Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 8

Misleading ref

This ref: Kaku, Michio (2008). Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the Worlds of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. New York: Doubleday, p. 89. ISBN ISBN 978-0-385-52069-0. is to a book which lists psychokinesis as presently not possible, but which could be brought about by technological developments which would use precise reading of brain activity to control machinery to move things. In other words, it is not in support of paranormal PK as discussed in the article, at all. This out of context quote from a scientific authority, talking about PK in the present tense, gives a wrong impression. The sentence it is cited from is vague and doesn't add much to an understanding of PK. It should be removed, at least from the lead. Perhaps the ref could be used in a new paragraph in the skepticism section? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This was mine. In the book the line refers to how psychokinesis is generally, not technologically, defined, which is that it is "essentially the power of a god." Would a god use a machine? Kaku then discusses how humans might achieve it in the future by technically assisted means. I won't revert inclusion for the intro, but I think the line is noteworthy coming from a well-known physicist and could be used in the article somewhere, if not the intro. So few physicists speak out publicly on the topic. 5Q5 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be more meat on the quote, because the line on its own says almost nothing. It's like quoting a nuclear physicist saying it would be cool to have a billion dollars, because then you could buy anything you wanted. (That's not a good analogy, because dollars uncontroversially exist). So few physicists speak out about how good it would be to have a billion dollars, and why is that? Anyway, I think there's a case for including Kaku among the skeptics (of paranormal PK, the subject of this article), but more needs to be said about his position. The technologically-assisted PK he talks about is only PK in the sense that television is clairvoyance.MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If tech-assisted PK ever becomes a reality it will have to be so designated, just as ventilator-assisted breathing is not the same as natural breathing. 5Q5 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Counter-argument to your point: who describes television as clairvoyance? It's perfectly consistent to deny that clairvoyance is possible, while accepting of course that television is real. The technology we're talking about in the Kaku context would not count as PK by the definition in the lead of this article.MartinPoulter (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is too anecdotal and too long - Quote flag

A problem with the article at the moment is that it relies on a "this authority believes in PK. This other authority doesn't" style. You could take any issue and make it appear controversial with this technique (There are millions of scientists. If 99.99% of them assess the evidence as for something, that means you can still find some who think the evidence is against it.) There are too many authorities cited as making very vague statements about PK- Josephson and Broughton pro, Randi and Shermer against. What are the specific arguments and evidence on which scientists have formed opinions about PK? An encyclopedia article can't include just any opinion expressed on a topic by a notable source. The Josephson ref is odd- it was entered as a book but seems to be a broadcast. There is very little information on what is being cited and what is being said in it.

Also, "More vocal members of the scientific community" - what's the point of the phrase "more vocal members"? Should the article on Venus say that the "more vocal members" of the astronomy community think it's the second planet from the Sun?MartinPoulter (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see a more NPOV listing of arguments for and against PK, but I don't think it's a terribly easy thing to write.

Could you be more specific about this Josephson ref? If you are refering to the BBC Radio ref #62 (as of this edit), it is listed with Template:Cite episode, and the sentence before it states "in a radio interview..." I don't think you can get much more clear than that.

I agree with your comment about "more vocal members", though it was probably one of those crazy compromises. -Verdatum (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could be tightened up by trimming down anecdotes and removing some ascriptions of opinion. However this would involve keeping stuff that I've written and removing stuff other people have written, so I'm reluctant to do it myself without consensus.

