Talk:Psychic

Archives
1
2
3
4

Latest edits

Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks. You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks. --Minderbinder 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you Milo, I'm glad you liked our work. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to Martinphi for his additions. It's an ongoing process; for every unsupported opinion we trim off, two more grow in its place... Noclevername 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

MAYBE iyou should bring all of the a"unsported" claims here" so that we can work together to give them support like [www.wikipedia.com] <--fro examle citation or other things~!!!') Smith Jones 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

?? As clearly as I can understand what you're saying, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why). Wikipedia's supposed to be a source of reliable (or at least confirmable) information, not speculation. Noclevername 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PARAYSYCHOLOGY.ORG

http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. Smith Jones 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE try to write more clearly. Seriously. -- Noclevername 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

do you have anything constructive tos ay ahout my site? Smith Jones 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith, if you are dyslexic or something, and can't type more clearly, would you please tell us? Otherwise, would you please be more careful? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article. If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat. This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science. I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found af ew source here that talk about psychics and psuedoscience.

---

here is a book about it

---

here is info by a methatmatican

---

some debate here on a sciecne discussionb oard (not sure it if ill be will accepted)

---

a books that you care to buy about skepticalism and psuedoscinece and even psychics too

oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. Smith Jones 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Smith (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it can stay in the pseudoscience Cat, (with proper sourcing) but only if it is also in the science Cat. There are plenty of sources for relating it to science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put Parapsychology under science, but leave Psychic where it is ("psychic" isn't the name of a science or a pseudoscience, just a potential subject of study). It's sort of like putting "automobile" under Physics just because a car engine uses the laws of thermodynamics. Noclevername 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right- but the article is now under Cat pseudoscience. I'd say take it out of both science and pseudoscience. Is that what you mean? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The theorectical underpinnings of psychics are not a science (like physics) but really on principles that according to the pseudoscience article, match a pseudoscience. I am inclined to sway to Noclevername's argument above though. Shot info 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog?

This site [[1]] appears to be a blog. As such it fails WP:EL and should be removed. Comments?

Personal website- but it isn't a blog, is it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my own terminology there, a blog to me is really a personal website. Either way, I'm after comments to see if this link is suitable under [[2]] specifically point 11. Shot info 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think ,that the link should stayt because there needs to be equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton to make sure that there is POV. Smith Jones

From the background information on him, he appears to be a well-known professional journalist, if true, he would be acceptable under WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, as well as the exception to point number 11 "except those written by a recognized authority". Dreadlocke ☥ 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarly see him as a "recognized authority" authority on the subject (psychic) nor as a RS given Dawkin's comments in Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher). So I'm questioning it's use here in the article. After all, if it mets RS and EL then it is more appropriate over at JREF itself. "equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton" wtf. Shot info 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is he a well-known professional journalist? From a quick scan, it looks like he's done a lot of work and research on paranormal related issues. BTW, Dawkins' comments don't break him as an RS, that's an issue defined by Wikipedia guidelines and rules, not just someone's opinion. I've quoted the relevant Wikipedia rules for issues like this, that's how we make the determination. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fine by me. I wasn't attached to it at all. Just discussing the rules.. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" doubly revisited

It appears that Category:Purported psychics is not going to be changed to Category:Psychics. I prefer the second, for simplicity, but I share others' concerns that the latter name could imply that psychic powers actually exist. However, if we changed Wikipedia's definition of a psychic to "a person who claims to have the ability to produce psychic phenomena" (no italics, of course), it would then make sense to rename the category to Category:Psychics, as this would no longer imply a POV according to Wikipedia's definition of a psychic. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this definition is supported by at least one dictionary: Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary defines a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium." Λυδαcιτγ 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition is in the definite minority. It is also misleading, as it makes the assumption that the powers don't exist- which is OR, and POV (see parapsychology page, and others). It would be like saying that anyone is a psychologist if they hang an sign out saying they are. No, no matter what definitions you find which say this, it is not a correct definition. In fact, I don't believe that this is what the definition you site means. Rather, they expect the reader to know that when they say "A psychic is someone who claims to have psi powers," they mean the reader to know that what they mean is "A psychic is defined as someone who has psi powers. But, these powers don't exist." So the latter is really the only definition there is.

