Talk:Extrasensory perception/Archive 1

First comment

What ?! Am I the only one or the first to discuss this hot topic?! I thought it would be as long as the discussion page on Linux! .......

I wanted to add that mathematicians and physicists recognize fourth , fifths dimensions, etc.. Also superstrings , etc..

Couldn't these explain E.S.P.?

               ---Jondel|Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 18 April 2004 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

This article seems really unbalanced to me.

This article, especially the beginning, strikes me as much biased in favor of ESP. In particular, it mentions that there have been several studies that have shown statistical evidence of ESP, but not that others have shown statistically no evidence.

Probably because the proportion of studies which find no effect are statistically insignificant. Meta-analysis shows that the statistical evidence supports ESP strongly even with inclusion of all studies which do not by themselves show significance. --Cortonin 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haha, wow, haven't heard that one before. Please point us to your information source. MaxMangel 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the proportion of studies which find no effect are statistically insignificant. The opposite is true. It is the studies that are alleged to illustrate ESP that have not been conducted with proper controls in place, and which, when done so, show results that can be accounted for by chance. I've clarified the article, including examining the material in the footnoted sources provided that supposedly support the notion. Nightscream 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The section "Difficulties testing ESP" still contains this "meta-analysis" asserion without saying whether more weight is given to quality, peer-reviewed studies.

Well, in the pioneering experiments of the Rhines at Duke University, the continual complaints about just such a lack "proper controls" were put to the test, and to rest, over an over again, while their trials continued to show the same statistically mind boggling results*. this is not rocket science since the only way the studies could have been rigged would involve either flat out collusion to fix the results or incidental trasnsfer of information from the sender to the receiver. The dilligence in eliminating any possiblity, no matter how unlikely, that some physical transfer of information from sender to reciever might be taking place, the methods of isolation were made virtually absolute, even to the point of placing the sender in a different building than the receiver was located within, and where there was no possible means of auditory or visual exchange.

• see http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm D Isak 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem unbalanced to me!!

The last paragraph of "Ongoing debates about the existence of ESP" is ridiculous. (195.38.x.x 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Balance attempts

I've done what I can for now to balance the article -- I hope it's well done. It's at least well-referenced, I think (better than the original article, anyhow). I have commented out a section because I don't see why it's important -- the argument seemed to be that because science accepts forces such as gravity that operate outside of the realm of human perception, science justifies ESP claims, which I thought was spurious and perhaps intended to mislead. Anyway, I didn't like it but I preserved it because if there is a verifiable case being made by ESP advocates, I think it should go there, but not in the form I found it. Anyone feel like helping out? Jwrosenzweig 00:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good edits, I think it clears up a number of the sections. Although your changes to the introduction's summary of the Randi test don't quite match the facts. According to the Randi site, no formal tests have ever been conducted, and judging will not be done by a third party (it explicitely says that there will be no third party in the rules). I'll fix that part up.

I'm not sure what the dog study is about, it sounds a bit like a straw man to me, which itself could be considered POV. Perhaps there are more conventional ESP tests, or types of ESP tests, which could be criticized? --Cortonin 02:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're not quite right about Randi either, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. :-) If you look at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html you'll see that no one has ever been considered a "claimant" because no one has passed preliminary tests that show they have ESP. I could quote you (and will, if I can find the book) descriptions by Randi of fairly elaborate preliminary tests. Many people have taken these. The idea, as near as I can tell, is that if ESP is indicated on a preliminary test, then the million is put in escrow and the person has the chance to win it. We have to communicate this somehow -- saying "no one has ever tested" makes it look like the Randi Foundation is preventing anyone from claiming the prize, when in fact many 'psychics' have made attempts to claim the prize. The dog study....well, it was the first ESP study that I could find solid reference to. I'd prefer to talk about Rhine's card experiments or the remote viewing experiments of P&T, but until I could find references, I decided a story I could link to was better than one I couldn't. If you can replace it with a better story that an external link can verify, please do. I agree it's not the best example. Otherwise, I'll come along soon and add in the tests I talk about. Jwrosenzweig 15:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The formal tests only occur by extension of an invitation to take such a test by Randi, and entirely at his discression. I've seen mention of claimants complaining that he hasn't replied to their applications for a preliminary test, and I've also seen mention of preliminary tests which under statistical analysis showed the claimant performed better than chance, but after which Randi berated the claimant as being a failure. One thing most of the controlled experimental studies performed by scientists have shown fairly consistently is that the participant's expectation of success is the primary predictor of the degree to which ESP will show up. All of his "tests" manipulate this variable by berating claimants. There have been many conventional psychology studies which show enormous drops in performance on conventional tests such as the IQ test from nothing more than the person handing out the test saying that they don't expect the participant to do well. That is not a test of IQ, it's a test of the ability of the experimenter's attitude to manipulate the claimant's expectations, and it's a well understood phenomenon in both IQ and ESP.

