would then be free to explore the sociological, media and cultural areas in depth. I would like to suggest we come to a consensus on the structure of the article and leave the endless debate between sceptics and supporters of parapsychology for personal talk pages or a forum. Best wishes - Solar 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, in Daryl Bem's paper on psi he cites a poll which was of academics and scientists with the following results: "A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%." I will see if I can find any more recent polls of academics and scientists either for or against psi. - Solar 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Solar, I seem to remember you quoting that poll in the article, now it just says "college seniors and graduate students".  Can you make sure your reference and edit are still there and correct? Dreadlocke  ☥  19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steiger article 

message: Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Perhaps a section can be implemented on psychic warfare, warfare trough the use of paranormal abilities; eg sending of spirits (see Egungun/Orisha, ... The US Army has been investigating this too and some programs have been set up. See link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_genetic_engineering#Axolotl_and_other_genetic_modifications .Also see the article about Lubandi Mamba Mulozi, a congolese "sorcerer". 
Review info and add in article.
Thanks,
81.246.185.80 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychic warfare

message: I'm a private researcher who has been specifically researching psychic for about 6 years, It's a misunderstanding, being born a psychic or developing psychic abilities is about as common as having triplets, psychic comes from a part of the brain that is, for some reason, normally not bridged or "hardwired" you could say into our everyday life's, some people are born with the ability already bridged and some people develop the ability later in life possible genetics involvement.  A majority of the public go about their daily life's without such because it is rare to be born or develop such abilities, I classify these as natural born, because those are the people we refer to today as psychics
The human brain is capable of endless possibilities, There are cases where someone may experience one of the types of psychic one time in their life and never again, what is clear is that it is possible to connect the neuron's and create a bridge consciously to the psychic part of the brain, although you'd have more luck finding a needle in a dark maze than attempting to do that.
Everyone has the psychic part of the brain in them but whether they have conscious control over it or not is another matter, very few are born or develop in life with it bridged but a majority of the public goes about their everyday life without regard to such
Wiseguy12851 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s called confirmation bias. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, Wiseguy, you have evidence obtained via the scientific method to back up your assertions, correct?SuperAtheist (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone is a psychic, The big misunderstanding 

message: I heard something like the following quote somewhere credited to Terence McKenna, but I can't find a source online for it. Does anybody know for sure where this comes from?
:: "How does one vertex of a right quadrilateral "know" that the other vertices are square? It doesn't, it simply exists in a relationship of similarity to those vertices. Similarly, I don't "know" what you're thinking. Our minds just happen to be at the vertices of the complex fractal called Cosmos. The net of a polyhedron looks like a fractal because it is. So, what shape does the universal fractal fold into?"
Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting quote 