Audacity, I also shared your concern. However, I would much rather have a clear definition of "psychic," and keep the Category, than weasel the definition. This present solution is much the lesser of two evils. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic? Audacitie's definition is the correct one: A person who is alleged to have psychic powers. Even if that person themself doesn't believe, or isn't sure that she's a medium. I know psychic powers exist--and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes, does that make us all psychics? I know I'm not a psychic. Maybe the problem is that the word has two definitions: sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces--sounds like the same thng, but they aren't, but they are all psychics whether they are really sensitive or not. That's why this changing the name to Purported Psychics is BOGUS! Puddytang 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. "

Correct

"What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic?"

The IRS is a victim of skepticism- this is about legal terminology, not psychics.

"and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes"

Yes.

Well, I'd much rather change the Cat than change the definition. However, there are definitions which one could use which could accomodate everyone.

Here is what we could do:

The term psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind).[1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.[2] The word psychic is used in several ways. It can mean anyone who performs mentalist magic, or otherwise engages in performances traditionally labeled psychic. Or it can mean a person who is genuinely able to produce psi phenomena. It can also refer to the magical or psi phenomena themselves.

This is quite confusing and clumsy, but we could do it. What you are basically proposing, though, (without my addition) is to take any mention of the fact that the phenomena might be genuine out of the defintion. That's why Milo likes it (um... wrong page, see Talk:Mediumship).

You are also eliminating a really good generall policy: define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it. It is just an invitation to weasels. It is what the skeptics have been trying to do on here for months, in an attempt to discredit anything and everything psychic. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. My objection isn't that it says that it might be genuine, it's that it says that it is genuine, which is POV and unverifiable. Some people believe it's genuine, some don't, but at this point it hasn't been verifiably proven by WP standards - what you call "weasel" is just using a NPOV description of the fact that we're talking about something that is a proposed concept and not a proven one. I think any of these proposed changes would be an improvement, although the last would be more NPOV if it said "It can also refer to the alleged/purported/claimed (pick one or an alternative) magical or psi phenomena themselves."

As for "define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it." that's not how wikipedia works. To define it as real, we need a reliable source saying it's real (and the more extraordinary the claim, the more/better sources we need). Good luck taking that approach at something like Bigfoot, Time cube, or Unicorn. Or heck, just try going to Jesus and "defining" him as the son of God, mentioning somewhere later that not everyone believes that. --Minderbinder 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say it is genuine. That is not true. It says what the definition of the word is. Then later it says that some people think there is no such thing. That is both accurate and NPOV, whereas defining a psychic as anyone who says they are psychic is POV and not accurate. As far as bigfoot and Jesus etc., I tried to define psychics according to the PA, which is the same as saying that "According to Christians, Jesus is the Son of God," which is true and NPOV. But you reverted me on that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When exactly was that version I reverted? Looking back, I can't find a version that said "according to the PA". And claiming that there's a difference between "define the phenomena as real" and "say it is genuine" is splitting hairs. You can't just throw "defined as" into a fringe definition to make it NPOV. --Minderbinder 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I put "In the field of parapsychology." But that is almost the same difference, and is sourced to the PA. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented Martin's suggestion of using both definitions, though I combined them into one sentence: "as a noun, the word means a person who can or who claims to be able to produce psi phenomena." This would still allow the simple category. Λυδαcιτγ 22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good, actually. Current version alright with you? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"A person who actually can"? Sounds like WP is saying a person who actually can exists. --Minderbinder 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are, as in not at all uncommon, ignoring words. The words in question here are "the word can mean". We are only defining what people mean when they say the word. We are not taking any stand on whether the phenomenon is real or not. Another example would be "The word angel can mean a heavenly being." That is just what an angel is defined as. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Audacity's new version is an improvement, but it still looks like the cat is going to stay "purported psychics". If it would help I could dig up some references of skeptics who don't believe in psychics but still use the term psychic or medium to refer to them. Puddytang 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a chance in hell of getting rid of that- but it has a huge advantage: if there is a Cat "Purported psychics," then defining the word "Psychic" as anyone who says they have the powers no longer works at all. The same with any other subject whose Cat has a so-called modifier.

