Talk:Telepathy

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience" - The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

The whole scientific community?

"The scientific community does not regard telepathy as a real phenomenon as actual telepathy has never been demonstrated to a greater degree than pure chance under controlled experimental conditions." Shouldn't this read "the bulk of the scientific community" or something like that? I can think of at least one prominent scientist of relatively recent times who believed in telepathy--Alan Turing, the originator of the famous "Turing Test" for distinguishing between human and artificial intelligence.89.100.37.108 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are quite correct about Alan Turing. But I think we can safely say that had he lived to the present day and not committed suicide, even he would have agreed there is just no evidence for psychic phenomena, at all, whatsoever. It has had its chance, along with every other 'witch-doctor' piece of magical thinking over the centures, to prove itself. It has failed to do so and can nowadays be safely dropped in the Phlogiston box - ie. its just plain Wrong. It IS however interesting to Psychologists, as it is a persistent delusion and that in itself is worthy of study. But no scientist with any worthy peer network - and yes I stand by that statement - seriously gives Psychic phenomena any credence at all these days. 118.209.89.119 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is one more who takes telepathy seriously: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/IntJYoga1266-7404602_203406.pdf "With the help of various rigorous paradigms over the last 70 years, systematic research has lent support to the reality of telepathy. Meta-analyses of “ganzfield” studies as well as “card-guessing task studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathy." With sources for these statements! So obviously there are some scientists who take telepathy very seriously... Lova Falk talk 09:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true for ANY bullshit theory, no matter how ridiculous, and entirely unremarkable. Scientists are people, too, and have their quirks. It only becomes remarkable when it starts appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, is replicated and confirmed, is reviewed, and is cited widely by other scientists in the relevant field. The paper you linked to, of course, meets none of these criteria. If the scientist had anything of scientific value to say, he could have published it in a relevant peer-review journal. But he didn't. Or he tried and it got rejected. If he couldn't be bothered enough to do rigorous research that could be published in a proper journal, it's hard to argue that he takes telepathy very seriously. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right! I guess. One small part of my mind says it might be my cultural prejudice (that I share with the editors of scientific journals) that makes me blind for certain mysterious parts of life, but the rational part of my mind, the wikipedia part, says of course, you are right... Lova Falk talk 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

TEEP redirects here

Teep redirects here, while it is also an abbreviation used in measuring Overall equipment effectiveness. I'm not quite sure how to state this, but it ought to be stated here? I believe there's actually a template for this specific purpose... --MooNFisH (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"TEEP" is not an abbreviation for telepathy. It's not listed here: acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TEEP The redirect should be listed for deletion on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page. Anyone with the free time should do so and announce it here. 5Q5 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-consensual telepathic surveillance, techniques for dealing with

It seems to me that my edit adding a link to this page fell victim to selective enforcement of Wikipedia's regulations. I don't see how that site is less "reliable" than other sites listed in the external links section, such as betterhumans.com, which appears to be a blog plastered with lots of affiliate ads.

24.209.234.161 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Anon in Ohio

The argument that other links are unreliable is not a rationale to include another. The betterhumans site has now been removed in accordance with ELNO. Ash (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because I spotted you adding it, and it's not remotely appropriate. Selective enforcement is better than no enforcement! I support removing other links to unreliable pages. Fences&Windows 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Grinberg-Zylberbaum Experiments?

Why is there no mention of these experiments? They are precise, cut-and-dried and bypass human subjectivity. In themselves, they do not prove that telepathy exists but they are tantalizing in that they suggest telepathy is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I googled this and at first sight it is interesting. Its value would depend on the degree to which we could say that a sympathetic response had been obtained, independent of the test apparatus, or effected by it in a clear way. If it could be associated with actual acts of communication confirmed by verbal protocols that would be conclusive. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the best starter link I could find. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I call conclusive for the reported effect. Funny how this stuff get distorted by people with fixed world views, lack of understanding of statistical methods, whatever, as shown so clearly by the statement of the person who said they were involved in the original experiments in the link at the James Randi site above. Also, in this case, the simultaneity of perception, of the actual event in the one location and with the appropriate brain circuitry in the remote location, had it occurred there does as the thread originator notes, obviate verbal protocols. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick study of the abstract shows that the protocol was probably inappropriate. The dual use of "significant" in the same sentence is strong indication that neither use is, well, "significant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Significance" has a well defined meaning in mathematical statistics, not taking the time to give references for it here. I did do a quick look at Statistical hypothesis testing, and it does appear to be a pop culture theme to try to "debunk" this basic mathematics. Again, I'm not taking the time to respond to that other than to wonder at it a bit. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "significance" does have a well-defined meaning, and it is not correct in "significantly higher brain activation". "Significance" applies to entire studies, not to individual effects. The multiple (at least two) layers of "significance" suggest a simplified analysis technique, without apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite! Statistical significance is a property of any result occurring at a calculated probability below a stated threshold. A well-defined attribute of an entire study it is not. A statistical result is "significant"; a study is "important", perhaps, but only "significant" in colloquial use of the term.