message: I realize I'm stepping into a war zone here, with strong emotions swaying in different directions - but for a first time reader, seeing the opening paragraph with a fresh pair of eyes, I could not in good conscience leave this introduction unedited.
The opening lines of any wikipedia article is intended to give a concise summary of the topic discussed, in a language understood by any reader regardless of their familiarity with the subject matter. The way the current introduction reads, the only reasonable interpretation is that the consensus of wikipedia is that psychic abilities are a real phenomena.
It must be stressed early on in the text that this in an alleged ability, no such disclaimer exists. The problem is further compounded by the contrasting second paragraph, stating the term also applies to "those who fake it", or emulate purely for entertainments sake.
Imagine an article that began.. "The Megatron 2004 Gauss rifle is an experimental military weapon. It could also refer to replicas of such weapons." - If the existence of this weapon was disputed, and this was not immediately pointed out, this article would clearly be misleading. Psychic abilities are no different. If you cannot see this, you have lost your objectivity.
While I appreciate that a controversial subject such as this evokes strong feelings in both proponents and opponents, as long as we can all agree, with a cool, level headed analysis, that this ability is not yet recognized as a real phenomena by the mainstream scientific community, any angling of the article that obfuscates this fact is inherently detrimental, and must be remedied.
I am adding the word "alleged" to the first paragraph. If you have a reasoned, well argued explanation for why it doesn't belong there, I would appreciate hearing your viewpoint before you revert me.
Thanks,
Weyoun  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyoun1 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "reasoned, well argued explanation for why it doesn't belong" has already been made, and can be viewed at WP:ALLEGED. Also it is good to let the facts speak for themselves. The article already states what scientists (or rather, I should say, adherents to scientific methodology) think. It also states what those who believe in psychic phenomena think. Whether one or the other group of people has a stronger hold on the WP:TRUTH is not for us to say, but is rather for the reader to decide after having considered an editorially detached presentation of verifiable (but not necessarily veracious) assertions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Another reason, by the way, is that on closer inspection, the statement, "the word 'psychic' refers to an ability..." is not really all that controversial in the first place. Both proponents and opponents are referring to the same ability when they say, "this ability exists" or, "this ability does not exist." Both sides have to have formulated roughly the same concept before either can respond meaningfully to the other's allegations/assertions/assumptions/arguments/claims/etc. about the concept. The lead does go on to note where the dispute lies. But both sides of the dispute seem to be large enough (opponents might even be in the minority), and to have made few enough headlines, that they haven't rendered the concept notable exclusively--or even primarily--on account of the debate surrounding it. It's at least equally notable, I would think, for its history and for its impacts on popular culture. So, no need to rush into the dispute--the article gets there in due time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: A third point, which sort of sums up the second, is that "refers to" and "alleged" mean much the same thing, such that the phrase, "refers to an alleged ability" could be paraphrased as, "refers to what is referred to as an ability", which would be obviously redundant. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading introduction 

message: I have changed the lead from saying skeptics only to "The putative powers of psychics are attributed to intentional trickery or self-delusion by critics and skeptics.", as not only sceptics are critics. This is a subtle, but I feel important, distinction. The references to my mind support this rewrite. The only other change is moving the attribution to the end, which flows better and is more usual. This was reverted saying that there was consensus to not make this change. I don't see this consensus, so would like to invite input here. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the wikilinks I missed off, and made a few other uncontroversial (I hope) edits. Verbal chat 15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not object to the edit because there "was consensus to not make the change." I wrote "don't mess with consensus." The language of the lead was hammered out by many editors with quite some difficulty, and making changes to it for insignificant reasons, and without specific citation of source showing it's an improvement, is possibly disruptive. However, I don't see what harm the word "critic" does except be a bit redundant. How about we replace "critics and skeptics" with just "critics." And I'm not convinced that a wikilink adds anything at all to "critics." I'll edit accordingly. The real point is that this is something said about psychics, and I think we can all agree on that. I prefer the sentence with the subject leading, rather than using passive voice. --Abd (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Abd, please don't manufacture dispute where none exists. If other editors not following me around have a problem then they can discuss it here. Consensus can change, but I see no evidence that these edits are controversial or go against previous consensus. There is a difference between critic and sceptic, perhaps if you read the links you might understand better? Please stop reverting me just because you don't like me. Verbal chat 08:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbal, the one using pure reversion is you. You've done it here as you have done it elsewhere. I'm not following you around, but I noticed your activity in the blocking of an editor who had worked here and at Cold reading; and what did I find? Extensive use of pure reversion, long-term edit warring, in total disregard of the opinions of other editors. I've done fewer reverts than you; most edits aren't reverts at all, but attempts to find a compromise that I'd expect would ultimately find wide support, though quite possibly after modification. --Abd (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, thought I'd offer my 2 cents per the invitation.  I agree with Verbal that not all critics are skeptics, so perhaps instead of rejigging the sentence, just replace Skeptics with Critics i.e. "Critics have attributed the putative...".  I take the point that Critics mightn't link to anything, but I'm guessing skeptics get mentioned further on for a relevant link to be made?  As for the addition of 'only' before the 10%, I think that's probably redundant.  The reader should be able to infer how significant 10% is for themselves without additional verbal cues, otherwise I'd agree with the ordering from most to least significant results as just a straight statement of fact i.e. "96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP, 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged, and 2% believed in psi" Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I think 10% is surprisingly low, while 2% is higher than I would have hoped (not sure if I'm surprised though!). It depends on the exact question for the 10 per-center. Verbal chat 09:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've hit the nub of the issue there - others might be horrified by 10%, and others ecstatic over 2% !!  I don't think we need to get involved though...  ;-)  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, I hope we can get back to improving the article. Verbal chat 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight change to lead 

