Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

I want to make an edit

"there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon" I think this sentence is misleading, This statement should be changed to something along the lines of "There is no convincing evidence of psychokinesis known to the present day scientific community"...To claim with absolute certainty that no convincing evidence exists at all would require omniscience of all the experiences of everyone on earth, thus we should be clear that real evidence may exist outside the current observations made by the scientific community...I myself am a psychokinetic, I can move small objects and have even demonstrated the power to move things in a vacuum...After three years of experimentation with this ability I can say with absolute certainty that I have convincing evidence of psychokinesis, There are many examples of psychokinesis performed on youtube, not just psi wheel demonstrations, but also much heavier objects, like rocks and cups, as well as other documented historical and contemporary accounts of psychokinesis, or psycho kinesis related phenomenon...I don't offer this information as proof, merely as a reminder to be more open minded about psychokinesis. Here are some psychokinesis demonstrations on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhOElTrSRcQ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpG4CtWc9t0) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNJkjri5qo)(<--This is a good one, dice manipulation) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3c5G0qBZY) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJxv0QNOUA) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkQvHHFfVI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence you dislike is perfectly acceptable, no evidence does exist. we report what is known according to reliable sources, we don't speculate. -Roxy the dog. barcus 10:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you define evidence? I suspect you have defined evidence as only scientific evidence, this is a mistake, people are capable of knowing unscientifically verifiable(To the scientific community) claims, Like knowledge of your own consciousness... I know that infact you DO speculate!!, You have not tested scientifically, nor in any other regard the KNOWLEDGE state of everybody over the entire course of human history!!!! and apparently you have not even checked the sources of evidence I gave...You probably ignore them as fakes, well the obvious question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW that they're fakes??? Don't make presumptions so easily, you will stymied your own intellectual honesty...Please be more weary of what you truely know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you define evidence?. Simples, read this >>> WP:RS -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 17:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – I’m fairly certain that “telekinesis”, not “psychokinesis”, is the term in common usage. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This has already been discussed before. See this. --- ChamithN (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a cursory reading of the article would show that "telekinesis" is a subset of "psychokinesis" and there are many other psychic abilities that fall under "psychokinesis" such as pyrokinesis._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent journal article about Micro-Pk

This Maier, Markus A.; Dechamps, Moritz C. (30 June 2018). "Observer Effects on Quantum Randomness: Testing Micro-Psychokinetic Effects of Smokers on Addiction-Related Stimuli". Journal of Scientific Exploration. 32 (2): 265–297. doi:10.31275/2018.1250. could be placed somewhere without breaking the balance of neutrality?--Hienafant (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is a primary source, so no. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 14:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued topic of subjective phrasing

Here is a quote from the conclusion: "From the analysis of the video tapes and high speed photographs of 25 successful experiments in breaking through spacial barriers by a young subject with paranormal abilities, we have proved the existence of one type of paranormal ability - the ability to pass through spacial barriers"

I am convinced. Not only from this cited study, but also based on own macro-psychokinesis experiments, wherein I have clearly observed psychokinesis on multiple occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