Puddytang, I see what you're saying about terms, above. I just think that the distinction is between fake psychics and real ones (if exist). That is the distinction I think we should make, not call anyone who says they have powers a psychic. And, if you have psychic powers for only a second in your life, then you are a psychic for one second. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"As an adjective, psychic refers to events which involve psi. As a noun, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena,[3][4][5][2] or who claims to be able to do so.[6]" Better? Λυδαcιτγ 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, "psi" is an industry term. No one's going to know what you're talking about. It's far better to say "psychic phenomena" or something similarly recognizable. I made that change some time ago and am not sure why it came back to saying psi. Again, like I said before, this article shouldn't be an extension of the parapsychology article (the only people who use the term psi are parapsychologists). I think making the article that way would be a great disservice to it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to make a clear distinction between the two meanings: magic tricks, which are called psychic, and the real phenomenon. The version I had was clear, and it should be either kept that way, or the dual version eliminated. Otherwise, it leaves the reader wondering, "So if I say I'm a psychic I am one?" It needs to be explained that the term can mean a magician. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really how the term psychic is used. A magician that incorporates psychic tricks into his act still calls himself a magician or an illusionist. The only people who refer to themselves as psychic are the people want you to believe that they actually have psychic abilities. So there's no need to distinguish between real psychic abilities and magic acts. Even if there were a need to, the article would still need to find some more recognizable way of saying it than "psi" because, again, that term is only used by parapsychologists. I'm too lazy to check, but I'm almost willing to bet that if you open any of the other encyclopedias out there (Britanica, Encarta, etc.) you won't find the word psi in any of the entries for psychic unless they have a subsection on parapsychology.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Def

Examples of current definitions that get along fine without injecting POV regarding who might be real psychics.

psychic The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English ... psychic • adjective 1. people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic. 2. psychic powers/influences/research synonyms : supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, psychical, extrasensory, otherworldly, paranormal, ...

psychic The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ... psy·chic / ˈsīkik / • adj. 1. relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, esp. involving telepathy or clairvoyance: psychic powers. ∎ (of a person) appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or ...

psychic A Dictionary of Psychology ... psychic adj. 1. Another word for paranormal , or sensitive to paranormal or spiritual phenomena, influences, or forces. Also written psychical. 2. Mental as opposed to physical. n. 3. A person who professes paranormal or spiritual powers or abilities.[From Greek psychikos of or relating to the ..

LuckyLouie 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I liked the way you changed it fine, LL. The current version is fine by me. I never wanted to insert the distinction, which I never heard used anyway. But if we had to have a distinction, I wanted it to be very clear. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I reverted your recent change back to the old version, as the second definition is definitely used. If you take a look at Category:Purported psychics, you'll find many articles that describe the subjects as "self-professed psychics", but many others that just call them psychics; for example, Hélène Smith. Do you think that the latter use is wrong, and must be replaced with the former? I don't.

To answer your objection of "So if I say I'm a psychic I am one?", I changed "claims" to "professes"; the latter implies a long-term and serious claim. Λυδαcιτγ 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't really my change- I got an edit conflice on your revert of LuckyLouie, and I was just fixing his- he took out your change. We could compromise on having a full explanation, like I tried to have, mentioning magic and illusion. But see discussion above, OK? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who can produce psychic phenomena, or who professes to be able to do so. So...what would be some examples? --- LuckyLouie 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're talking to Audacity? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I think the magic and illusion piece is POV, as it assumes that there are two types of psychics: the fake magic types, and the real types. The existence of the latter has yet to be proven. LuckyLouie, the examples will depend on your viewpoint. In my opinion, all psychics are in the latter category ("professes to be able to do so"). Martin, I sense, would say that there are certain people who fall into the former category. Is that correct, and if so, who? Λυδαcιτγ 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that. What I say is that since it isn't ours to decide that there are or are not psychics, we have to either just define what people mean by the word- which is someone with real powers. Or if we are going to define it to include mentalists and others, then we have to say so clearly. But we can't just say "the definition of a psychic is one who fakes psychic phenomena." That is POV. The current version is NPOV, but it is not clear enough. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with wording like the definitions LL quoted? I don't think it's NPOV or accurate to say "a psychic is someone with powers", and I also think it's misleading to use a "two kinds of psychics" definition since that also makes it sound like WP is saying there are real psychics. So what's the objection to just using something like "said to be"? It seems to be the most neutral since it doesn't say that they exist or don't exist and leaves open the possibility for either. It's a big red flag when editors are insisting that wording similar to that in many mainsteam dictionaries and encyclopedias is unacceptable - if we're taking an opposing position to those, we're likely pushing a fringe view.