message: From :
:Robert McConnell and Thelma Clark report the results of a survey regarding attitudes toward parapsychology among the membership of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (who sponsored the Enhancing Human Performance report on mental development programs that was highly critical of parapsychology). The authors sent questionnaires to a sample consisting of 31% of the Academy's membership, 49% of which were returned. Only 2% of the members believed that the existence of psi has been demonstrated through scientific investigations, although an additional 2% believed that psi phenomena sometimes occur; 25% felt that parapsychological research should be discouraged, 63% felt that it should be allowed but not encouraged, and 10% felt that it should be encouraged. Neuroscientists were the most hostile to psi research of the all the specialty groups.
What we have:
:In a 1991 survey of opinion amongst scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, 96% described themselves as "skeptical" of ESP, 10% felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged, while 2% believed in psi.[8][9]
Our text has been heavily synthesized, if it depends on the source cited, and the effect is distortion. "Believed that the existence of psi has been demonstrated through scientific investigations" becomes "believed in psi." That's 2%. Another 2% "believed that psi phenomena sometimes occur." We could quibble: believing that something has been "established" as described isn't the same as believing in it; but let's assume that it is; that gives us 4% that "believe in psi." How many describe themselves as "skeptical"? Perhaps the original paper covers that, we aren't citing the original, but a review of it as quoted above. There is another review cited. I haven't been able to read it yet, though there is  by one of the authors.
The original edit for this bit of text may be at Extrasensory_perception, by Tim314, 26 January, 2007. The 96% figure is supported in , p.258.
In this article, the first reference to this study was inserted by Martinphi, reverted by Orangemarlin, and the text with the present language about "96%" was inserted by John Nevard, 9 October, 2008. Because of the problem with 2% for belief in psi, I suspect that nobody has actually looked at the original source, and if that's true, the 96% figure is surely synthesized without sufficient grounds.
However, from the source, we could consider that at least 25% were "strongly skeptical," for skepticism in itself is not at all an argument against research; indeed, a good scientist maintains skepticism even when research seems conclusive, i.e., an openness to contradiction of what has seemed established. "Allowed but not encouraged" could also be considered especially skeptical, because an acceptance of the positive research as being of interest, one would think, would cause an inclination toward encouraging research, but this majority of scientists likely have a bent toward freedom of thought and investigation. So what I get as "skeptical," in the specific sense, a predominance of belief in non-existence, is 88%. I can see we will need to look at the original source. For now, though, we do have 4% as the figure for those that "believe in psi," if we are going to use that language. It would be better to hew more closely to source. Does anyone have access to the original? It was a paper published in Research in Parapsychology, 1990, by Robert McConnell and Thelma Clark, and there may be more coverage in McConnell, R.A., and Clark, T.K. (1991), "National Academy of Sciences' Opinion on Parapsychology," Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 85, 333-365. --Abd (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with the rewrite, but I disagree with some of the long comment above.  Verbal chat 19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread the ArbComm decision, Verbal. Now, tell me, what was useful about your rather incoherent response that wouldn't have been accomplished with no response at all? --Abd (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: And, by the way, the post starting this section was not polemic; it was a report of research, it includes, for example, material that might be in opposition to a stated conclusion of mine, though, in fact, I have no fixed POV here, beyond general skepticism. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Heh, I made my change without reading first in detail this section. Yes, the 96% thing is a mistaken synthesis of the source. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The survey reported in the lead: 

message: The Bible condemns any means of foretelling the future via mediums or psychics (see, for example, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:11, or 1 Chronicles 10:13).  Thus, citing Samuel as an example of an early form of a psychic in 1 Samuel 9 is inaccurate.   Captain Nutrition (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical view