subjective phrasing issue

The article states that there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis exists. Who is to decide what is convincing?. Here is a link to an experiment archived the CIA, performed by the aerospace medicine engineering institute, wherein the experimenters claim to have proven a psychokinetic ability. I find it convincing. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000300390001-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.119.199 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read that? From what you wrote above, the answer should be a resounding NO. How can you find something you have not read convincing? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered how to reply...I did read it, I was however unsure of the authorship, I initially thought it was the CIA, but later found that it was the aerospace medicine engineering institute of some country. This is not the only published work which shows the existence of psychokinesis and other mind-matter interaction phenomenon. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm A huge amount of evidence exists, and furthermore, many people are convinced on the basis of that evidence.Including many parapsychologists. To claim otherwise is delusional. Thus, the phrasing should be changed from "There is no convincing evidence" to something more neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 08:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – This seems to be the more common name. See how many G-hits it renders when compared to psychokinesis. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment A similar RM from December 2017 failed (though with only one !vote). Ngrams. Colin M (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Another interesting piece of data: Wikilinks to this article from other articles. Of the first 50, I count 34 that pipe the link to "telekinesis" (or a variant like "telekinetic"). Though most of these articles are about fictional characters/universes, rather than parapsychology per se. Colin M (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per past discussions on the topic and a reading of the page. Tele seems to be a subset of psychokinesis. The ngrams show the comparison to be a toss-up, and since this is a long term title, nothing really broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Even in fictional terms, they are not the same word. One is physical movement of objects and the other is controlling natural forces - which does work in a subset way, as Randy describes. Hence the slash in Popular Culture section, saying "Notable portrayals of psychokinetic and/or telekinetic characters include..." By way of example, a person who can throw a rock with their mind is telekinetic, but a person who can make a plant grow is psychokinetic. You wouldn't refer to Uri Geller's claims of spoon bending as telekinesis. And in terms of common usage, many people have heard of a P.K.E. meter (Ghostbusters), but the same cannot be sake of anything associated with the abbreviation T.K. Therefore I also don't see any reason that it should be changed. CleverTitania (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You wouldn't refer to Uri Geller's claims of spoon bending as telekinesis Some sources do. For example, a quote from Bruce Sterling about The Matrix mentions "spoon-bending telekinesis". Also, it's an imperfect experiment, but a google search for "telekinetic spoon bending" gives 330 results whereas "psychokinetic spoon bending" gives 131. Colin M (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose two different things. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. This is a very tricky case. The main argument in favour of Telekinesis is that the term is more frequently used and more recognizable. A couple pieces of evidence for this:
  1. The ngram data shows 'telekinesis' increasing in frequency since the mid-90s, and 'psychokinesis' decreasing steadily since the mid-70s. TK overtakes PK in 2003. The data ends in 2008, but if we could extend the chart to 2019, I think we'd likely see the trend (TK growing, PK falling) continue.
  2. In a small survey of wikilinks to this article, more than half (34/50) used a piped link to display some form of the word "telekinesis".

The main argument against (in this RM and the previous) is the claim that TK and PK don't refer to the same thing - that TK is a subset of PK, and renaming the article to TK would be inaccurate. There are sources that support this view, but there are also many sources that do not. For example, there are 676 google results (and 7 pages of Google Books results) for the phrase "telekinesis also known as psychokinesis" (and 307 results + 2 pages of books for "psychokinesis also known as telekinesis"). Heck, the Britannica article on Psychokinesis begins "Psychokinesis, also called telekinesis". Merriam Webster also gives virtually identical definitions for TK and PK (and writes "telekinesis (also known as psychokinesis)" in the "Did You Know?" section of the former definition). (These were not cherry-picked - Merriam Webster was the only dictionary I consulted)

A different argument against the rename, which I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that while TK is the WP:COMMONNAME globally, and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to an average reader, PK is the WP:COMMONNAME within the realm of parapsychology scholarship. For example, a Google Scholar search for TK gives 6,010 results, whereas PK gives 7,820 results.

Given these pros and cons, I think it's a toss-up which name is better, so I would default to keeping the status quo. However, if there's consensus around the theory that TK is a distinct entity, I would support a split into a separate telekinesis article (for the same reason we have separate articles for other phenomena listed at Psychokinesis#Subsets_of_psychokinesis). Colin M (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The google scholar citations and Brittanica article make it clear it should stay as Psychokinesis. Even though telekenesis gets more results for the average reader, redirecting it to this article is fine. If the two subjects are as different as some others believe, expanding the telekenesis section of this article or even creating a new article for telekenesis is a good alternative for renaming. Psychokinesis, while not known to the average person as telekenesis is still common enough to draw hits to this article. Josalm64rc (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evidence of psi from CIA website

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300390001-2.pdf

RESEARCH INTO PARANORMAL ABILITY TO BREAK THROUGH Spatial BARRIERS BY: Song Kongzhi, Li Xianggao and Zhou Liangzhong SUBJECT WITH PARANORMAL ABILITIES: Zhang Baosheng (AEROSPACE MEDICINE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE) ABSTRACT This article uses strict scientific procedures, one of a kind test samples, videotape and high speed photography to demonstrate the objective existence of the paranormal ability of breaking through spatial barriers. rt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Boring. 20 years old with nobody relevant being interested in it since then. Also, not even a reliable source - a secret service organization? Really?

