Talk:Psychic

Archives
1
2
3

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena"

"As a noun, the word psychic means a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena." As written, this makes it sound like WP is saying that there are people with the ability to produce psychic phenomena. Without a reliable source backing it up, WP can't say that, it's POV. Including a qualifier or putting it together with the following sentence would help, but as it stands, right now it's POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think of it this way, because when it says "the word psychic means," it is just defining the word. It is like saying "The word pencil means a stick of carbon inside a piece of wood which you can write with." Then, if pencils were pseudoscience (or if a lot of people though so), couldn't we just go on to say "But some people think pencils don't exist"? The reason I think this is OK is that it is only a definition of the word. Don't you think? Myriam Tobias 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, it sounds like splitting hairs. It doesn't make sense that saying "a psychic is..." must be followed by a statement that is verifiable fact while the subtle change to "the word psychic means..." allows it to be followed by a factually unverifiable statement. We should just say what it is, not mislead with wording that that makes an opinion sound like a fact. Looking at this page, that definition seems to have been stable for a while and POV push is recent and seemingly unilateral on the part of one editor. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But, that is what the word "psychic" means. Whether or not anyone meets that definition is a different matter. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that is what the word means. No one is splitting hairs- only saying what the word means. And since it is "as a noun," no one is going to take it as a statement about whether or not psychic powers really exist. See, that is not the statement. We don't say "As psychic is," we say "as a noun the word psychic means" (to paraphrase). The definition of a word is not the same as skepticism about the reality of the thing the word points toward. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the current version:

As a noun, the word psychic means a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena, although the existence of psychic phenomena is frequently disputed and people claiming to be psychic are often challenged.

I see no neutrality problem with an unequivocal definition of "psychic" as long as we make it clear that the actual existence of psychics is a subject of contention. For example, I would also see no problem with an unequivocal definition of "griffin" (e.g., "a griffin is a lion with wings") in the same circumstances; problems only arise, I think, when the definition is given without background information. — Elembis (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting two subjects in the same sentence is just bad writing. It is really stupid to act as if there is a POV problem with defining a word. As Elembis says, "As a noun, the word "griffin" means a lion with wings." You say that, then you put in the next sentence, or even in the next paragraph, that its existence is disputed. That's just good writing. It is bad writing and POV-pushing skepticism to insert it into the same sentence with the definition of the word. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There might be a somewhat better way to word it, but it does indeed look better than a needless run-on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As Elembis said, "a griffin is a lion with wings" is only acceptable when it includes info that it's a legendary creature. Go look at Griffin, the definition starts with "legendary creature". Just try and change that one to "As a noun, the word "griffin" means a lion with wings." You'd be laughed at. Virtually all articles on topics whose existence is disputed mention the dispute as part of the defininition (and this one did until Martin insisted on taking it out recently), the exception seems to be articles like this one. I don't see the huge objection to connecting the two phrases with "although", if it seems awkward find a better wording. This is an encyclopedia, while we'd like to have it worded as smoothly as possible, the higher priority is neutrality and factual accuracy. It's also a bit ridiculous to call connecting two sentences with an "although" POV pushing, it's just making sure that a fact we all seem to agree on is included as part of the definition. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the very definition of a griffin is that of a legendary creature. The definition of a psychic is someone who has psychic powers. The although just reads as being too forced, and the halves of the sentence too separate to warrant a comma. I've just attempted a new rewording utilizing a semicolon. It's probably not terrifically refined, but I'm hoping it's better than it is worse. diff. Anyone? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording - I think it definitely improves the POV problem. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the semicolon is completely fine - "It binds two sentences more closely than they would be if separated by a full stop/period. It often replaces a conjunction such as and or but. Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences, or a 'run-on' in meaning from one to the next; they do not want the connection to be broken by the abrupt use of a full stop." That sounds like exactly what we should do to avoid POV. "Bad writing" isn't a reason for changing it. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences" Precisely, Milo. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to say how closely skepticism about a thing relates to the thing itself. It is merely the job of Wikipedia to present both things. To use the semicolon is to introduce bias, and is therefore not NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, they are inexorably linked. It is not biased to state that there is an extreme amount of controversy over the application of the definition because there is. Keeping the sentences separate would not reduce bias if any exists, as it conveys exactly the same information; it's merely a style issue. As the second sentence is directly and strongly related to the first, it makes more sense stylistically to use a semicolon to demonstrate the relationship. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since psychics are a disputed topic, the dispute is part of the definition. Stating it without that is POV since the sentence makes it sound like psychics exist, which isn't verifiable. Do we need to do a RfC over a semicolon? Seriously?

And Martin, could you refrain from citing "as Milo said on the talk page" when you obviously disagree with my comments? The POV of your edits is bad enough without you misrepresenting what I have said. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it very difficult to see the semicolon as an example of bias. To use the griffin analogy (which I realize may be inadequate), the proper definition would be "As a noun, the word 'griffin' means a lion with the wings and head of an eagle; however, such creatures are universally seen as mythological." To define what a thing is is to imply that the thing actually exists, so the existence controversy and the definition are necessarily connected. — Elembis (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And the use of a semicolon is not implying one side is correct or not. It's merely demonstrating that the two sentences are related, which they are. As I said, it's purely a stylistic distinction now. It's usually better English to separate such fundamentally linked sentences (where the second largely depends on the first) with a semicolon rather than a period with a conjunction, and it improves flow. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except, I have no idea why you would think that what skeptics believe depends on the definition of the word "psychic." As it is, it is a change of subject, inserted into the middle of the definition. But the fact that people don't believe in the phenomena doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of the word. By rights, this ought to have its own paragraph, as it often does. But since it is inserted in the middle of the definition, let's not imply by the sentence structure that there is a connection between what some people think about the reality of the phenomena, and what the word means. Because there isn't. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Breathing/Psychic Energy Connection

This section is unsourced, notes that it is an under-researched topic, and is leaning towards being a how-to guide for a highly fringe topic. It's simply not very encyclopedic as it is. I would suggest removing it outright, though for now I've simply tagged it with {{unsourced}} -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. [1] Anyone opposed to the removal? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i thinkt aht should we should merge the article psychic energy to this page because its basicalyl the same concept repeated again for vandalism reasons. Smith Jones 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)