I see no major problem with the study beyond reception and believe suitably neutral mention of it would increase the value of the article. 78.147.239.153 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it you mean reception by the "debunkers". I don't have a solution for what to do about people who think mathematics can be "spun". You might be able to spin "with" Mathematics if you were so inclined, but teh Maths theyself? Nopes. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not saying this was done, but by choosing the proper criterion for "significance", any sufficiently complex experiment can be made to produce a "significant" result. The math may speak for itself, but anyone can learn How to Lie with Statistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simple equivocation on "significance" the mathematical property vs. the concept of importance. For the main hypothesis, in a good design, there would be semantic consonance between the two. The higher requirement is the overall cogency of the finding, in which the logic of the statistical inference is normally only a component, presumably having been met in publications in peer reviewed journals. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably. Could be a breaching experiment, in getting something published which shouldn't be, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ostensible" and "reproducibility"

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry writes that including the word "ostensible" in the definition is "important to convey the fact that telepathy is not a real (ie scientifically accepted) phenomenon." This seems to be self-contradictory. There's a difference between telepathy (which I agree is not real) and the mere appearance of telepathy (which is real, for example in a magic trick or illusion). Putting "ostensible" in the definition says that the appearance of telepathy is itself telepathy. This is logically equivalent to saying that a man in a convincing bear suit is a bear. A bear isn't an ostensive ursine mammal; it's an ursine mammal. Thus removing the word "ostensible" makes the definition more accurate.

Also, "reliable Reproducibility" seems to be redundant. If an effect passes the criterion of reproducibility, then it is reliable.

Please discuss first before reverting my edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "the appearance of" in the lead sentence, so I don't see any redundancy when the word "ostensible" is added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. "Telepathy" isn t "ostensible". "Telepathy" is a real existing word in some theories about temporary unexplainable things. That s all. ff 80.128.121.94 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A class of pharmaceutical medications and their application to mental telepathy

"Pharmaceutical Telepathy" appears to work well. There is a tendency to believe that some sort of alpha, beta or theta brain wave electronic device is envolved, but with use of a specific kind of drug it may be possible to influence the biofield around other human beings. Scientists are always ready to dismiss the use of a drug to conduct extrasensory perception experiments, only to move from pseudoscience to computational mathematics and EEG technology to create a synthetic telepathy method of communication between human beings. "Microwave Transceiver Implant Device-Pharmaceutical Telepathy" may be possible, along with the capability of invisible psychokinesis control fields of telepathy energy Gremlins and Angels at higher energy states in the dimension of human consciousness and reality on planet earth.JohnDoepvd1509rejnw (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If this were accurate, and there were a source, it would probably be appropriate for the article. As neither is the case, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're theorizing about Synthetic Telepathy. That's not appropriate here - not the theorizing, nor the topic. No original research on Wikipedia, remember?Jeremystalked _talk 02:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition: more than the 5 senses

"Telepathy" is not just the transmission of information/images/whatever from one person to another by means beyond the 5 senses but also beyond all currently known means such as any devices based on communication by known means such as current electromagnetic technology, but not necessarily hypothesized ones such as distantly effected analogs of FMRI. See my comments to Fermi Paradox ("the duh response", and others). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Until verifiable evidence is provided, "telepathy" is nothing more than speculation. The Fermi Paradox is thus of no consequence one way or another regarding how it is supposed to 'work'. If you can find a reliable source that suggests otherwise, please let us know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for what Andy? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