It isn't our job to decide if there are psychics, it's our job to reflect the consensus of sources. And since we don't have verifiable, sourced info saying that psychics exist, we need the article to reflect that. It's extremely POV to write the article so that it sounds like WP is saying psychics exist. --Minderbinder 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree . Not suggesting that Google is the authority here, but I have to wonder why we are straying so far from common definitions. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=psychic+definition&spell=1) - LuckyLouie 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Louie, I have concerns about "a person who can produce psychic phenomena" sounding like WP is saying that people who can produce psychic phenomena actually exist, although I can see your reasons for disliking the "dual" definition. Do you still favor that wording, or would you like to suggest an alternative? --Minderbinder 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, I agree, it's kind of a mess. Whoever has edited this article has cleverly used a dictionary defintion in order to make it "read" that psychics are genuine, and then switched to encyclopediac style to add parasychology support for it. I'd really prefer the article to use one of the standard Oxford defintions I listed above, and avoid semantic gymnastics.

As for the "two kinds of psychics" -- that is pure POV and should not be discussed in the intro. --- LuckyLouie 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about something like "As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who is said to be able to produce psychic phenomena"? This doesn't claim proof or disproof, and "said" seems to get less objection than things like alleged, claimed, purported, etc and doesn't make a distinction between people saying it about themselves or about others. And is "As an adjective, psychic refers to events which involve psychic phenomena" acceptably neutral? Unfortunately, Mediumship seems to suffer the same linguistic gymnastics. --Minderbinder 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic reasons we stray from them is that, first those definitions say something different from what they mean. For instance, if a person were psychic, but no one thought they were psychic, they would not be psychic under the definition "people thought to be psychic". Same with "appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy." Same with "Supposed," etc. etc. These definitions are meant to be read as simply casting doubt on the subject, but actually say something quite different.

Second, we stray from it because to so define it is POV. We should not decide whether the phenomena exist or not. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding NPOV (I'll assume not intentionally so). NPOV doesn't mean presenting all subjects as if there's an equal possibility of them being valid or not, it means presenting how the subject is generally accepted. If a majority of dictionaries and encyclopedias use qualifiers, that's a good indication that the mainstream view is a qualified one, and we are obligated to present that. Also, insisting that dictionary definitions "say something different from what they mean" is original research. We have to assume they mean what they say, if you think they have worded poorly you'll have to take that up with the editors of those dictionaries and encyclopedias. Not to mention that using a word like "alleged" or "said to" isn't "deciding whether the phenomena exist or not," it's making a neutral statement that allows for either possibility. --Minderbinder 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. This has to do with presenting a definition which is theoretically possible under all conditions. If a skilled mentalist doesn't perform, and therefore is not "alleged" to be a "psychic," he is still a mentalist. Your definitions just don't work, and it has nothing to do with NPOV. It is not OR, because of the argument presented on the Mediumship talk page, concerning the definition of the qualifier. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it just doesn't work, then why do most dictionaries and encyclopedias define it that way? Pardon me for being skeptical that you know better than the editors of most reference books. And I don't see how the definition I've propsosed isn't "possible under all conditions". It covers both "real" psychics (if they do exist) as well as those faking it. --Minderbinder 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained on the Mediumship how it doesn't work. If you don't want to go there and read it, I'll be glad to copy it over. The reason, as I explained, is that they are trying to save space. What they actually mean, as per the definition of the word, is that there is doubt as to whether the phenomenon is real. Which is a abbreviated way of saying "This is the definition. But some people don't believe it exists" except that if you take it literally, it means that, for instance, only people who are alleged to be psychic can be psychics, and if someone doesn't say they are, then they aren't. As I said before. I'm really getting tired of telling you the same thing over and over. Please read what I write, and think about it logically. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't agree or like it, but WP policy says we have to take sources literally. Assuming that they mean something other than they say, or interpreting "what they actually mean", falls under original research. --Minderbinder 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when those same sources give the definition of the word they are using. As I already said. It is only CIVIL to respond directly to what other people say. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

