Talk:Psychokinesis

Wording issue

I object to the phrase "No "proven" evidence for psychokinesis". So what? Science doesn't "Prove" anything at the best of times, there's zero mathematically proven evidence for the truth of the predictions of general relativity or modern quantum mechanics, but there is evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics, similarly there are degrees of evidence for psychokinesis out in the literature. Encyclopedia Britannica is honest enough to admit the findings about psychokinesis are inconclusive, which means that the evidence for its existence is about as justified for the evidence against its existence. I recommend rephrasing that part to "Current appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis has returned inconclusive results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.106.154 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Replacing the word "proven" with "good" would be the right way to go. But your claim that "findings are inconclusive" is any different from "no evidence" betrays ignorance of how science is actually done. If the question is "does x exist", there are two possible outcomes: either you find x, or you don't. If you don't find it, it could still exist, so, "findings are inconclusive" is the same as "you don't". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although "No evidence" is not philosophically neutral, because it implicitly conveys that there is evidence against psychokinesis, instead of lack of evidence either way. This is an especially pertinent distinction considering that psychokinesis technically and honestly "could still exist".

Also, The "Evidence" mentioned in "No good evidence" should be qualified "No good published scientific evidence", because "evidence" is not synonymous with scientific evidence, and may mislead some. For example, I have evidence that I had coffee this morning, but technically not published scientific evidence.

alternatively, it could be phrased "Currently published scientific appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis are inconclusive"

The word "Good" should be removed from the above description because it is very vague and subjective. "Inconclusive" is more well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:db65:8a00:3595:646c:854e:9bdd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not understand how science works. Your suggestions make no sense. Also, please WP:SIGN your contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise: Unscientific evidence is no good evidence, and unpublished scientific evidence is no good evidence either. So, "good published scientific evidence" is redundant.

I have already explained that "inconclusive" is the same as "nobody has found it". Or "there is no good evidence for it". Since magic-like stuff like this is unfalsifiable, there cannot be any evidence against it except the fact that there is no evidence for it. So, your reasoning "not philosophically neutral, because" does not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If they are equivalent, then why not use the less biased more truthful and implicitly honest version? While it may be to some extent currently unfalsifiable, to be philosophically honest we must admit that at least in the technical sense that currently unfalsifiable states might actually be true while being currently scientifically untestable. This is especially true of potential phenomenon which may well be contingent on collective subjective societal observation and interpretation, aswell as subjective values and beliefs. To be rigorously and strictly neutral, this article must admit that conclusive disconfirming evidence for transitory and or context-contingent manifestations of psychokinesis has not been found. "Actual Reality" is also by definition "unfalsifiable", because there cannot exist any experience or experiment which could possibly disprove it. 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We are already using the less biased more truthful and implicitly honest version version. The one which does not pretend that a model of the world which contains unfalsifiable fantasies has the same scientific standing as model of the world which doesn't. Read WP:FRINGE. Really. Do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Research in psi

Here is some research which I think should be added

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742350

Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with Random Number Generators--A Meta-Analysis

Bosch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil Psychological Bulletin, v132 n4 p497-523 Jul 2006

Seance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.385.3058&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959 to 2000

Dean Radin & Roger Nelson Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton University

Laboratory experiments examining the possibility of direct mind-matter interactions have been reported for over a century. Two classes of such experiments reported most frequently include tossing dice while maintaining the intention for certain die faces to appear, and mental influence of truly random bits generated by electronic random number generators (RNG). Earlier metaanalyses of publications reporting dice and RNG experiments published up to 1987 provided strong statistical evidence for mind-matter interaction phenomena. We conducted an update of the RNG experiment literature to see if the evidence persists. The updated RNG review covered all known studies from the first published in 1959 to the most recent published in mid-2000. We found a total of 515 experiments published in 216 articles by 91 different first authors, of which 423 were published through 1987, and 92 published after 1987. The magnitude of the overall effect size per experiment is small, on average less than the equivalent of 1% for binary RNGs, but statistically the overall effect is more than 16 standard errors from chance. The average z score for studies published up to 1987 is z = .73 and for studies published after 1987 is z = .61. The difference in average z scores is not significant (p = 0.48), indicating that the meta-analytic evidence for mind-matter interaction effects persists. A conservative estimate of the effect of selective reporting practices (the “filedrawer problem”) indicates that to reduce the observed statistical outcome to chance, each of the 91 researchers would have had to conduct but not report 29 additional, nonsignificant experiments. Variations in methodological quality did not correlate with experimental results (r = 0.03, p = .26), but quality did significantly imp rove over time (r = 0.50, p = 10-34). We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence for independently repeatable mind-matter interaction effects observed under controlled conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (talk • contribs)

effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous

In other words, the more exact your measurement is, the more the effect goes away.

We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence

In other words, the believers still interpret it as evidence for psi, although it is entirely consistent with an artifact generated by faulty study design plus occasional fudging plus statistical noise, enhanced by selective reporting.

Nothing new here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought original research was not allowed? Can you provide us all with scientifically credible criticism of these papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (talk • contribs)

General critique is at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Could Luckylouie be more specific? Where are the articles wherein these above mentioned articles have been explicitly and specifically directly addressed and critiqued? And do those critiques also have critiques? I would check myself, but I'm a bit of a noob about finding articles2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking for analysis of the original PEAR research from WP:INDEPENDENT sources, it's at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Re the papers you propose including: on Wikipedia, we have WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE editorial policies which restrict us from giving attention to studies or claims that haven't gotten any attention from mainstream science. Also see WP:NOTNEUTRAL for why we don't give equal validity to fringe and mainstream views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not really that difficult to put your responses below the contributions they respond to and add one colon. Fixed it for you, again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to mind your indentations. Based on the single colon, I thought at first that you were responding to what the other IP wrote, until I noticed you are the same IP. Fixed it for you.

WP:OR applies to articles, not Talk pages. For rejecting a source, you do not need to give sources.

We cannot cite every single source that mentioned the subject, we need to select the most important sources. As I explained, what this source says is nothing new. If you want to show that it is more relevant than other run-of-the-mill studies psi believers write to confirm their beliefs, you need to give secondary sources quoting it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ITs strange the positive information needs sources but the negative doesn't. Wherein while that which is intentionally kept out of articles does not require reputable sources to justify such action, but Isn't the lack of information in the article implicitly itself content of which is contained within the article? For full neutrality and scientific justification of implicit content, I suggest both the positive and negative content should be backed by evidence (Within the bounds of reasonable pertinence to the article) While of course dismissing any outright lack of claimed evidence, but not dismissing those with claims of evidence out of hand without justification. *2401:7000:DB65:8A00:420:DE46:5BD0:FC90 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

First sentence: Both need sources.

Second sentence: Cannot comprehend it.

Third sentence: Both should be backed by sources, not by "evidence".

Fourth sentence ("While of course"): Cannot comprehend it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the ineloquent description. In Second sentence is reaffirming or backing the basis of the use of "Negative content" from the first sentence. While the fourth was stating that any information put forth while totally lacking evidence should be dismissed. However, I see now I made a mistake, the fourth sentence seems incongruous to the first which supported the practice of sourcing negative content. I Literally don't know what I was thinking. 203.211.106.180 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@203.211.106.180: Of the two papers you want to add, one is apparently published by the "Boundary Institute" which Wikipedia considers a WP:FRINGE source. The other paper appears to be of little value to the article, since at least two of the authors, Fiona Steinkamp and Holger Bösch, are parapsychologists, and their opinion that there is "persuasive statistical evidence" for psychic powers is hardly remarkable. (Note we have a one-sentence summary of the Steinkamp/Boller/Bösch paper at the end of this section). From reading the above conversation, I think you may be confused about why Wikipedia doesn't consider "evidence" as the deciding factor for editorial inclusion. This Talk page really isn't the place to familiarize you with the basics of Wikipedia editorial policies and why we do things the way we do. The Teahouse might be a better venue for your questions, or perhaps Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)