message: I have two changes that I suggest for the article:
'Parapsychology involves research that does not rely upon scientific modeling'.
This is an unsourced statement, and is a fairly bold statement to make. Whilst it may be true, I would suggest a source be found with examples of said methodological flaws, otherwise it should be removed.
'Critics such as Ray Hyman suggest that parapsychology has no methodological flaws that can explain apparently the successful experimental results that parapsychologists attribute to paranormal explanations, and various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience.'
Now this seems to be intended to be against parapsychology, yet the passage reads that there are no methodological flaws that can explain the results. Given that most attacks on parapsychology are aimed at exposing results as fake or due to methodological issues, this doesn't make sense.
Additionally, 'apparently the successful experimental results' does not read well. If this is intended to be a criticism, then perhaps it should be phrased 'the apparently successful experimental results'.
Finally 'various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience'. I do not have as much of an issue with this, yet the sources given include Hyman and Wiseman, both noted skeptics. Whilst their credentials are solid, the later part of the section names them as independent researchers, which is open to debate given their a priori stance that psychic phenomena do not exist.
Thank you, Macromonkey (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're basing part of your argument on a version produced by vandalism, but that has since been repaired. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not forming an argument, merely seeking to improve the article. Now the vandalism has been reverted and the dubious statement removed, my suggested changes are almost completely implemented. I do, however, still dispute the categorizing of Hyman, Wiseman et al as independent researchers. It will probably be fairly easy to find independent research that does refute the existence of the phenomena, if that is the intended effect, but it should at least be done in a NPOV way. Macromonkey (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does the article state that Hyman and Wiseman, et al are independent researchers? I haven't noticed that, but you have, so please point me to it. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I may not be getting your point, but I'll try anyway, so be patient with me. When a scientific study of any kind is done and published, the conclusions of the study are often taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. Those results need to be confirmed by "independent" researchers, IOW other researchers who are "not connected to" the first researchers, and to make it really ideal (if it's very controversial stuff), who don't necessarily share their POV. If they also get the same results, the results are considered to be somewhat confirmed and are closer to being accepted by the scientific world. If the claims are extremely controversial, further research of a stronger nature may be required before others are convinced. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording and Clarification, + lack of source 

message: (removed comment in foreign language)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.244.64.45 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that a literal translation of this might be a form of advertising? Correct me if I'm wrong. mechamind90 15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. If it's useful, then it should be translated to English so other editors can understand it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  (removed) 

message: I've seen a lot of places that seemingly misspell psychic as "pyschic".  I thought its probably just a typo, but I looked it up, and I found several other places with the same thing.  Is it perhaps on purpose?
128.100.71.45 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are just a lot of people who don't know how to spell. SuperAtheist (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pyschic 

message: researchers say a lot of things. i intend this statement broadly, but expect practical concessions. the brain is so little understood that it can hardly be said with confidence that a difference in "neuronal activity" (with no theory for quantification or qualification) must necessarily be equated with SPECIFIC differences in cognition, mentition, etc. with zero underpinnings for a theory of consciousness, how can such a claim be regarded as anything but biased presupposition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So many fallacies in this statement, I don't know where to begin.  But if you've got one single reliable source that has ever shown psychic skills, provide it.  In the meantime, I'll get some sleep.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."[ 

message: The section here about seers and prophets does not belong in a psychic article, and if it remains, it should be explained. Psychic ability if from ESP comes from somewhere or someone, as ESP is the means of communication, not the source. The source, and few psychics will want you to know about this, is from Jinn. There are both good and bad Jinn. I will not say all psychics, but most, becasue the line is clouded, deal with the bad Jinn. Prphets and wise men deal with the good Jinn. This is a distinction rarely made as the psychics would never want anyone to know they are dealing with the bad Jinn, evil Jinn - it would be bad for business, which is another distinction between psychics and prophets or holy people - they do not charge. Most psychics have no real idea who they are getting their information from. Those that do are the most proficient and able.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.177.66 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, all you have to do to get the article changed is to come up with verifiabe evidence for your claims from a reliable source.  We can wait. SuperAtheist (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good & Evil Sources