'72.228.177.92', you seem to be suggesting the telepathy article needs altering - or if you aren't, there is no point in posting comments on the talk page (this isn't a forum for general debate on the subject of telepathy). Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources. Do you want the article altered? And if so, what changes are you suggesting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see below and in the article on brain-computer interfaces telepathy is now an achieved reality back at DARPA labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging AndyTheGrump's entry, no I don't wish to contribute to this article at this time and that the immediate entry above in this thread is not me. The analogs I referred to were not the simple and primitive researches that use current brain imaging technology or implement man-machine interfaces. For ethical reasons I believe these are all passive abeit functional imaging in any case rather than communication as such. The interfacing where an input to computer is controlled by a biological signal are especially not communications in the sense of telepathy as we do not currently have sentient computers. Started thread in response to "5 senses" basis which appears to have been redacted. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First; where in the definition on telepathy does both parties have to be sentient? Also there are brain computer interfaces that can feed information to a brain, which makes it possible to transmit signals from one brain to another. Currently we do not have 1 to 1 mappings when it comes to input and output. We could feed one persons emotions into another persons visual cortex, but without a lot of signal processing that would be quite useless. However with signal processing we could make the emotional into some sensible graphical information. Also we could convert them to audio and send them to that part of the brain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.89.27 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention on ongoing Darpa research

Darpa has successfully made a monkey telepathically control a robot and has poured a lot of money in making further advances in telepathy. While the BCI (Brain-Computer interface) article get this ringt this article only mentions the theory, which is obviously now more then just a theory. “Some people, occasionally referred to by themselves or others as "transhumanists", believe that technologically enabled telepathy, coined "techlepathy", "synthetic telepathy", or "psychotronics", will be the inevitable future of humanity.” No. Transhumanists believe that this kind of technology should be the inevitable future of mankind. Synthetic telepathy however is not transhumanism even if they have been among the most noisy promoters of such technologically

Also synthetic telepathy has been performed by Darpa and is a fact. If it is the inevitable future of mankind is something we will have to see. Sony and other game console makers have whole departments working on technology like this, so clearly there is a wide belief that demand for this technology will be high.

For the recod a “transhumanist” is someone that believe that we should peruse the improvement of humanity. When it comes to “how” transhumanists take their ideas from futurists and the scientific community's predictions. The belief that it is inevitable is common among transhumanist, but is not a transhumanist idea.

"Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, England is one of the leading proponents of this view and has based all of his recent cybernetics research around developing practical, safe technology for directly connecting human nervous systems together with computers and with each other. He believes techno-enabled telepathy will in the future become the primary form of human communication. He predicts that this will happen by means of the principle of natural selection, through which nearly everyone will have the need for such technology for economic and social reasons.[21][22]” He is a prominent scientist and transhumanist yes, but he made no such predictions. He believe in them and state them whenever he get a chance, but he is not the origin of these predictions nor does he claim to be. I know that Raymond Kurzweil:s predictions predates Warwick, however they likely predates Kurzweil.

As a whole this means that telepathy is now a reality, and can no longer be considered pseudoscience or fringe science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no references to this! Anyone, please? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Balanced Lede

As the talk header shows, there has been an arbitration to effect NPOV here. I'm trynna maintain that by keeping a balance in the lede. Please restrain yourself if you've come here to put the kibosh on what you perceive as pseudoscience as this is pushing a POV. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any arbitration that says material from multiple WP:RS clearly stating the prevailing scientific consensus must be "balanced" with your own personal views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What 'we perceive' as pseudoscience is irrelevant. What is relevant is sources. A 'balanced view' is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have two accurately-cited academic sources that support the statements made in the lead regarding telepathy's status among scientists and the prevailing view of telepathy within science. There is no requirement that we make it seem as if opinion is divided or there is 50/50 balance of views. Also, if you wish to add other views to the lead, they need to be sourced appropriately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Other views must also have due weight for inclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Query: The concluding sentence of the lede digresses: In more recent times, neuroimaging has allowed researchers to actually perform simple forms of mind reading. Although this observation may provide additional context, it currently doesn't remark the distinction between (instrumentally assisted) thought identification and telepathy (defined as "the transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels..."). What to do? —MistyMorn (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Misreading/Overreaching on NSF statement

| Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"