The Randi tests are not truth seeking and not scientific in their methods because he does not take any of these things into account. A psychologist who treated participants this way would not be able to pass an ethical review board, and his experiments would not be considered valid. Surely there are more scientific things to discuss in an encyclopedia article on this topic. --Cortonin 20:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, from the perspective of a casual visitor, this page has quite obviously been taken over by members of the Randi-worshipping cult, and offers no real or neutral information with regard to the topic at hand. In fact, the Randi-worshippers appear to have pretty much taken over Wikipedia entirely with regards to metaphysical topics.

It appears that the Randi-worshippers fail to take into account the destructiveness of having articles prepared by those who condemn the topic. Would you also like to see the articles about Jesus and Christianity prepared by Satanists? That, sadly, is the level of discussion here with regard to metaphysical topics. I doubt this matters to the Randi cult. Their only interest, apparently, is promoting their hero-icon and dismissing without fair review any concepts that he rejected.

Enjoy your flat earth.

No one who consistently refers to skeptics as "Randi worshippers" is a "casual visitor". If anything, the article was slanted far more towards acceptance of ESP when I found it, making certain assertions as fact that were not supported by the footnote sources I clicked on. After reading those sources, I clarified their material, and added addition material and sources as well.

As far as "condemning the topic", well, I have no idea what that means. The very fact that I and others are here reading and editing the article means we do not condemn the topic. Perhaps you meant those who condemn the idea of ESP. For my part, I do not, since I think the matter needs to be discussed. This comment by you is probably more an expression of condemnation on your part of skepticism than an accurate description of any "condemnation of the topic" on the part of skeptics. I see nothing "destructive" about skeptics preparing an article on such a topic, as it is probably far preferable to having it prepared by people completely credulous to the idea, to which the state I found the article in attests. Would I like to see articles about Jesus prepared by Satanists? If they have knowledge they can contribute or spot an error or place for improvement...why not? Arguing otherwise is merely an example of argumentum ad hominem. Many Satanists, after all, may have been raised as Christians and might be able to improve such an article. If a Satanist, for example, sees no mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters in his article, and decides to write it in, along with attribution of the Book in question, I'm all for it. I'm not going to bigotedly exclude him just because he does not personally worship Jesus. Funny how you seem to be arguing otherwise, but then accuse skeptics of being only interesting in "promoting their hero-icon". I also find your Flat Earth comment particularly ironic, since it is skeptics who reject Flat Earth claims, and the credulous who promote them. Take care. :-) Nightscream 08:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a POV template to the "general criticisms" section. The section is biased towards ESP proponents. Statements such as "When skeptics claim that flaws in the analysis or cheating must account for all evidence of ESP abilities in the hundreds of studies which have been conducted over the last century, this strikes many as a very extraordinary claim indeed" are obvious attempts to ridicule skeptics. The section should honestly and accurately represent skeptics' objections without unduly harsh judgement. I'll leave it to a more knowledgable skeptic to correct this. nadav 05:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could it be electromagnetic field perception?

Is it possible that the sixth sense is electromagnetic field awareness? Many animals are aware of low-frequency fields (large system activities) and react accordingly. I know for me that when a TV is turned on in another room I am aware of it by feeling a high-frequency presence in my head.

Since we have nine senses (Seeing, Hearing, Taste, Smell, Tactition, Thermoception, Nociception, Equilibrioception, Proprioception) the phrase 6th sense is not hugely useful. There is no evidence that humans can detect low frequency fields and the most obvious explanation for your observation is that you can hear the the whine of the TV.Geni 10:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the TV, what you sense is an approximately 20,000Hz hiss that's at the edge of human hearing. Many people lose the ability to hear this TV hiss as they get older, because the frequency range of hearing shrinks.

As for electromagnetic field awareness, this is counter to most of the existing experimental data. The hit rates for ESP experiments remain unchanged with electromagnetic shielding, across large distances, and with different relative placements in time. Those tendencies don't match the expected behavior of electromagnetic field awareness. I think this was first realized in the 1940's, so most of the research since has stopped trying to explain the results in this way. It might be helpful to add a section on this if it's a common question. — Cortonin | Talk 14:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A significant percentage of people believe in ESP and attribute it to senses of natural physical phenomena not possesed by the masses. This was commented out and I would like to have it restored.(Includes the instructions on restoring):
BEFORE RESTORING THIS COMMENTED SECTION, PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE

Possible scientific basis for extra-sensory perception

It is obvious to science that there is a lot going on in the universe that is not registered consciously by the human senses. The universe is a complex interaction of electromagnetic and gravitational forces that seem to manifest as particles and/or waves. Mathematicians and physicists recognize fourth and fifth dimensions, superstrings, curved time and space, etc.

In fact, the universe is so complex that the senses of any animal must filter the external input in order to interact with its environment. For example, the human sense of sight does not directly see infrared or ultraviolet light even though many other animals' sense of sight allows them to see such light. Dogs hear audio frequencies higher than that of humans.

The question then arises, are humans sensing such light, electromagnetic forces or any other forms of energy and then subconsciously ignoring it or are they simply not equipped to sense it at all? Proponents of ESP suggest that there may be some "filters" within the human consciousness that can be shut down to allow more sensory data into the consciousness.
END of disputed portion. --Jondel 09:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This section, as it is written there, is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it sounds like original research. An encyclopedia should for the most part document the conclusions of others, rather than try to reason through new conclusions. — Cortonin | Talk 22:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the section basically lists a lot of out-of-place scientific terms (superstrings, curved time and space), says that the universe is complicated and that many things are possible, and then draws a conclusion from that that somehow the eyes are seeing more than the visible spectrum. The conclusions do not at all logically follow from the premise established. — Cortonin | Talk 22:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(I don't see how it is out of place, it is a natural physical phenomena.)When some scientists knew, that the world was round, mainstream authorities tried to fit in new discoveries and evidence into fundamentalist views. I believe that some people can see more. The visible spectrum may not be the same for everyone. Even if they could, most people will see only what they want to see. They will filter out and deny the existence of the rest. I don't feel a great need to push for these views anyway so you don't have to worry that I'll be reasoning through new conclusions. No need to restore(--just wish though-- ) Also they really might not be new but very old, ancient and even well accepted in other cultures. What is new is really a discovery of what is old. --- OK then, lets document conclusions of others.--Jondel 11:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think if you leave out the first part (of the three) the ext is much better. Than it is a pretty good explanation of what the proponents of ESP suggest. I think it ís worth putting it in this article. Løde 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't all of the above pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.51.199 (talk) 19:13-14, September 26, 2005

What is the point in trying to explain the cause of something that most likely isn't real? It's kind of like trying to explain how dragons are able to breathe fire when there are no dragons. Until it's established that it's real there's no point in trying to figure how it supposedly works. -- HiEv 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance Percentage

If i were to look up ESP in an encyclopedia, what would i be looking for? What kind of importance should we attach to each area that can be discussed. A percentage might be helpful. Would anyone care to give 2 cents?Knightt 17:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I were to look up ESP in an encyclopedia for the first time, I think the first thing I would want would be a description of what ESP is supposed to be and what its properties supposedly are, followed by a description of its history and what sorts of experiments led people to conclude that those were its properties. Then I would like to see a clear analysis of the objections to those experiments, and assessment of the validity of those objections. Those would be the most important things to me, others might differ. — Cortonin | Talk 16:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. I don't know much about esp, so if i were to write the article, i would have to do a lot of research. I would be willing to do it but am very busy right now so it will take a while to complete it. If someone else wants to write a proposal for a new esp page, i bye no means want to hog all the fun! I will post a new article in the discussion board so all may scrutinize. Knightt 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its impossible to write a decent article on many subjects in WIKI because of noisy objectors. Many articles have a bizarre and dysfunctional narrative structure, because of the need to be 'balanced.' I think a lot of us are giving up on appeasing the objectors, and just moving our content to http://www.wikinfo.org/ instead. 84.66.56.186 22:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scrying

I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, and that Scrying is in fact another word for divination, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Lucid dreaming removed

Lucid dreaming was listed at "perception of events in other times". The Lucid Dreaming article reads: "Scientific research in the 1950's found that ... events in dreams take place in real time rather than going by in a flash." Lucid dreaming can't be any more extra-sensory than dreaming itself (or than being conscious). I don't think dreaming is an ESP and this article doesn't suggest that either so listing lucid dreaming as an ESP was inappropriate imho. --Zoz 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I take exception to Zoz' conclusions. While Lucid Dreaming doesn't necessarily involve ESP it often does, according to reports. The kind I've read about can sometimes be verified by investigation. for instance, the distinct impression of flying is a common feature of lucid dreaming, and sometimes very specific landscapes and/ or buildings can be identified. There are often enough specifics to be able to provide the locations that were observed, even though the dreamer had not previously seen or otherwise been previously aware of the features being recounted. ESP would then obviously be a factor in the dream, assuming that there is not some other explanation (which would also need verification, by fact or reason).

I agree though, that the word "times" as Zoz has quoted is not appropriate. 'place'(s) would be a better choice.

For these reasons I would like to see the Lucid Dreaming article reinstated so that it might be corrected and expanded. this is my first attempt at editing a Wiki article, so any help or suggestions as to how to proceed would be appreciated. Me email is available. D Isak 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read extensively about lucid dreams -- after having a handful of them myself -- and have never encountered remotely credible accounts of lucid dreaming involving knowledge of real-world facts that the dreamer could not have learned by some natural means. Lucid dreaming is a fascinating phenomenon, but as far as I know has no connection whatsoever to ESP.