See WP:SOURCE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hang on. I'll just rewrite Physics. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggest Redirecting "Psychokinesis" to "Telekinesis"

The term "telekinesis" appears to be in significantly higher usage than the term "psychokinesis." Suggest redirecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyonrye (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. See my comment below. Thnidu (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference between these definitions?

The third (and last) paragraph in § Etymology is

In parapsychology, fictional universes and New Age beliefs, psychokinesis and telekinesis are different: psychokinesis refers to the mental influence of physical systems and objects without the use of any physical energy, while telekinesis refers to the movement and/or levitation of physical objects by purely mental force without any physical intervention.

I see no meaningful difference between these definitions. They are cited from different sources, so as far as we can tell, the sources are not distinguishing the terms. Unless there is some clarification or evidence, the paragraph should be revised to say that these two words are synonymous, using one definition or the other or a new, equivalent one. Thnidu (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The question of PK vs TK comes up every now and then and even goes all the way back to Talk page Archive 1. The article used to note the distinction of psychokinesis as an umbrella term with TK a subset but it was all removed at some point. See these past versions of the article to see how it used to be accepted: 16 August 2014 and 26 November 2013. I quit editing this article long ago, too aggravating. Three of the article's photos were uploaded by me. 5Q5|^✉ 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wording issue

I object to the phrase "No "proven" evidence for psychokinesis". So what? Science doesn't "Prove" anything at the best of times, there's zero mathematically proven evidence for the truth of the predictions of general relativity or modern quantum mechanics, but there is evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics, similarly there are degrees of evidence for psychokinesis out in the literature. Encyclopedia Britannica is honest enough to admit the findings about psychokinesis are inconclusive, which means that the evidence for its existence is about as justified for the evidence against its existence. I recommend rephrasing that part to "Current appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis has returned inconclusive results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.106.154 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Replacing the word "proven" with "good" would be the right way to go. But your claim that "findings are inconclusive" is any different from "no evidence" betrays ignorance of how science is actually done. If the question is "does x exist", there are two possible outcomes: either you find x, or you don't. If you don't find it, it could still exist, so, "findings are inconclusive" is the same as "you don't". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although "No evidence" is not philosophically neutral, because it implicitly conveys that there is evidence against psychokinesis, instead of lack of evidence either way. This is an especially pertinent distinction considering that psychokinesis technically and honestly "could still exist".

Also, The "Evidence" mentioned in "No good evidence" should be qualified "No good published scientific evidence", because "evidence" is not synonymous with scientific evidence, and may mislead some. For example, I have evidence that I had coffee this morning, but technically not published scientific evidence.

alternatively, it could be phrased "Currently published scientific appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis are inconclusive"

The word "Good" should be removed from the above description because it is very vague and subjective. "Inconclusive" is more well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:db65:8a00:3595:646c:854e:9bdd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not understand how science works. Your suggestions make no sense. Also, please WP:SIGN your contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise: Unscientific evidence is no good evidence, and unpublished scientific evidence is no good evidence either. So, "good published scientific evidence" is redundant.

I have already explained that "inconclusive" is the same as "nobody has found it". Or "there is no good evidence for it". Since magic-like stuff like this is unfalsifiable, there cannot be any evidence against it except the fact that there is no evidence for it. So, your reasoning "not philosophically neutral, because" does not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If they are equivalent, then why not use the less biased more truthful and implicitly honest version? While it may be to some extent currently unfalsifiable, to be philosophically honest we must admit that at least in the technical sense that currently unfalsifiable states might actually be true while being currently scientifically untestable. This is especially true of potential phenomenon which may well be contingent on collective subjective societal observation and interpretation, aswell as subjective values and beliefs. To be rigorously and strictly neutral, this article must admit that conclusive disconfirming evidence for transitory and or context-contingent manifestations of psychokinesis has not been found. "Actual Reality" is also by definition "unfalsifiable", because there cannot exist any experience or experiment which could possibly disprove it. 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We are already using the less biased more truthful and implicitly honest version version. The one which does not pretend that a model of the world which contains unfalsifiable fantasies has the same scientific standing as model of the world which doesn't. Read WP:FRINGE. Really. Do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Research in psi

