Talk:Telepathy/Archive 2

message: A simple demonstration of telepathy can be seen here  http://milaadesign.com/wizardy.html Lumos3 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that of course isn't a true example of telepathy, it actually does give an example of one type of trick that is sometimes used to fool people into believing it. Simply repeating the game a few times will show that the number you get is always a multiple of 9 (10X + Y - (X + Y) = 9X), and all the symbols on the multiples of 9 on the last page are the same, and what shows up. ---DrLeebot 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstration of Telepathy 

message: I've always understood that telepathy relates to the (nonphysical) mind, whereas telekinesis is control over objects.  I don't think it's right to say that someone who levitates objects or bends spoons is performing telepathy.  Am I wrong, or does this article need to be corrected (near the end where it gives examples of telekinesis and calls them "telepathy")?  I'd think that these examples of telekinesis should be moved to a different article, although the telepathy article should have a "see also" link to telekinesis, perhaps with a side note "(manipulating objects with one's mind)". Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Telepathy vs. Telekinesis

message: User:Kazuba has modified the figures in this section from:
:"claim a hit rate of between 30% and 40%, which is significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance. "
to:
:"claim a hit rate of 13%, significantly higher than expected by chance."
with the comment:
:"More accurate and easier to understand this way. Chance 25%. Hit rate between 35% and 40%. Looks deceptive."
I don't see how these sets of figures are equivalent, or how the latter is "easier to understand this way". Could Kazuba or someone else explain? KarlBunker 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit didn't state "a hit rate of 13% above what would be expected by chance." The meaning of the wording you used was simply "a hit rate of 13%", which is incorrect. In any case, I don't see how the corrected version of your wording is any easier to understand than the original, and as you noted, it's also too specific. Several studies were being grouped together for these figures, and the results covered a range. KarlBunker 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: [11][12] connected to nothing visible. That was partly my fault; I screwed up the notes when I deleted an old vandalism edit. It should be fixed now. KarlBunker 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganzfeld experiments; results 

message: First and most importantly, I respectfully suggest that all editors keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this topic can evoke strongly held beliefs and emotions from people with varying viewpoints.  I think everyone can agree that the article should be as neutral and accurate as possible. I also advise everyone to avoid threatening to take things to administrators, ArbCom, or similar, at least until the other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted.
It appears both sides in the "Deleting unsourced claim" debate have valid points. Asking that a disputed claim include a citation, as Selmo did, is a valid and important method of making sure that Wikipedia's articles are verifiable. KarlBunker wants to include the statement that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists".
I would support the slightly stronger statement that mainstream scientists nearly universally reject the claimed evidence for telepathy. There is already a source in the article, and after briefly searching, the best additional source I could find was a 1988 report by the US National Research Council that "an evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist", referring to paranormal phenomena including telepathy (Druckman and Swet). I understand that some believers in telepathy dispute the report, but in my understanding they are not mainstream scientists.
I think it's important to note that the statement about scientists does not presume to say that the scientists are correct, or that believers in telepathy are wrong. Rather, I think it's a description that fits with Wikipedia's goal of providing neutral, verifiable information. Wmahan. 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to RfC 

message: It appears that User:Selmo and User:THB are arguing that because telepathy experiments fail the scientific method criterion of reproducibility, it is therefor POV to include a mention of the scientific method criterion of reproducibility. Would you two agree with that characterization of your argument? If not, how would you restate it? KarlBunker 10:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Davkal, it's not relevant what you think. What is relevant is what respected authorities on science think. You may not appreciate this fact, but Robert Carroll is widely respected as a source of information on the debate between scientists and the proponents of paranormal beliefs. His opinion is therefore much more important than yours —- but more importantly, as an editor, your opinion has no place in this or any other Wiki article. Furthermore, your obscene mispelling of a skeptical source suggests that you haven't learned anything from your fourth and week-long block. You were warned by the blocking administrator that the next time you resort to this conduct, you will be blocked for a month. You really need to take her warning seriously. Askolnick 15:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post page-protection discussion summary 

message: Davkal, they're obviously trolling--you might as well not get sucked into it. -THB 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolling

message: here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a299da3e-a0e3-11d9-95e5-00000e2511c8.html is an article that examines just the topic at hand. I think it would be good thing to portray the issue as it is here. That is, controversy, two-sides, puzzling results that won't really go away.Davkal 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph (current state-of-play re: telepathy)

message: Now that Askolnick has bowed out, the old talk can be archived and we can move forward with this article. -THB 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive