Talk:Clairvoyance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents
Archive

Archives
Archive 1


[edit] NPOV and credibility issue with remote viewing research

This section doesn't feel neutral and leans towards crackpot-speak (with phrases like "astronomical proportions" and "billion billion to one"). In addition I reviewed these papers with a variety of statisticians and the overall consensus was that these papers and the corresponding meta analysis were unscientific and littered with errors (selection bias etc). In addition, this section does not jive with the following section (ie, if this was true, why haven't these guys won the James Randi prize). This needs a serious revision. -Scotopia 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mathematical analysis of clairvoyance

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit in the Research section. Please review. Thank you. -Scotopia 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect assumption about brain useage

"The vast majority of people only normally use one-third of their brains and one-third of their lungs." - this is either an incorrect or badly worded sentence. All humans use all of their brain, just not all at the same time. Automatic functions aside, the visual cortex is nowhere near the language or auditory sections of the brain. So unless a person is creating an opera while attempting to visually distinguish similar birds while being chased by a chainsaw wielding maniac during digestion... and even that wouldn't use the whole brain at once, but a fair amount of it. Point being, it's incorrect. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_028.html and wikipedia's own Human Brain

==

Allow me to add a link referencing the usage of the human brain. While not 100% proof, I would take it as a more reliable source that points to the 100% usage of the human brain.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.115.195 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: incorrect assumption about brain usage.

The articles that you have provided do not back up what you have stated. Please provide actual links to proven information that specifically states otherwise, Cecil is no expert on brain usage. The wiki article does not state information that directly falsifies what was stated in this entry.

please elaborate.

[edit] general

ummm.. isnt this supposed to be on clairvoyance? anyway, i don't know if anyone agrees with me or not, but, i believe that every creature — humans and animals and insects and, everything really — is clairvoyant, at least in their dreams if nothing else. i mean, really though, have you ever tried to tap into that power? anybody? you in the nice, soft, comfy computer chair at home or at the office when you're supposed to be working on a spreadsheet? or you, in the hard, wooden chair in study hall at your laptop? really? nobody? okay. well i'm not going to say that i know how, but it is true. have you ever dreamed a bout some thing, then a week, or the next day, or years later even, have it happen? okay, now, you, and you.. oh! so now you believe me? no? i didn't think so. i have to go now. but before i do, one more example. have you ever been sitting at home or in the car, or where ever, and some show or song pops into your head? yes, okay, almost everyone. kay. so, how many of you have had that song or show come on in a minute or the next day? okay, still almost all of you. okay, before you ask, im not a college professor, or even a teacher. im still IN school. --always - dadark 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain usage

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

The idea that one only uses a portion of the brain is absurd, and has been repeatedly disproved by neuroscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witchzenka (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of definition in lead by Martinphi

I have reverted the lead to the consensus version. It had been reverted by Martinphi without discussion, which he is not allowed to do, if I understand correctly.

Substituting a definition for a well-written WP:LEAD is not satisfactory, especially when that definition is not NPOV, but is written from a true believer's POV that assumes that clairvoyance is a real and legitimate phenomena and is written with that type of language. We can't have a lead that is NPOV and reliable if it misleads readers with the use of language based on the assumption that this unproven nonsense is real. If the definition is to be used anywhere in the article, it must be made clear to readers that it is a definition written from the believer's POV, a POV that is not accepted by scientific sources. -- Fyslee / talk 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And Martinphi's attempt to use an "Arbcom ruling" to justify his action is unacceptable. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless very specifically backed by a particular ArbCom ruling, that type of justification is generally unhelpful, especially as an edit summary. Antelan talk 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi was incorrect in creating a lead that was clearly POV, and his justification for doing so was bogus. Nice catch Fys. •Jim62sch• 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, he was mis-using edit summaries (e.g. "Revert per ArbCom on the Paranormal. I was hoping for further ArbCom instruction on this, but it seems we're back to enforcing it as is.") and mis-using the Arbcom to get his way, defending "his" version against all comers. "The Arbcom" should not be used as a substitute for Talk Page discussion, as clearly, a number of people have a problem with "his" definition. - LuckyLouie 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom said what the ArbCom said. If you don't like it, please just add your names to the requests for clarification. Otherwise, you need to accept it. If the ArbCom does not give clarification, then it must be that the meaning is as obvious as it seems- we simply don't need to use those words. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice serious flaws in this paragraph? "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%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979)." Just how reliable is this source? •Jim62sch• 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is online. And here is another citation of that stat. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
These are NOT credible sources. Give us a break. Whining about scientists who are skeptical about this data is ridiculous. I know of 0% of Natural scientists who believe in this stuff. What's my reference? The total lack of peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals that support this hypothesis. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this Article