IF there are credible reports connecting lucid dreaming to ESP, then by all means let's have the citations.Daqu 08:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Web sites from beyond the grave -- Alec Reeves

article says: "Alec Reeves, one of the pioneers of digital communications, considered ESP a perfectly reasonable proposition. He believed that many of his inventions were prompted by the dead pioneer Michael Faraday, and spent much of his earlier years trying to perfect spiritualist telecommunication devices. Some of his experiments are available as ActiveX pages on his website." Reeves died in 1971, so he set up the site from beyond the grave, He obviously kept up with technology, the internet was just getting started in 1971. What's the url? (Unless the article means Michael Faraday's website. ) Point of interest, Edison tried to create a device to communicate with the dead. The patent royalities would have been awesome. GangofOne 07:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina

Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was ESP discovered by a Hindu tribe?

Surely if ESP is real there will be no accurate record of its discovery. If that's not what was meant please rephrase.

I removed that completely, because it was making no sense at all. Every culture everywhere has had its shamans and priests and whatnot, all claiming to experience something beyond the capabilities of other people, so that was really an absurd proposition. --TheOtherStephan 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No sixth sense

This article is missing another aspect of ESP: the subconcious. There is a recent theory that ESP is not necessarily a 'sixth sense' per se, but rather the culmination of subconciously collected data from your five primary senses that generates rules governing a statistical calculation in the 'back of your mind', or regions beyond your thought control. The resulting highest probability is then introduced to the conciousness as an emotional instinct, which most humans are incapable of resisting.

I heared something similar on a program about a firefighter that had, subconciously, analyzed the events in a house fire and precieved that the house would combust... It was, according to the program, something about the flames having a different colour and producing an unusual sound, both evidents that the oxygen was running critically low (don't take my word on this, it was well over 5 years ago that I saw the program). Somehow, the firefighter subconciosly noticed this, analyzed it, compared it with earlier experiences, noticed that something was wrong, and sent him into a panic where he screamed for all of his colleagues to evacuate the building, and then he ran out... Not more than a couple of seconds after the last firefighter had left the house, it combusted so violently, it appeared as if it exploded... This is only out of memory, and I don't know how accurate it is, only that it was something like that. 81.224.28.22 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what people think is ESP is this, I think. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Exclude

The article should only contain a definition of the term, perhaps listing some popular theories. The information it contains can't be trusted.

Vandal

202.159.116.19 blanked the talk page, leaving only this comment: "Bagaimana cara untuk dapat memiliki kemampuan Extra Sensory Perception?" Unblanked. --GangofOne 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "Bagaimana cara untuk dapat memiliki kemampuan" is Indonesian for "How to be able to have the capacity" - Dreadlocke 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Test linked at bottom

The test is manipulated. It clearly chooses card after I click, and it increases the chance of getting the right card over the attempts. There are also other ways to manipulate it, like "knowing" statistically what people will choose or noting where I hold the mouse cursor, and that may also be a problem here. I tested it first thinking that the computer chose randomly, but then I got 120% above chance after 100 attempts which is an extremely "improbable" score, 1:4600000 or something. Today I tried the test again, this time simply going one by one from the left to the right over 100 turns and achieved 90% above chance. So it is manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.27.1 (talk • contribs)

Maybe you're just psychic...? Heh. The code for the program would probably prove whether it's fixed or not. If it's maniuplated, then why include it? I'm not even sure it adds much value even if it's not fixed. But maybe that's because I failed it miserably and I hates it.  :) Dreadlocke 07:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried a new method. This time in every turn I clicked the previous right answer. After 100 attempts I ended up with 5% below chance. I still believe it is fixed, but I think the machine first chooses the most statistically probable answer (which is not the same as the previous), and then only increases the chance of getting right if the player answers correctly. Then it changes the answer a lot of times to increase the score of those who trust intuition. I will test it some more now, changing tactic after 50 attempts. Do you think 100 attempts is enough to test each method? Also, the note I posted in the article may be inaccurate, I see. But it is better than nothing. Update: Now I did it with the seemingly best tested method over 50 attempts, then used the "worst" method in the last 50. I had 10% above chance at 50 and 35% above chance at 100. Suddenly the bad method also worked, but that was after "charging up" with the good method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.27.1 (talk • contribs)

I admire your efforts! This added some good cheer to my evening...:) Maybe we should just remove the thing. Not sure how much value it adds - more of a game than anything else. PS, you should sign your discussion page posts with 4 tildes {~~~~), that way everyone easily knows who's talking! Check out Using Talk Pages. Thanks! Dreadlocke 08:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta be a game, check out Hexatron (a source of original computer art and original computer games.) The "esp test" page itself even states: "This exercise is offered for entertainment purposes only. It is completely useless and ineffectual for any other purpose." I vote to delete. Dreadlocke 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This article seems to rely pretty heavily on just a few sources. I've (badly) converted to "cite" and wow, can you ever see it. It could use a real trim, is there anything that's particularly valuable that must stay? - brenneman ^{L} 12:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

External links by Randi

It occurs that Randi.org is represented by several links in the External links section - is there any justification for this? It reflects a bias. As good practice would look towards leaving 1 at most per external source. Any other views? Knowledge for All 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Randi's importance is often overstated, this seems to be due only to the fact that he is the most tabloid and media savvy 'sceptic', and nothing to do with unbiased science. Randi can be argued to be a valid voice in his work against charlatans and frauds, but if we are to list him as a leading voice in an ESP article, then we should also include links to Uri Geller’s site, something I’m sure most editing the article would not support. -Solar 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There seem to be some very biased and irrelevant links such as the one to "Silvia Browne is a liar". Just a tad bit biased considering the reference is supposed to be about Silvia saying Randi's prize money is non-existent. Dreadlocke ☥ 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems with linking to Gellar are (1) his site is not science-based, and (2) he has been caught cheating on more than one occasion. Surely someone can find a more credible pro-ESP source to link to than that. Doczilla 07:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Including Uri Geller was not meant as a serious suggestion, it was an attempt to underline the overuse and bias involved in including James Randi in every parapsychology related article. This man is hugely over represented in this subject area. - Solar 10:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the whole section about the Paranormal Challenge a bit disproportionate to the rest of the article? I mean ESP has been studied for decades. Even if it hasn't produced any results to speak of, there's barely a mention of parapsychology here. I didn't see anything about the Parapsychology Association, the various Societies for Psychical Research, etc. There's just a wealth of things that could be in this article, even if the phenomenon itself doesn't turn out to be real. A quarter of the document, however, is a back and forth debate about Randi and his challenge. There's a whole other page for that. Here it should be a paragraph or so mention of it with maybe a link off to the full page. Basically, it shouldn't dominate this article is what I'm saying. --Nealparr 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Million Dollar Challenge

This paragraph is far too long, and most of it does not have anything to do with the lemma. Some person who does not eat? Where's the relevance? I'll cut this down to a reasonable size. --Hob Gadling 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Really! What does Kolodzey have to do with extra-sensory perception? His only connection to it is that he exchanged letters with someone who criticizes ESP. So what is the relevance of these letters? Please do not just insert them back, give a reason why they should be here! --Hob Gadling 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

General criticism NPOV?

What is specifically NPOV about the General criticism section? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my POV comments above. I will reprint them here: nadav 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a POV template to the "general criticisms" section. The section is biased towards ESP proponents. Statements such as "When skeptics claim that flaws in the analysis or cheating must account for all evidence of ESP abilities in the hundreds of studies which have been conducted over the last century, this strikes many as a very extraordinary claim indeed" are obvious attempts to ridicule skeptics. The section should honestly and accurately represent skeptics' objections without unduly harsh judgement. I'll leave it to a more knowledgable skeptic to correct this. nadav 05:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nadav. I didn't see your earlier comments, it's best to put new comments at the bottom of a talk page so old editors with poor vision like myself can find them... :) I'll read through it and see what needs to be done, a criticism or skeptic's perspective section should fairly present their views without distortion. I'm not sure I agree that the sentence you quote above "ridicules" skeptics, but it does seem a tad bit unfair - especially without a source.... Dreadlocke ☥ 04:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Entire article should be removed

Unless, that is, it accurately portrays ESP as a phenomenon whose existence has not been proven. At least not to the extent that science has accepted it as a real phenomenon.

I could go further and say that tests of ESP have come very close to "proving its nonexistence" . . . but I won't. It may well exist, but we haven't found out how to verify it yet.

It is essential that -- if this article is to be consistent with the "no POV" policy of Wikipedia -- the article must make it unmistakably clear that the existence of ESP is widely debated.

Instead, most of the article takes the Point Of View that ESP exists, and that is simply not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.

The article's first sentence reads as follows:

Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.

The word the is reserved for things that are known to exist. Otherwise -- as in this case -- the first sentence should read something like

Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is an ability, whose existence is controversial, to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.

Another point is that this definition ignores another means of acquiring information -- introspection -- which is not one of the "five senses", but which is most definitely a human sensory ability, to detect information that is already stored in one's brain, or that results from one's brain's processing information that it has access to. For example, solving a math problem in one's head is not what almost anyone would call ESP, yet it does not involve the five senses.Daqu 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The existence of God is at least somewhat analogous to the existence of ESP, vis-á-vis how the topic should be presented in Wikipedia. So I was curious how the article on God defined its subject. Here is its first sentence:

God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality.

