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)

So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all? If it were up to you, what would the definition say? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence, as it stands right now, starts with a conjunction. A conjunction gives it a dependence on the first sentence. Without the conjunction, it's disjointed from the rest of the intro and would better be removed to its own paragraph, which removes the balancing viewpoint with the way it's written at the moment. With the conjunction and the implied dependence, it's just better form to use a semicolon. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the whole paragraph should be re-written? It looks pretty good the way it is, with a period. But maybe the skeptical part should have its own paragraph, and it should talk about cold reading? Myriam Tobias 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I messed up somebody's edit. It said "Edit conflict" and I put it from the bottom screen to the top one because it was back again the way it used to be. Myriam Tobias 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all?" I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real. I think we should fully explicate both sides. The only thing I really object to here is not seperating out the different thoughts. The definition, the pro, and the con should each have their own sentences or paragraphs. No mixing. The current version is fine.

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)

It's a different concept. Psychic energy is explaining an old idea that the psychoanalysts had about the energy that made up the mind. It's not really related to people who claim control of paranormal powers. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OH oky i hadnt read the article clearly my msitake then Smith Jones 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and i why was the talk page archived???

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

Smith Jones added "who claims" to this, and I think a qualifier makes sense. If you look at the history of this page, until Martin's recent push to go "qualifier free" the definition included the word "purported". I don't think this is POV at all, there are many articles on WP about subjects with an unproven existence that use similar wording. Is there support for "purported" or similar? This could certainly be a way to solve the lingering Semicolon Issue. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision

[2]. I do not know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all?" I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real. I think we should fully explicate both sides. The only thing I really object to here is not seperating out the different thoughts. The definition, the pro, and the con should each have their own sentences or paragraphs. No mixing. The current version is fine.

We also can't first define a psychic as one who is psychic, and then as someone who says they are psychic, as Smith did. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because then we'd have to get into explaining that there are some people who say some psychics are real, and there are some people who say no psychics are real.... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version has some mildly munged up wording. In any case, you're arguing semantics, and not in a way that makes any particular sense. Sentences often talk about other sentences. In such a case, a semicolon and/or conjunction can be useful. If you don't want "mixing", the only good solution would be to separate the article into Psychic (for) and Psychic (against), with neither article mentioning the opposing points of view. Otherwise, these normal English conventions are helpful for keeping like ideas together, presenting both points of the view in the same location, and maintaining flow. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just seperate it into:

• Paragraph one: what the word means, and where it comes from
• Paragraph two: what the different camps think about it.

No fuss. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

VGD. Depends on how it's implemented. It could very well work. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

okay im willing to accept martinphi's new version. does anyone thinkt aht it should be reverted agan?! Smith Jones 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean, I think the first paragraph is very clear that this is only defining the word. And now there is a whole paragraph saying what skeptics think, and what parapsychologists think. Is that ok? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice that the change was already made before I posted that comment. And then I was about to post a follow-up and simply got bored. Then my GPU proceeded to take the computer down. Et cetera. Right now, I have no idea if it's okay or not. It's decent, but it seems to be missing something. I can't see anything specifically wrong with it though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great. I was thinking that we could do something like this:

The term psychic comes from the Greek 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] According to XXX the word means a person who can allegedly produce psi phenomena.(source saying that psychics are alleged to have paranormal powers) However, others believe that psychics may have the powers they claim. According to XXX, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena.(source saying that a psychic is one who has paranormal powers- I can provide one) The term is often used interchangeably with medium, although many psychics attribute abilities they may have to ESP or clairvoyance rather than to contact with spirits.[2]

In this lead, we come right out and have it both ways. Of course, someone is going to insert "allegedly" in the second sentence also, but it will be far less easy to defend that change. This is a very clumsy way of doing it, but it at least makes the reader aware of the issues- it isn't just weasel-worded. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems needlessly complicated. I think this article got it right in the first place by simply defining it as a purported phenomena. Which is what it is, according to our available sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I seldom use the word "nonsense" when referring to what another editor says. But that is plain nonsense. In fact, the most WP:V sources we have say that in fact psychic phenomena exist. You just can't source to skepdic.com or CSI. Or even to a dictionary or something which says psychics are "alleged", and expects people to know that it means the phenomenon which is in doubt, rather than that anyone who says they are psychic are in fact psychic. What you want is simply to discredit. That is POV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What sources to you feel say that psychic phenomena exist? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you review the parapsychology journals, you will find many. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about specific edits to a specific article. If you're going to argue that claim, please provide specific sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. "Psychic" means a certain thing. Whether it exists or not is in dispute. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see your qualifier. It is minority definition, however. Also, it is, as I said above, incorrect to say that a psychic is anyone who "aparently," has, or "claims to have" psychic abilities. A psychic is someone who really has them. A person who claims to have them and does not is a fraud. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BETTER IDEA

i decided to wanting ato sepereate that external liinks between "Pro-psyhcic" and "anti-psychic" websites and i wanted to get consensus before i getyellwed at again for "Vandalism". who else things that this is a good idea, and whowants to help me make it happen? Smith Jones 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's probably fine, though I'm not sure it's necessary with this small number of links. I reverted it as I interpreted it as possible vandalism; I had no idea what you were trying to accomplish, and you did it incredibly messily. Can you please use the Show changes before submitting edits? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay i'll do that. the reason why i recommend is tbecause the last psychic article afore this one had a bunch fo links and most parapsycholoy articles have a bunch of external links and it helps to seperaate them because it turns tinto a jumbled sloppy mess after a while and can be painfult o read for long periods of time. if you think i should i;ll hold off for a while until we can get more links otn this webpage. Smith Jones 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Purported"

The last discussion of this got sidetracked, so back on topic: does anyone else think the definition needs a qualifier of some sort (whatever we can agree is most neutral)? Right now we have "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena" which seems to define the term as something that exists as opposed to something unproven to exist. I can't see that as NPOV or factually accurate based on the sources (and sorry, I don't consider the Parapsychological Association to be enough of an authority for WP to declare that it exists). Opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, many times: that is not accurate. A "psychic" is not a "psychic" because he purports himself to be, but rather because he has powers. The definition of "psychic" is someone with powers. Period. To say so is not POV. From there, we can go on to viewpoints about whether the powers actually exist. Purported psychics may or may not be psychics. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)