Here is some research which I think should be added

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742350

Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with Random Number Generators--A Meta-Analysis

Bosch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil Psychological Bulletin, v132 n4 p497-523 Jul 2006

Seance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.385.3058&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959 to 2000

Dean Radin & Roger Nelson Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton University

Laboratory experiments examining the possibility of direct mind-matter interactions have been reported for over a century. Two classes of such experiments reported most frequently include tossing dice while maintaining the intention for certain die faces to appear, and mental influence of truly random bits generated by electronic random number generators (RNG). Earlier metaanalyses of publications reporting dice and RNG experiments published up to 1987 provided strong statistical evidence for mind-matter interaction phenomena. We conducted an update of the RNG experiment literature to see if the evidence persists. The updated RNG review covered all known studies from the first published in 1959 to the most recent published in mid-2000. We found a total of 515 experiments published in 216 articles by 91 different first authors, of which 423 were published through 1987, and 92 published after 1987. The magnitude of the overall effect size per experiment is small, on average less than the equivalent of 1% for binary RNGs, but statistically the overall effect is more than 16 standard errors from chance. The average z score for studies published up to 1987 is z = .73 and for studies published after 1987 is z = .61. The difference in average z scores is not significant (p = 0.48), indicating that the meta-analytic evidence for mind-matter interaction effects persists. A conservative estimate of the effect of selective reporting practices (the “filedrawer problem”) indicates that to reduce the observed statistical outcome to chance, each of the 91 researchers would have had to conduct but not report 29 additional, nonsignificant experiments. Variations in methodological quality did not correlate with experimental results (r = 0.03, p = .26), but quality did significantly imp rove over time (r = 0.50, p = 10-34). We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence for independently repeatable mind-matter interaction effects observed under controlled conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (talk • contribs)

effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous

In other words, the more exact your measurement is, the more the effect goes away.

We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence

In other words, the believers still interpret it as evidence for psi, although it is entirely consistent with an artifact generated by faulty study design plus occasional fudging plus statistical noise, enhanced by selective reporting.

Nothing new here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought original research was not allowed? Can you provide us all with scientifically credible criticism of these papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (talk • contribs)

General critique is at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Could Luckylouie be more specific? Where are the articles wherein these above mentioned articles have been explicitly and specifically directly addressed and critiqued? And do those critiques also have critiques? I would check myself, but I'm a bit of a noob about finding articles2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking for analysis of the original PEAR research from WP:INDEPENDENT sources, it's at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Re the papers you propose including: on Wikipedia, we have WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE editorial policies which restrict us from giving attention to studies or claims that haven't gotten any attention from mainstream science. Also see WP:NOTNEUTRAL for why we don't give equal validity to fringe and mainstream views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not really that difficult to put your responses below the contributions they respond to and add one colon. Fixed it for you, again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to mind your indentations. Based on the single colon, I thought at first that you were responding to what the other IP wrote, until I noticed you are the same IP. Fixed it for you.

WP:OR applies to articles, not Talk pages. For rejecting a source, you do not need to give sources.

We cannot cite every single source that mentioned the subject, we need to select the most important sources. As I explained, what this source says is nothing new. If you want to show that it is more relevant than other run-of-the-mill studies psi believers write to confirm their beliefs, you need to give secondary sources quoting it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ITs strange the positive information needs sources but the negative doesn't. Wherein while that which is intentionally kept out of articles does not require reputable sources to justify such action, but Isn't the lack of information in the article implicitly itself content of which is contained within the article? For full neutrality and scientific justification of implicit content, I suggest both the positive and negative content should be backed by evidence (Within the bounds of reasonable pertinence to the article) While of course dismissing any outright lack of claimed evidence, but not dismissing those with claims of evidence out of hand without justification. *2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

First sentence: Both need sources.