This is perfectly consistent with a non-POV policy, yet at the same time it is hard to see how anyone could be offended by it. The same standard must apply to an article on ESP.Daqu 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a right to put in any well-sourced skeptical views you wish, under the proper heading. I especially like your idea to put in introspection, but let's not put in any more unsourced stuff. But, the problem is one of definition. Let's take Astrology as an example: Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us. That's what it is. It doesn't seem to work, probably because it is bull, but that doesn't mean it is something other than what it is. The assumption of the antecedent" fallacy, that the stars do exert influence, seems really to be part of the definition of the thing. So, why don't you improve the skeptical sections? Martinphi 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article makes it very clear that ESP is not considered proven by "mainstream science" and the criticism section is very robust - and I agree with Martinphi, that the section on Criticism is the proper place to add well sourced and relevant critical information - as indicated in the Wikipedia essay on criticism. The very first sentence or paragraph is not the place to do that, it describes what ESP is, any other wording is just not part of the definition or description of what ESP is. Essentially, ESP is what it is, there's nothing "supposed" or "presumed" or "claimed" about it - that's the definition or description of ESP. Now, whether or not ESP actually exists, or whether someone actually has it or not, is a completely different question that is addressed elsewhere in the article.

Look at the definition for ESP.

I find the idea of introspection being an ESP intriguing, but it would need to be well-sourced too. I just took a quick look, and found an older article: collectively written by J. B. Rhine (Professor of Psychology), J. G. Pratt (Instructor in Psychology), Charles E. Stuart (Prince Memorial Fellow), Burke M. Smith (Graduate Research Assistant) and Joseph A. Greenwood (Assistant Professor of Mathematics) of the Parapsychology Laboratory Department of Psychology at Duke University. It appeared in "Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception" (1940, Henry Holt and Company, New York). [1]

• ESP, considered as a psychological process, shows certain well-defined characteristics:
• 1. It is entirely unconscious; that is, it is not thus far found reliably available to introspection in any way or degree.

(*emphasis is mine)

There may be more modern research on that, which would show a better connection between introspection and ESP. That would be cool. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what he meant is that introspection is a sense, it gives us info. And so ESP would be a 7th. Martinphi 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When he said it "didn't involve the five senses" it seemed that it became an 'extra sensory' perception. If introspection has been found to be a "sixth" sense by WP:RS, then I'd say include it - if it's not confusing to readers.... Dreadlocke ☥ 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I'll try to respond to some of them:

1. Probably my number one concern is that the use of the word "the" in the article's definition of ESP as "the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses . . ." implies unequivocally the that ESP (as it is usually understood: telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) actually exists.

Getting right the definition of a topic -- defining what an article is about -- is of the utmost importance. It's the first thing that virtually everyone who reads any part of the article reads, and it's the lens through which the rest of the article is viewed.

There's a sharp distinction between this definition, and Martinphi's example above of defining astrology as "Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us." This definition of astrology is worded very carefully to state what astrology is, with no implications whatsoever regarding the accuracy of astrologers' claims.

Likewise, the definition of ESP should state what it is without any further implications. (Here is one example of what I would consider a fair definition: ESP is any of various abilities, believed by many to be possessed by some or all people, to acquire information by means that transcend what is possible according to science as it is currently understood.) I suspect that with more consideration, a better wording can be found that still conveys the same sense.

2. Martinphi asks why I don't improve the skeptical sections. In fact, I have no criticism of the skeptical sections as they are. But their presence in the article does not mean that it's OK for the article to state or imply, elsewhere, that ESP actually exists. (Not because I am claiming it doesn't exist -- it may very well exist! -- but solely because its existence is highly controversial.)

3. It is certainly true that introspection is a human ability for acquiring information that goes beyond the five senses. But modern psychologists acknowledge the introspective ability as yet another natural human sense (this was not my own idea). So introspection would not really be "extra-sensory" perception. (Another natural human sense is the proprioceptive ability, to know how parts of one's body are positioned with respect to each other. Yet another is balance.)Daqu 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Daqu 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the definition

"Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses"

Different from

"Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us."?

They both might be real, they both might be bunk, but that's what they are. In the Astrology one, determine assumes the same anticedent as the in the ESP one, that is to say, they both assume that there is something real. And the realness is not the ability to sense or influence, but the real definition. It is a matter of context. In the context of ESP, and the ESP page, ESP is the ability to... But in the real world, ESP may not exist. And the page says so. The criticism section covers the objections. I still don't see the problem.

Also, we don't really need to bow too much toward the skeptics, simply because a Wikipedia page covers the scientific consensus of scientists in the field, and there are very very few skeptics in the field. Maybe you could count Hyman, but he is a distinct minority. You'd get more with evolution or climate change. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added a section, which makes it very NPOV, in my opinion. Happy?