The Josephson ref was Template:Cite book, I only changed it to episode on the assumption that that was a mistake. But what's the reference supporting? That there is scientific evidence from quantum physics for PK? Then we should cite that evidence, not a radio programme in which somebody offers an informal assessment of that evidence. Its point seems to be an argument that PK is possible. But the debate is mainly about whether PK is real, not just possible. Quantum physics does not rule out pigs having wings, but it would be odd to cite this in an article on pigs. If someone has specifically used quantum physics to try to refute PK, then this ref is relevant, otherwise it seems to be attacking a straw man.MartinPoulter (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the nature of a controversial topic to include this stuff? I love reading the skeptics' going on the record against PK. History needs to remember what they said in case they're eventually proven wrong. 5Q5 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your work to make this a balanced article, 5Q5. This being an encyclopedia article, references should at least make specific points about the article's subject of the article. An article about Planet Earth shouldn't include quotes from all the people who said it wasn't round. Yes, it's a controversial topic, but let's have content that bears on the controversy. E.g. someone's opinion that there's no conflict between quantum physics and PK seems to address a controversy that doesn't exist. A claim without specifics that there's evidence from quantum physics for PK needs to be spelled out.MartinPoulter (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

MartinPoulter, the reference provides verifiability for the fact that Bian Josephson did indeed state that "the results of experiments in quantum physics that he has seen have produced more compelling evidence for the hypothetical existence of psi effects than the results of experiments done in the lab so far by parapsychologists". If the fact is in the article, the reference should remain as well. If instead you are questioning the appropriateness of including that fact at all, then I have no strong opinion on that in any direction. If his statment could be attributed to concrete evidence, then naturally, that would be superior. I presume the reason this statement is used instead of the obviously stronger presentation of evidence, is because Josephson did not reveal to which experiments he was referring. -Verdatum (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martin here. Too many anecdotes, especially those from "celebrities". Verbal chat 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The case for inclusion of the fact is dubious and its presentation is ambiguous. Does "evidence for the hypothetical existence of psi effects" mean "evidence for psi effects" or "evidence for the logical possibility of psi effects"? It looks like there isn't enough information in those sentences to pin down the claim Josephson was making.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, on Nov 18, you added a new quote section on Robert L. Park. A day later you added a lengthy quote/book section on Nicholas Humphrey. Then on the third day, you flagged the article at top with an excessive quotes flag. A bit contradictory don't you think? :) Anyway, I'm in favor of condensing all of these distinct quote sections down to a line or two and embedding them into the body with the others. Crichton, Radin, Shermer, Randi, and Sagan were my doing. Parks and Humphrey were yours. I'll do mine as I have free time in the days ahead. 5Q5 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see how you think it's contradictory :) though I think that's a bit strong. That quotefarm warning is to myself no less than to anybody else. It also provided people the opportunity to disagree with my assessment, if they felt that way, before we perform surgery on the quotes. That the article isn't as good as it could be is at least as much my fault as it is anybody else's. Thanks for your quick action on the quotes you entered. I will continue to try to improve the article. Having Humphrey and Park's views represented was better than not, and having them intelligently paraphrased will be better than over-use of quotes. Cheers,MartinPoulter (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologise for not returning to this earlier- busy weekend and away at conference this week. Should return to it in the next few days.MartinPoulter (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You do intend to condense your subsections on Robert Park and Nicholas Humphrey after some reasonable airing, correct? 5Q5 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article history records that this took place in the Revision as of 16:11, 29 November 2008. Is the quote issue being blurred with the weight issue? If so, let's discuss the weight issue separately.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored Broughton reference

I restored this reference of mine to the intro line in the subsection Magic and special effects for the edit done here by editor MartinPoulter. Before the Broughton refs were condensed, the supporting quote for the line appeared in the reference list as the following: #105 Nov 29 '07:

Sorry, that was not intentional, as shown in my edit summary. Thanks for restoring it.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Microbalance quote

The quote by physicist Robert L. Park as to why not use a microbalance to detect and prove PK is amusing to those who know that such devices: 1: have built in electronic filters to eliminate momentary micro movement. 2. require a draft shield chamber placed over the sensing plate, thus only PK claimants who can teleport their energy through solid matter could produce an effect. 3. are very expensive and not readily available to the average claimant. 5Q5 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point is? Are you proposing removing the quote? Are you engaging in OR? In other comments above, you've invited quotes from physicists about PK.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to read the actual quote by Robert L. Park about microbalances that supports the line "He argues that if PK really existed it would be easily and unambiguously detectable, for example using modern microbalances which can detect tiny amounts of force." When you get a chance, can you please revisit his book and provide it here (something I regularly take the extra step to do for editors). I would like to try to provide a sourced counter statement indicating why microbalances aren't problem-free PK detectors, but I would first like to know what he actually wrote, since his reputation is at stake. Microbalances, which I have owned, detect applied pressure on the sensing plate and filter out momentary micro disturbances, such as from sesimic waves and daytime building expansion and contraction. They would also not detect rearrangement of atomic structure (no loss of mass), such as might be found in metal softening PK. And then there's the problem of it not detecting non-teleportation PK because of a draft shield. Most scientific research is not based on a teleportation requirement of a force effect through solid matter. Thanks; I'm hoping you own the book and won't have to travel to view it again. 5Q5 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The quote was already included in the article but has since been summarised. Here it is with a bit more context. "Besides, if the mind can influence inanimate objects, why not simply measure the static force the mind can exert? Modern ultramicrobalances can routinely measure a force much less than a billionth of an ounce. Why not just use your psychokinetic powers to deflect a microbalance? It's sensitive, simple, even quantitative, with no need for any dubious statistical analysis. The reason, of course, is that the microbalance stubbornly refuses to budge. That may explain why statistical studies are so popular in parapsychological research: they introduce all sorts of opportunities for uncertainty and error." —Robert L. Park, Voodoo Science, 2000, page 199. I've seen this point cited in something else I've read recently, but can't right now find what that is- possibly the Skeptic's Dictionary.MartinPoulter (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is what I found at one manufacturer's website describing their balance, which isn't even in the micro category: "Four digital filter levels for adaption of the balance to conditions at the place of use." In other words, these balances eliminate anomalous readings like a burst off microPK energy for less than a second and only display data for an event that is of continuous force. Also the sensing plate is grounded metal, thereby eliminating electrostatic force if that is the energy behind PK. I will see if I can come up with some kind of sourced line and propose it here first. My concern is that I don't want amateur researchers spending up to and over a thousand dollars thinking they've found the perfect detector in microbalances because of what this uninformed skeptic-physicist wrote. 5Q5 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another, earlier quote that predates modern microbalances: "In connection with Rhine's dice experiments, Clayton Rawson has pointed out (in Scarne on Dice, 1945) that a considerable PK push of some sort must be required to make a rolling die shift to another side (...) Such a force could easily be demonstrated, Rawson writes, by a delicately balanced arrow, under a vacuum jar, which the subject would cause to rotate by concentrating. If mediums are capable of lifting heavy tables by PK, surely a medium should be able to set in motion such a simple laboratory device. Why, Rawson and Scarne want to know, does Rhine neglect such an unambiguous test and turn to experiments with dice which are subject to the same pitfalls of statistical error and unconscious selection that are involved in card testing?"- Martin Gardner, Fads & Fallacies, p307.MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressing your points, what is the basis for the claim that microPK only comes in high-frequency bursts? Which PK claimants claim not to be able to project their abilities through a physical barrier? Not Geller, not the Indian godmen in the Wiseman book, not Radin or Jahn with their random number experiments, nor the people in the external links who are doing PK experiments over the Internet. You may have some specific PK claim in mind, but it sounds like an exceptional one. Experiments to test PK have been performed for decades, at costs which dwarf the costs of the microbalance, so the fact that microbalances are expensive seems irrelevant. Please don't dismiss Park as "uniformed" without reading his book.MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Randi's million dollar challenge may filter out claimants by making it for the famous only and those who can afford to travel to an authorized skeptics' group, but the rest of science should not be determining the validity of a phenomenon baesd on filtered test equipment without the limitations being known. John Taylor observed Geller stroke a metal strip attached by wax to a mechanical balance in 1974, a "trick" Randi and Banachek have never duplicated. The event is pictured and described on page 29 in the Time-Life book Mind Over Matter, with a photo of the bent upward strip and here are some photos of the test in progress from Geller's site: Photo 1, Photo 2, Gallery. The skeptics' explanation of course would be that Taylor and the photographer and any other witnesses were distracted and Geller bent the strip quickly without disturbing the wax. Balances have been used, and we don't know by how many researchers without investigating the literature. Skeptics will always find an explanation to refute the outcome. As for my position on Geller, sure, he has resorted to tricks, but I'm still waiting for Randi to duplicate everything Geller has done in front of scientists in the 1970s. Surely Randi and Banachek are superior magicians. What's the problem? 5Q5 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

In progressing further towards WP:NPOV, I see three main issues:

• The article presents some pro-PK claims as if fact and anti-PK claims as if opinion. In particular, the "Measurement and Observation" section implies that PK actually is measurable, which would not reflect the academic consensus.
• The Further Reading is almost entirely from the believers' perspective - again misleading about the academic status of PK. We need some criteria for what to include in Further Reading or Published Papers. This a subject with hundreds of published papers: there's no point listing every one, and an arbitrary list driven by what's easy to find on the web isn't much better.
• A lot of space is given to some claims which aren't very evidential. In the paragraph on notable witnesses to PK events, Dean Radin is given as an example twice, presented first as "electrical engineers" [sic] and second in his self-described role as Senior Scientist at the Institute for Noetic Sciences. We don't present Carl Sagan's long list of credentials, nor should we in this article.

In addition, not a POV issue but a reference quality issue. It seems link some refs are being put in with insufficient care, even by WP standards. The journalist Jon Ronson had been transformed into "Ron Johnson". A periodical by Lyndon LaRouche's organisation and a radio broadcast were each cited as books. I urge all editors to keep an eye out for questionable refs. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to see the article lose its ability to generally describe what PK is for the benefit of, say, fiction writers or even skeptics doing research, by assigning it only a scientific qualification. Toss in more "alleged"s where you think it needs them. 5Q5 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the article must continue to make clear what PK is and what a wide array of phenomena are in its scope. I think the terminology section is very good, BTW.MartinPoulter (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Another ref

McCrone, John (26 November 1994). "Psychic powers what are the odds?". New Scientist (1953). "Engineering professor Robert Jahn laid his career on the line to test the power of the mind over machines. He thinks he's onto something"MartinPoulter (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about "How We Know What Isn't So" book

Does the book in Further Reading How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life actually discuss psychokinesis? I mean, I wouldn't want researchers to spend money to buy it and then be disappointed. Wiki already has an article on reasoning. Maybe it should be listed there? 5Q5 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The book is primarily about cognitive bias, and deserves mention in probably a number of different WP articles. Chapter 10 of the book (pages 156-184) is titled "Belief in ESP". He seems to define "ESP" in a non-standard way because he says the four categories of ESP are telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. There then follow some pages on the controversy of parapsychology in general, and criticisms of the parapsychology evidence base from both skeptics and proponents. A subsection is headed "Mundane Psychokinesis" and offers the illusion-of-control explanation for why people have experiences they interpret as PK phenomena. So, only a small proportion of the book addresses the topic, but on the other hand it voices a mainstream rather than fringe view. Tell you what, I'll cite the chapter specifically rather than the whole book. Hope this helps.MartinPoulter (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite magazine template question

In response to MartinPoulter's in-code question about ref 64 and if Atlantis Rising is a magazine or journal because a journal citation template is used, it is a print magazine. I used a journal template because Wiki currently has no magazine specific template. Template:Cite magazine forwards to the journal template. You probably know this and just want to note that it is a magazine in the ref (which I left out), and you can have that honor so you can remove your question at the same time. 5Q5 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know this. Please Assume Good Faith. I will remove the question.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Page ref for Shermer quotes?

I have a copy of the Shermer book, and can't find page refs for the remarks about believers in psychic powers "having committed an error in thinking" and being "misinformed". He does mention psychokinesis on page 27, on a list of popular ideas that "have little or no scientific support" (the same point is made more clearly by the Sagan quote). Psychic powers are mentioned on pages 3 and 6, but I just don't see the quoted text (maybe it's there, but I just don't see it . Mybe it's too late at night). When he discusses psychic powers in detail (chapters 4 and a bit of 5), it's ESP, not PK. It's not hard to find remarks by Shermer on the topic of PK in other publications, but does he really address it in this book? More to the point, does he say something that's worth quoting and not better served by the existing material?MartinPoulter (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC) PS In the section on "Problems in Pseudoscientific Thinking" (page 48 of the 1997 edition) there is a discussion about standards of scientific proof, possibly worth citing along with the Broughton ref. "Anecdotes (...) do not make a science. Without corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten." MartinPoulter (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Having consulted an earlier version of this article, I now see that the quote was longer, and specifically cited the introduction. I'll consult the book again and try to get a quote or paraphrase which is focused by conveys his specific objection.MartinPoulter (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the paragraphs about Shermer and Randi which I'll move out of the article until we can get a better quote. Randi's addressed this topic in his book, so there's no need to use a WP:SPS. My intention is to absorb Nicholas Humphrey's arguments into the main narrative of the controversy section, add some additional, substantive critical refs. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Humphrey subsection reduction

Considering all the quote sections that have been reduced or moved out of the article recently, I am moving this block of material about Nicolas Humphrey here from the article until editor MartinPoluter can reduce it to a line or two to match what has been done with the others. I have indicated my concerns with underlining. I have an additional comment at bottom.

Continuing, I would like to see Humphrey have a good brief quote or position mention in the article, but not something prominent with four paragraphs and bold font, especially since the others, some of whom are more famous, have been cut. I haven't read his book, so I don't want to state his beliefs, and I don't aspire to start a big discussion on this; I've just been waiting since Nov 21 for MartinPoulter's reduction edit so I had to take this step (see earlier "Quote flag" discussion). 5Q5 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking me to long to get around to further changes. I accept your point about indiscernability, and yes the first point about unwarranted design needs merging with similar points made by other authors. However, there's a different issue with the middle two paragraphs. You've removed them because you disagree with them. This is an inappropriate reason for Wikipedia - it's not related to improving the article. Your opinions do not constitute a WP:RS. That you disagree with an RS is no reason to exclude it from the article. You are implying that Humphrey's arguments need to be spelt out at much greater length, but you start out by saying he should be reduced to a line or two. Which is it? MartinPoulter (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere where I wrote I removed anything by Humphrey because I disagreed with him. If you remember, you flagged the article on 20 November 2008 for having too many quotes. Every other skeptic in the article seems to be getting one or two lines. Humphrey has left the field, hasn't he? One or two good lines; whatever you think is best. That's all I'm seeking. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Josephson quote discussion

Here are the problems with the inclusion of that Josephson paraphrase: 1) It doesn't inform the reader about Josephson's attitude to PK: we're told he thinks one unspecified set of experiments provide more support than another. Does that mean that one is strong support and the other is solid proof, or one gives no support and the other negligible support, or some other combination? 2) It does a disservice to Josephson, who has written articulately about the paranormal in paper publications, to represent his views by essentially a hearsay method. 3) There have been some problems with the references in this article. I've already flagged up a basic transcription error and some potentially misleading selective quoting. I'm satisfied that previous editors have acted in good faith, but errors have crept in due to carelessness. But it's only reasonable to be suspicious of a particularly hard-to-verify source and ask whether the content of the broadcast is reflected faithfully in its citation here.MartinPoulter (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PS That the Broughton book is cited alongside the radio broadcast ref doesn't help matters. Is the book supposed to be the source for the radio interview? If so, can we get a better transcription of what the book says about the interview? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source to link Jospehson with PK. The parentheticals appear in the book and Josephson and his coauthor use the work "psychokinesis" in their scientific paper in paragraphs #2, #7, and #8. I am hopeful you will find a way to reinclude this Nobel laureate back in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I put a line back into the article today in the Scientific controversy section reflecting the above two sources. 5Q5 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious flag - Geller line dispute