message: The opening line currently asserts that "psychic" is "some times [sic] spelled phycics". Can anybody verify this? The term "phycics" shows up in several Oriental scholarly articles on physics, but I've yet to spot a reliable source (even an online dictionary) to suggest that this is a legitimate variant of "psychic". Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phycics 

message: "The evidence presented for psychic phenomena is not sufficiently verified for scientific acceptance".
Hello:) Please note the above statement is incorrect. Research has been conducted by http://noetic.org/directory/person/dean-radin/ and he has conducted meta-analysis of all the research and it points to psi activity existing.
More details are here http://noetic.org/topics/neuroscience/
Please do me a favour and add this material or I will add it myself later today, as contrary to this article's stance there is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that telepathy, clairvoyance and prayer affect not only humans but also animals and machines:)
Veryscarymary (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement 

message: I think also that the whole article is rather misleading as it starts describing 'A' psychic, rather than psychic phenomena itself. Psychic-ness has been investigated by hundreds of thousands of people over time and still is. The article should be about the whole study of the mind's ability to do things other than think about breakfast. 
<BR>
In the UK we have Rupert Sheldrake who has written about and studied 'being stared at' http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/staring/ which is a fascinating peace of research...please change the intro to the article and make it about psychic (or what is now called psi research) and about the genuine, sensible, interesting people that are investigating what we all as humans have the ability for!!
Here are some Pubmed articles on such real research.
<BR>
Dean Radin a few examples
<BR>
1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742672
<BR>
2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907152
<BR>
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608110
<BR>
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16979104
<BR>
Rupert Sheldrake
<BR>
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906099
<BR>
Abstract
<BR>
Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. This view is now undergoing a credibility crunch. The biggest problem of all for materialism is the existence of consciousness. Panpsychism provides a way forward. So does the recognition that minds are not confined to brains.
<BR>
This study by Hadlaczky G, Westerlund J. is especially interesting about sensitivity to coincidence
<BR>
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22403933
<BR>
This is also interesting by Rock on Quantum Healing (Expectation)
<BR>
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22385565
<BR>
Milan EG did a study on aurus
<BR>
8.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22197149
<BR><BR>
This article by Leary questions why scientists are so opposed to parapsychology?
9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907149
<BR>
This one is even more interesting!
<BR>
10.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158
<BR>
Evidence for a communal consciousness.
<BR>
Bobrow RS.
<BR>
Source
<BR>
Department of Family Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. rbobrow@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
<BR>
Abstract
<BR>
Recently described social network phenomena show that emotionally connected people come to share certain traits, including obesity, happiness, and loneliness. These do not appear to be mediated by face-to-face contact. Other examples of groups with a common connection that act in unison are mass hysteria, menstrual synchrony, and the ability of a group to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. The animal kingdom abounds with examples of groups functioning as a single whole: fish school, birds flock, hoofed animals herd, ant and bee colonies work as a single organism. Try as they might, neuroscientists have been unable to find an anatomical seat of consciousness within the brain. C.G. Jung's realization of a collective unconscious began with an observation of a patient whose thoughts matched previous writings that the patient had never seen. The "emotional telepathy" of social network phenomena suggests a collective/communal consciousness as well.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
<BR>
I won't add anymore at the moment as I have a writing assignment I need to complete but please would you change this article to be a bit more open minded to the work that real scientists are ACTUALLY doing in this field:)
<BR>
Thank you :)
Veryscarymary (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic 

message: The page on "earthquake sensitive" was deleted, as it was, as written, too close to a fringe theory. I propose discussion of psychic ability to predict earthquakes be mentioned in this article, as a subset of psychic ability. Like psychic ability, it is unmeasurable with the standard scientific measurement tools that are currently available. Userafw (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthquake prediction