I should also have said that beliefs such as Astrology are far less certain than ESP. ESP is studied in parapsychology, and the PA is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. However, things such as Astrology are far less scientific. Also, you brought up the belief in God. Saying "believe" about God, is not derogatory in the context of religion, but it is in the context of science. Scientists don't believe, they have proof. Religion is a matter of faith and belief, and not, for many people, of proof.

Controversy is not a criteria; the article on evolution reads thus:

In biology, evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by mutations. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor.

Within the field of parapsychology there is really no debate on whether ESP exists. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, there is really no reason that the articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to genuflect to skeptics even if the skeptics are correct. Of course, skepticism should be covered, as a matter of thoroughness. In fact, because there is so much controversy (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), it should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skeptics need not be given equal time, nor does skepticism need to be part of the definition. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Martinphi asks:

How is the definition

"Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses"

Different from

"Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us."?

Surely you are joking. Or perhaps you are not. The phrase "the ability" implies that this ability exists, whereas the phrase "the study" implies only that the study exists. There is nothing controversial about saying that people "study stars and planets to determine their influence on us", since that influence is conveivably nothing. But there is everything controversial about implying that "the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses" exists, which is what use of the word "the" does here. [Though I would also add something to cover sensing ones own thoughts and feelings, as I said.]

Consider a definition of a unicorn as "the animal that resembles a horse, with a single helical horn emanating from its forehead". Compare that to another definition of a unicorn that is the same except that it either a) precedes the word "animal" with the word "mythical", or else replaces the phrase "animal that resembles" with the phrase "animal believed by some to resemble". I hope this is now clear. Daqu 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the phrase "the ability" does not mean the ability actually exists, that is a logical fallacy. In any case, with the inclusion of "defined in parapsychology as...", the argument that the phrase "the ability" implies that "ESP actually exists" is no longer valid - obviously, according to parapsychology - it does. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Dreadlocke, but if you comprehended the role of the word "the" in English, you would realize that there is no logical conclusion drawn here at all, just a semantic one. Daqu 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV General criticism

I've removed the POV, because the originally offending sentence has been removed. This section could be better sourced, but none of the main claims, I think, could not be sourced. Including the first sentence.

The sentence cited as POV was: "When skeptics claim that flaws in the analysis or cheating must account for all evidence of ESP abilities in the hundreds of studies which have been conducted over the last century, this strikes many as a very extraordinary claim indeed"

This was POV, though obviously true. There's a quote in Radin from the 1950s where a skeptic is saying, well, there isn't any other explanation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing the least bit extraordinary about the skeptics' claims that "cheating accounts for all evidence of ESP abilities in hundreds of studies that have been conducted over the last century."

(I do not personally take that point of view; I am rather an agnostic on the subject of whether ESP exists. I simply don't know.)

There are copious nonexistent phenomena that hundreds of studies have supposedly been shown to exist. One should not take the number of studies -- per se -- as having the slighest weight in terms of cumulative evidence. E.g., ghosts, and contact with the dead. There have also been many thousands of skilled magicians who have "shown" their audiences that they have "magic powers". If you want a logical fallacy, try substituting the number of studies for one repeatable study that is done carefully.

One more thing. Have you never wondered why not even once has anyone ever announced they were going to win big at gambling casinos, and then done so? (What's that you say? No one with ESP would be that greedy? Well, then, why don't they win big and then donate the money to build a children's hospital?) Daqu 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition

The definition reads:

Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is defined in parapsychology as the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing

This definition is certainly wrong, and the reference doesn't confirm it. By this definition, e.g. proprioception would be ESP, let alone reflection (introspection). And what about reasoning? Andres 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong, but it may be incomplete. This issue was being discussed in the sections above, but no final decision was made. If you want to change the definition, then it would have to be solidly referenced according to WP:RS, such as the Webster's definition for ESP. How's that for a silver platter... ;) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to the first paragraph, let me know if it addresses your concerns. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

<uncivil comment removed>Daqu 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do scientists believe in ESP?

I've removed the claim that the majority of college professors in the sciences believe in ESP. If you follow the link claiming this was true, you eventually find that it came from a study from 1979. Even if the claim was accurate then, that's no reason to think it's accurate now, almost 30 years later. I've added a link to a more recent study which shows 96% of scientists (at least in the American Academy of Sciences) being skeptical. -- Tim314 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of a theory

In discussing the controversy, the article should mention in more detail the fact that scientific skepticism of ESP is largely related to the lack of a scientific theory for how ESP works. I don't have time to add them in right now, but it wouldn't be hard to find several cites to prominent skeptics listing this as one of their chief objections to the notion of ESP. I saw several while I was looking for that study I mention above. Hopefully someone with more time on their hands can add it in - if not, I'll try to come back to it later. -- Tim314 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is, or is going to be, part of the parapsychology discussion.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

Wow! Fantastic additions to the article Martinphi! Great stuff! You too, Noclevername! Nice work! Now we need some pictures and graphs, then we can push this thing towards FA...! I'm impressed! Dreadlocke ☥ 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon newbie editor was right to an extent... the Controversy section needs to do better. We need a better controversy section for all the paranormal-parapsychology pages, which is both NPOV, and fair.