The line about Geller in the Psychic claimants section: "all his effects have been recreated using conjuring tricks.[53]" I would like to see the quote in the book cited that authenticates that. Is it one skeptical author's opinion or is there a list of every effect Geller has done alongside which magician has duplicated it? I am aware that his spoonbending has been duplicated by magic effect, but can you tell me who has duplicated the mechanical balance lab experiment by Taylor? If not I intend to cut or revise the line as unsupported. I could find a sourced quote in a book by people who say the moon landing was hoaxed. Doesn't make it true. 5Q5 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The disputed line is about a living person and violates WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT and unless revised I will remove it soon. Many of his effects have been recreated but to say "all" requires greater substantiation than heresay. 5Q5 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT requests an inline citation, and one has been provided, along with the exact page number. I agree the claim as quoted is a little strong. I softened it by attributing it to the source's author, absolving any issues related to BLP. In it's current form, I have no reason to doubt the source indeed makes the given claim, and I wouldn't consider it dubious unless it is genuinely impossible to track down a copy of the book. -Verdatum (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The revision reads good now as long as it is accurate to what's in the author's book. It is a bold claim by the skeptic Terence Hines and his reputation is at stake so when editor MartinPoulter gets a chance (on holiday vacation?), I would appreciate him placing the quote from the book here for the benefit of editors. From WP:PROVEIT: The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. [ref]: When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. 5Q5 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Laboratory experiments versus field research

Here are the published book source quotes to back up my two lines in the article with the matching new subsection title. 5Q5 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The fact that the paranormal cannot be explained by our current scientific world view is only one of the reasons it remains so controversial. Another is that psychic functioning is often very difficult to pin down in the lab, and this has caused many scientists to conclude it therefore does not exist."

— The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot. HarperCollins, New York, 1991, p. 5. ISBN-13 978-0-06-092258-0.

"Laboratory replicability with 75 to 100% consistent results, however, is not the only criterion by which to judge if something is real, natural, and should be included within the context of modern science. If such were the case then much of astronomy, geology, and meteorology would at best be relegated to the realm of para-science. Indeed, in these three fields many of the most critical observations and data cannot be found or replicated in a laboartory. Rather, they must be observed from spontaneous cases in nature, just as with the study of telepathy and various other psi phenomena more generally. Furthermore, all of these fields have struggled long and hard, and continue to struggle, to formulate and revise cogent explanatory theories for the phenomena they study. It is exactly the same case in parapsychology and the sytudy of psi phenomena"

— The Parapsychology Revolution, Robert M. Schoch and Logan Yonavjak. Penguin Group, New York, 2008, pp. 342-343. ISBN: 978-1-58542-616-4.

And here is another just published book source quote, by a former faculty member of Harvard Medical School:

"Despite such experiments, the scientific community still questions the validity of psychic phenomena, demanding research data that is reproducible under tightly controlled conditions in order to accept phenomena as true. At least on a public level, most scientists have taken the stand that something as extraordinary as psychic phenomena requires the data to be extraordinary as well."

— The ESP Enigma: The Scientific Case for Psychic Phenomena, Diane Hennacy Powell, M.D. Walker & Company, New York, 2009, p. 5. ISBN-13: 978-0-8027-1606-4.

Star Wars "Force Trainer" toy

Saw this in USA Today, Jan 7, 2009. Not really PK, but a brain-computer interface toy. 5Q5 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Toy trains 'Star Wars' fans to use The Force

Heroes Wiki

I found this Heroes TV show Wiki-formatted site while surfing: List of Evolved Humans on Heroes It's interesting to see how they composed articles on PK-related powers for the characters, including Telekinesis. Too many powers to list here. Plenty of pictures, especially at Examples of telekinesis, where a few with a gif extension are animated. 5Q5 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)