In the interests of journalistic fairness and balance, I am improving this article by adding three concise and well-referenced paragraphs and a few sentences, without deleting anything. This is a second attempt to make this improvement. Yesterday someone by the user name of Antelan deleted this edit. Such immature misconduct will not be tolerated. This discussion page has the purpose of allowing editors to respectfully discuss differing viewpoints, and to agree on a balanced article without sabotage. Otherwise, the help desk has advised me that other steps can be taken.RAmesbury (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The help desk comment is [1] by me. RAmesbury referenced it somewhat selectively. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be best, RAmesbury, if you outlined what you wanted to include for "fairness and balance" here rather than trying to push it through in the article space where there are a number of users (including myself) who see your edits as entirely too biased, unreferenced, and giving undue weight to paranormal believers' opinions. I recommend, for example, that you look at WP:FRINGE if you want to know the direction this article will take. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal Evidence

My training is essentially in the sciences ("prove it"), and I am not one to believe what I can't see --- I should've been from Missouri ("show me").

However, speaking from personal experience (arguably, what other kind is there?), I know that extrasensory perception is real (specifically, clairvoyance of the precognition variety). Of course, my contention (and that of others) is only anecdotal. And such may always be the case, if I am correct in my belief that ESP by nature and definition is a phenomenon that occurs only in one's mind --- at this point, something that is impossible to quantify.

It would follow, then, that the qualification of one's ESP experiences is filtered through one's perceptions, which could possibly be skewed or selective(ly biased), as psychologists have argued in "debunking" claims of ESP experiences or abilities. However, I'm not sure what positive psychological "need" would be filled by publicly claiming such experiences, per the experts, since most such people would be subjected to negative reactions including ridicule, persecution, or worse.

Again, speaking anecdotally, I am positive that from adolescence to early adulthood I experienced numerous dreams (basically, static tableaux) that came to pass in the course of my life several weeks or months later. The most vivid of these were of instances/situations that were unique to me (i.e., in places and/or with people that I had never seen before).

Regarding the idea of "selective bias" among people who claim such experiences, I can only theorize that we can't prove for or against such because they may be mostly or all random occurrences --- such abilities may not be truly controllable (and this could very well be where the true charlatans come in, who would claim to have such control). Also, I believe that people could have clairvoyant/precognitive dreams, but that many of those dreams simply do not come to pass because their realization would fall along a number of different paths that our lives may take.

Anyway, that's my take on ESP. It can't be proved scientifically (and may never be), but I believe, at least, in the existence of the one aspect of possible ESP experience that I have had (clairvoyance/precognition) --- and I'm sure other rational people could report similar experiences. 66.28.244.68 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)tiGGer2-too

Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for discussion of the subject of the article. You may want to bring up your thoughts on a forum or other place dedicated to clairvoyance, as you will probably get more response there. Antelan talk 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I do not know of any Wiki rule or policy that gives one editor the right to censor the contribution of another editor. If anyone has a problem with the contribution I am trying to make to the Clairvoyance article, please intelligently and articulately communicate your concerns on my Talk page. Simply clicking on Undo, as you have done before, is not science. It is censorship. If it continues I will have to commence DR action. Best wishes.RAmesbury (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the place to discuss your edits to this article is here, at this article's talk page. Also, common usage is to add new sections at the bottom of the page; so I will move this section appropriately. As to your edits, they appear to push a WP:FRINGE theory. I suggest you attempt more discussion of specific edits on this talk page prior to making them. If discussion on this page does not produce a consensus, perhaps you should pursue dispute resolution. I would note, however, that consensus does not require unanimity. Dlabtot (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Why is the NPOV tag on this article? Who placed it? When? What exactly is in dispute? Where, specifically, can we find in the article, the sections, paragraphs, sentences or references that are disputed? Dlabtot (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)