• The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

I removed above from talk header because it's part of the POV pushing that's going on here. It directly implies that there is a list of ten official pseudo science items and that the subject of this article is one of them. That's clearly false as reading of the source material will show. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as official pseudoscience items (whatever that means) so it does not imply that telepathy is officially pseudoscience;just that the scientific consensus views it as such. This is why the "Generally seen as pseudoscience" notice is there. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It 'directly implies' exactly what it states, that the U.S. National Science Foundation identified belief in telepathy as pseudoscience. Please read WP:FRINGE - we don't 'balance' the overwhelming scientific consensus with fringe speculation, any more than we 'balance' articles on planets with the flat-earth theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Noting for the record, two, communicating mentally with the dead and channeling are squarely redundant. A slew of them are variant forms of rejection of the concept of existence persisting after animal death. If I gave a shit I would camp out here attempting to explain how the subject of this article is different. Lycurgus (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Improved U.S.Government Bio-Implant Radio Transmitter Receiver Technology?

The Department of Defense released a public statement and news story "Army Grant To Explore Communications Through Brain Waves" The DARPA, CIA, and Area 51 may be involved with research into Bio-implant Radio and Video Transmission Systems for future U.S. Army Soldiers. The advanced technology will give commanders the ability to access the thoughts of soldiers, and give radio or video telepathy commands to military units, while in combat with the enemy. The future soldier could be made invisible with a green laser type of electronic energy field, surrounding each soldiers combat uniform, unit, or battalion. A DOD Unit with the U.S. Army was designated to respond to the lack of coorperation at NORAD, the mapping and intelligence unit is called BUNKER-RAD. The US Army collects, information on foreign military bunkers and command centers, foreign videotapes and films of agent interviews, and information about the local towns and cities in the foreign country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaltimoreResidentUSA (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51091 , a 2008 press release. It's not expected to happen for 15-25 years from then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake's work has already been deemed "significant" in Wikipedia

Sheldrake already has his own article in Wikipedia. Not significant? 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You were citing a Sheldrake video for "Still, a minority of scientists remain who posit that with the use of recently developed testing techniques, the existence of telepathic communication can be repeatably verified under laboratory conditions using the modern scientific method". Does Sheldrake use those words, or words to that in effect (i.e. that 'a minority of scientists' believe it, not just him) in the video? If so, please indicate where - I'm not going to watch the whole video for a few words (and video's are poor sources for scientific assertions anyway). Or are you just using the wording as en excuse to link Sheldrake's video? In any case, unless the 'minority of scientists' amounts to a meaningful number, it would violate WP:FRINGE to make such vague claims. And no, Sheldrake's work has not been deemed 'significant' by Wikipedia. We don't make such assertions. Instead, it has been agreed that he meets our notability guidelines, presumably as an author, rather than as a scientist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheldrake very properly has a bio on Wikipedia. I don't see how you can draw any conclusion from that fact that his scientific work is "significant" in any sense that would tend to prove him a reliable source for the verifiability of telepathic communication. The Rupert Sheldrake article states that "Sheldrake's work has little support in the mainstream scientific community." Bishonen | talk 15:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

Adding a Well-Known Case Study - Enter Daryl Bem

This article seems to be so gentle as to admit "Case Studies", but none of them have academic standing. So why not enter Daryl Bem´s study with the Cornell University? And when we`re at it and you "expert" editors are supposed to be academics, why don't call up a few friends and get more and better ones? Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Criticism of Brain Waves as Theoretical Explanation - Seriousness of the article, please

"It should be noted that "Telepathy" gets a quite elegant expression by photons and they can be quite "magic"! Secondly, the rejection of brain waves demands something else, but there is NO other alternative in the World today as memory of the brain is almost wholly mystical in itself. Wikipedia should notify its readers about this (or face heresy charges, i.e., betrayal of the duties to Wikipedia as encyclopedia?)!" If one doesn´t see the importance of doing a proper article here, this article of sensitivity to idiocy risks ending up as hogwash! Can anything be done, please? Consequently, I think it is in the interest of the readers that medical research references are entered here so that "brain waves" be better considered in terms of (recent) research context. Thank you! 84.202.100.197 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality

Pointless soapboxing by now-blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just added (despite "adding" and explicit edit-opportunities, it doesn't enter): "Note on scientific standing insofar as obtaining status as real. Given a plain university result by use of Zener cards or other and then aquiring a mean result of 33% score, by 4 of these, rather than mathematical 25%, definitely describes Telepathy for being real. To this, there can be no doubt because telepathy has been fringe and people are different and usually more unaware and closed and that scores therefore "on the average", never hit really high. Therefore, these 8% means quite much and that therefore, the definite standing on telepathy has now been cleared and that telepathy now exists in the World for real "<ref">reference, any, needed</ref">"." I leave it here too for discussion. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Firstly, your comments don't make sense (is English your first language?). Secondly, you don't provide any references. Regardless of whether telepathy exists or not, we can't read your mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry that you fail to read plain English as I am actually the De Dicto (in English, over John Perry) Philosopher. Secondly, you don't provide any references either. For something I explicitly point that I haven't got in place yet!!! (Is it so hard to understand, that I don't have those academic journals at my fingertips, that "library" studies are required?) We??? To me knowledge, you're only 1 person (to 7 Bn) although I can understand that "you have head enough for 2". So surely, the standing of truth-value isn't dependent on you (or your ego) alone! And, finally, when I want to, maybe these other people may interact so much better with me than exactly "two-you" (by, of course, non-schizophrenic exchange of thoughts and more). All in all, this is about growing up in a World and finding out that it is bigger than your head! Good luck! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I can read plain English perfectly well. Learn to write it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Over to the article, given the significance over the telepathic research one would otherwise designate an unreasonably high alpha-level to accommodate the 8%, but there's simply no justification for this! Also, these literature/library-studies are known as "meta-studies" or "cross-survey-studies". Various academic work give the guidelines for this, such as "Research Design and Methods - A process approach" by Bordens and Abbott (McGraw-Hill Higher Education). Alright? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Can you clarify where in our article this '8%' is referred to? I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) The 8% are only important here as an example of a reasonable number out of any paper that has it "on the positive side" toward telepathy. I also think it serves well until the article has reached a much better academic standard given the cases cited, where I think none of the two "we" already have in, qualify the experimental set-ups of how clinical and reliable psychological results are obtained, i.e., the Ganzfeld standard. You can check out the standing on Ganzfeld here yourself, please, just for the interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment . LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC) You appear to be engaging in original research here. It isn't up to us to decide whether a number is 'reasonable' or not, or to criticise experimental set-ups. Unless you can cite a reliable source which is directly relevant to the subject, nothing is going to be added to the article. As for our Ganzfeld experiment article, I think that needs attention from the fringe theories noticeboard - it seems to me to be presenting the supposed conclusions as clear evidence for telepathy, and merely tacking on the criticisms as an afterthought. That is not the way we write about such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) No, I'm merely pointing out the importance of 8% concerning Ganzfeld set-ups (pref. 4 Zener cards). It also appears that you remain negative to telepathy as being real. You may also want to remember that "parapsychologists" really are the psychologists and as such are conducting psychological scientific investigations into a special sub-field, the parapsychology. I've already requested the literature studies from people who are better placed in terms of library/journal research. And that this is to be finalised by citing the best studies of these Ganzfeld experiments by "meta-studies", starting with Bem can be good. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Read WP:FRINGE. And whether I'm 'negative' or not to 'telepathy as being real' is utterly irrelevant. We base articles on published reliable sources, not our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) No, the issue is the prejudgmentalism, that no matter what, you're set on a track and it's going to take a 120mm Abrams tank cannon to get you into a constructive thought, that's how I see it! End. Bye! --LFOlsnes-Lea 03:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MindFlex toy demonstrates assisted psychokinesis, not telepathy

Does anyone else think the section on the MindFlex toy would find a better home in the Psychokinesis article? The toy seems to demonstrate technologically assisted psychokinesis, not telepathy.

Dave Andrew (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that we say in the lede that telepathy is "the supposed transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction", none of the material in the 'Technologically enabled telepathy' section belongs in the article, since it all works via 'physical interaction'. Unless someone can provide a convincing argument as to why the lede definition is wrong (in which case the article needs a fundamental rewrite), the section should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The material has nothing to do with the topic of this article. It should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that Bali ultimate has deleted the section. I think we can consider this settled, unless someone wishes to argue for the redefinition of the lede... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)