message: Article credits the word to Flammarion but this is incorrect. OED has following:
1845   Dublin Univ. Mag. Jan. 496/1   The nightmare..may indeed be a mere phantasm or psychic image.
1858   J. Martineau Stud. Christianity 259   It was necessary that the Logos..should..by preoccupation have neutralized the action of the natural (or psychic) element throughout all the years of his continuance among men.
1860   W. D. Howells Let. 14 Nov. in Sel. Lett. (1979) I. 64   We talked chiefly about psychics... I am going largely into skepticism at present.
1874   E. W. Cox What am I? II. ii. xxiii. 289   He had previously exhibited considerable power as a Psychic.
1871   Proc. Royal Soc. 20 119 (title)    Psychic force and modern spiritualism.
1887   F. Johnson New Psychic Stud. i. 7   These studies are termed psychic in a modified sense; they pertain not to the ordinary operations of the mind, but to the unusual, such as thought-transference, somnambulism, mesmerism, clairvoyance, spiritualism, apparitions of the living, haunted houses, ghosts [etc.].
It's clear that the word had its modern meaning by about 1860. "Psychic force" seems to have been coined by William Crookes in 1871; Flammarion took up the term later:
[1871   W. Crookes in Q. Jrnl. Sci. July 17   Respecting the cause of these phenomena, the nature of the force to which..I have ventured to give the name of Psychic [etc.].]
1871   W. Crookes in Q. Jrnl. Sci. 1 339   Experiments appear conclusively to establish the existence of a new force, in some unknown manner connected with the human organisation, which for convenience may be called the Psychic Force.
1900   tr. Flammarion's Unknown vi. 228   We are compelled to admit the existence of an unknown psychic force, emanating from the human being, and capable of making itself felt at great distances.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclicpsychic (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest use of word 

message: Throughout history 'psychics' (sublimalities) have been considered to be aberations, witches, b.efriended of 'satan' and 'lucifer', for those whom would be of an Ara(B) enslaving process.
These include all and every individual with an understanding of science, medicine, neurology, and include Darwin, Einstein, all and every engineer & physicist in history, all and every single one of these individuals being and having been factors in change or catalysts for/in change.
And then there are those whom definitely would be considered demented. Those whose neurology & nurture have been affected by asimetries in such a manner, that they would allow none other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological interpretation of psychics (sublimalities/nth differencials). 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Psychic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_/ai_20615402
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n3_v56/ai_13771782/pg_5
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15400020
*Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818094952/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621043016/http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf to http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207093521/http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf to http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204071623/http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html to http://ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psychic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223348/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe that it is beneficial to add to the section of belief to further show the percentage of who believes they possess this power but the lack of belief in others.
"Many people have also felt that they possess the ability of clairvoyance. It is recorded that only 22% of US adults have visited a psychic for a reading but 34% of these respondents believed that have encountered their own personal psychic episode. Although this vast percentage of people claim to have their own psychic abilities, only 24% believe there are others that have this ability."
1 in 3 Americans feel they have experienced a psychic moment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2017/10/31/1-3-americans-feel-they-have-experienced-psychic-m  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwarriner4 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this would really qualify as a reliable source. This is a YouGov poll, timed to coincide with Halloween, in their 'Entertainment and Celebrity' section, conducted by e-mailing a link to an on-line survey to a self-selected sample of slightly over a thousand people. I think we'd want something a bit more substantial to rely upon.Girth Summit (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

text: There may be more recent surveys, I really don't know, but the 2005 Gallup survey that is already featured in our article is still cited in contemporary writings such as this. Unless the YouGov survey detail which you find interesting is cited by reliable secondary sources, we have no policy-based reason to include it here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwarriner4 - I am writing you a message on your talk page now. I have already reverted you three times today, so I can't do it again today without breaking WP:3RR, but your last edit is (a) sourced to a Wikipedia page, which is not allowed, and (b) improperly formatted, as you can see by looking at the page. Please could you self-revert. You can use your sandbox to work up edits and make sure they are formatted properly before publishing on main space. Thanks! Girth Summit (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief in psychic abilities 

message: psychic
 this article says that there is no proof but there is no biologic studies about it, people are frighten because of this, whoever did it will be criticize and not allowed to be an editor Noahhelm (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021