why not add put a link into the word psi sot hat people can undesrtand what it means? it semes like that might be a better idea than using a strnage word like "psychic phenomena", which people might not understand either. not everyone will know what 'phenomena' is anyway and using the parapsycholoy definiton will just help to inform more people about what thes ewords means. an idea Smith Jones 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The definitions from the dictionary are irrelevant here. This is a discussion of POV and I hold the contention that when most people hear the term "Psychic" they instantly think of someone who HAS psychic powers and not "someone who supposedly has them". We should be concerned about how people view the term and not what any one dictionary says. If someone believes that "Psychic" means supernatural powers then they will instantly see any article that claims someone is a "psychic" as either supporting their claims of supernatural powers or completely bias. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the dictionaries are totally irrelevant or not. However, I agree that what we must do is to simply define the term as being "A person with psychic powers" (as you say), and then say that skeptics believe that these powers don't exist, but are only self-delusion, mentalism, etc. That give the reader the full understanding, and all the infomation needed to go and research further. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Milo wants to make skepticism part of the definition. He wants to say something like "Psychics are people who are said to have paranormal powers." Which, of course, is POV, because it rules out a person who has them and is not said to have them. Or, he wants to say "alleged," in which case no one who is not alleged, has them. Also, Audacity wants to have "psychic" also mean "mentalist" or other magical tricks. And if we do that, having "said to" or "alleged" as part of the definition would rule out a mentalist who no one had seen perform. The definition which has qualifiers inserted in its heart, as opposed to being explicitly qualified, just doesn't work. When I say "explicitly qualified," I mean that you say "A psychic has paranormal powers," and then afterward, in the summary, you say "There are skeptics who believe..." etc. And you can define it as also meaning "mentalist," but the definitions and the doubts about them should be in separate sentences- and probably paragraphs, so as to keep the thoughts separated for clarity. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd semantic game you're playing. "Psychics are people who are said to have paranormal powers" would include people who actually have powers as well as those faking it. It doesn't rule out either case. And if that's "wanting to make skepticism part of the definition" then I guess most dictionaries and encyclopedias are guilty of that as well. Not to mention virtually all of the wikipedia articles about activities that are said by some to exist but not proven. --Minderbinder 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But it wouldn't include a psychic who had the powers and didn't tell anyone. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're seriously debating theoretical constructs, such as "psychics who have powers but don't tell anyone". What's next? "Psychics who want to tell someone about their powers but live in remote areas devoid of population"??? LuckyLouie 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

Can someone explain again why these definitions are not acceptable?

• psychic - The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English ... psychic • adjective 1. people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic. 2. psychic powers/influences/research synonyms : supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, psychical, extrasensory, otherworldly, paranormal, ...
• psychic - The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ... psy·chic / ˈsīkik / • adj. 1. relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, esp. involving telepathy or clairvoyance: psychic powers. ∎ (of a person) appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or ...
• psychic - A Dictionary of Psychology ... psychic adj. 1. Another word for paranormal , or sensitive to paranormal or spiritual phenomena, influences, or forces. Also written psychical. 2. Mental as opposed to physical. n. 3. A person who professes paranormal or spiritual powers or abilities.[From Greek psychikos of or relating to the ..

LuckyLouie 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thought to be" rules out those who have the powers and aren't thought to have them. Dark matter is aparently inexplicable by known natural laws, but is not, so far as I've heard, psychic. And "psychic" isn't another word for Bigfoot. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark matter is perfectly explainable by natural laws, how do you think it was discovered? It wasn't discovered through cold reading :-) Shot info 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I said, known natural laws. Heh. And it was discovered by cold reading: taking clues than no one else sees, and guessing... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aiy, yi, yi. Martin, if you're challenging standard Oxford definitions as biased, then I'm not gonna wrestle with you about it here and now. Eventually this article and any others with similar semantic contrivances will have to be submitted for formal RfC or mediation. --- LuckyLouie 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Never said biased. I said, demonstrably untrue. Do you have any reason to believe "Psychic," is Bigfoot? Or a reason to believe Bigfoot isn't paranormal? Do you have a reason to think that a psychic cannot be psychic in private? Do you really believe that everything apparently inexplicable by known natural laws is psychic? These definitions are a joke. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)