Second sentence: Cannot comprehend it.

Third sentence: Both should be backed by sources, not by "evidence".

Fourth sentence ("While of course"): Cannot comprehend it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the ineloquent description. In Second sentence is reaffirming or backing the basis of the use of "Negative content" from the first sentence. While the fourth was stating that any information put forth while totally lacking evidence should be dismissed. However, I see now I made a mistake, the fourth sentence seems incongruous to the first which supported the practice of sourcing negative content. I Literally don't know what I was thinking. 203.211.106.180 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@203.211.106.180: Of the two papers you want to add, one is apparently published by the "Boundary Institute" which Wikipedia considers a WP:FRINGE source. The other paper appears to be of little value to the article, since at least two of the authors, Fiona Steinkamp and Holger Bösch, are parapsychologists, and their opinion that there is "persuasive statistical evidence" for psychic powers is hardly remarkable. (Note we have a one-sentence summary of the Steinkamp/Boller/Bösch paper at the end of this section). From reading the above conversation, I think you may be confused about why Wikipedia doesn't consider "evidence" as the deciding factor for editorial inclusion. This Talk page really isn't the place to familiarize you with the basics of Wikipedia editorial policies and why we do things the way we do. The Teahouse might be a better venue for your questions, or perhaps Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Popem211.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Logical fallacy of argument that telekinesis would invalidate measurements

The following statements involve logical fallacies, in particular "False Dilemma", "Slippery Slope", and "Circular Argument".

1. According to Planer, "All research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." - False Dilemma, Slippery Slope. The fact that telekinesis may affect measurements that science depends on doesn't mean that telekinesis isn't true. Also, the fact that telekinesis may exist at all does not mean it's common or has a large effect.

2. Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge has written that "psychokinesis, or PK, violates the principle that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did, no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.) - False Dilemma, Circular Argument (mind affecting matter is PK, so to use it as an assumption is circular reasoning)

3. C. E. M. Hansel has written that a general objection against the claim for the existence of psychokinesis is that, if it were a real process, its effects would be expected to manifest in situations in everyday life; but no such effects have been observed. - Slippery Slope - Telekinesis existing at all does not mean it would be commonly observed in everyday life. In fact, there are many phemomena accepted by the scientific community that are not commonly observed.

If the evidence against telekinesis is clear, it shouldn't be necessary to treat logical fallacies as valid arguments.

In general the article sounds one-sided and there isn't a balance of direct quotes by those who argue for telekinesis being real. Also, the research on both sides isn't explained clearly enough for one to evaluate the evidence without trusting the Wikipedia author (who argues against it being true), or others who are cited. When I have more time I plan to go through the details and add a balanced perspective, at least as a separate section. Also, whenever the article refers to positive witnesses for telekinesis it uses words like "alleged" and "claimed" but the article speaks with certainty about frauds being caught and using trickery. Joshuamonkey (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In general the article sounds one-sided That is because Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Your reasoning is not interesting here because of WP:OR. You need WP:RS to add it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me some perspective as a starting point. I'm not convinced there's nothing to be done to make the research clearer, but I'll have to do my homework for sure. Joshuamonkey (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what "Slippery slope" means. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a distinction between deductive and inductive argument that you should be mindful of. There can be a great weight of evidence for or against something, without there being a deductive argument that settles it. A strong argument from empirical evidence is strictly a fallacy, in that it doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The arguments you've cited are strong inductive arguments against PK; they are observations which would very likely come out one way if PK proponents were correct, but we consistently see them come out the other way. That these aren't deductive arguments doesn't mean they aren't good arguments. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There does not appear to be any objections, and the move appears supported by policy. Awaiting CSD by a sysop to move to the redirect. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – Usage of the term telekinesis overtook psychokinesis as the common name of this topic roughly 20 years ago, as shown by this ngram. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Treetoes023 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Agree, they're one and the same. AtFirstLight (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page not moved

@EggRoll97: You closed the move request for this article and stated that the result was to move, but you did not move the article? – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: Should be moved now, sorry for the delay. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)