Types of ESP needs sources.

Modern day ESP investigation needs work

Ongoing debates about the existence of ESP needs sources

Difficulties testing ESP... needs work. For instance, what the heck does this mean:

"It has been suggested that ESP may have a subtle rather than an overt effect"

This section also needs sources.

Someone wanting to source these things might look for sources on the parapsychology page.

ESP in the media needs sources

Well, someday (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Psi is not an "active agent"

The article currently reads:

"The active agent through which the mind is believed to be able to receive ESP impressions is called psi."

I'm going to remove that. If some other source says that, it can be reinserted, but the source for it [2] does not reflect the above. There's good reason for that as well. Psi is not an active agent that causes phenomena or a reason for the phenomena, it is another word for the phenomena itself. In other words ESP is psi, not psi causes ESP, or psi facilitates ESP, or psi is why ESP can happen. Psi is not a model for ESP. There's numerous sources for what I'm saying, but here's a simple one [3]. It's a term for phenomena, not something through which the phenomena occurs.

Cheers : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From Dopamine to Human Biofield

The Science of ESP is somewhere in the dopamine brain cells, the blocking of this neurotransmitter, and then a resting state accompanied by a increase in dopamine can enlarge the human aura of biofield. This increase can be established through the use of a creative visualization involving other people.

Skeptics have a right to be critical of ESP research because there doesn't seem to be any study of how the dopamine circuitry in the brain can create a expanding human biofield. While scientists on the other hand should not discount the presence of a external human biofields.

Parapsychologists fail because they chase after clean laboratories with statistics, perfectly normal people, meditation and haunted houses. The inability of psychologists to measure and document how dopamine afffects our perception of the real world is due a lack of technology and education. It is a concern that parapsychologists still use research techniques created in the 19th century.

There are nature substances that affect dopamine in the brain such as selenium(blocks), choline and alcohol(increases).

The Science of ESP is in the biochemistry of dopamine and dopamine receptors in the brain and human body. KNeuroleptic1 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words?

I think this article will have some "weasel words" no matter what. The topic is like it that it will be hard to avoid weasel words. What do you think? --69.150.163.1 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one

I think it's fine. I'll remove the tag and see if anyone complains. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrible sources

The article is suffering from seriously unreliable fringe sources. I attend on re-writing some of this article with reliable sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This will attempted in the next few days. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ESP is pseudoscience

ESP is pseudoscience List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Don't take the pseudoscience out again please. Lipsquid (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with ESP being described as pseudoscience because it obviously is. The problem is that the sources cited in the lead in that sentence say ESP is non-existent, none of them claim ESP is pseudoscience (one of those books argues the field of parapsychology itself is), but none mention the concept of ESP is a pseudoscience so it is original research to add this. The previous was better "ESP is non existent" because that accurately reflects the cited sources. TreeTrailer (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

It doesn't need a cite in the lede unless you think it is controversial. Which would be kind of nutty since you agree the proof is non-existent. Kindly change it back. Best! Lipsquid (talk)

The last citation clearly classify it as pseduoscience. Bringing it back in the lead. Azuresky Voight (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Use in criminal investigation?

Shouldn't this article include some mention of ESP in crime investigation? --uKER (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There a lot of people who claim to use ESP, but I doubt that there's any sort of serious uptake of it by the authorities. I really think it's a case of grieving relatives of victims asking for it. --Dmol (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as controversial as it undoubtedly is, there's this stuff which cites a bunch of documented cases where at least they attempted it. --uKER (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Misleading wording

The first wording in the article lead that in any way challenges ESP is the following: "The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results ..." This makes it sound like the scientific community is merely unable to understand the phenomenon or unable to understand it "their way". It's what an apologist would write if they had to mention it. Frankly, short wording is enough here. The scientific community rejects parapsychology as pseudoscience (I don't know where parapsychology came from anyway, but mention it like this if you must) and does not consider extrasensory perception to be a real phenomenon. Done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! RobP (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Second sight into Extrasensory perception

Oppose merge. This is a different concept from second sight; second sight is specifically the ability to see things present which are not susceptible to ordinary sight, while ESP is a more general concept, and the most usual case of ESP is the ability to see things that are at a distance, but could be perceived by ordinary sight to someone who was present at their location. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge As is mentioned in this article, this is a form of ESP. Not enough here to warrent a separate article IMHO. RobP (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't see a reason not to do this merge. If I don't get any push back I'm going to go ahead and do it in a few days. Not a lot of work given there is very little in the Second sight article. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge complete. We'll see if it takes. If it does after a few days I'll get some clean up done here. This article could use a little TLC. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Taisch" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Taisch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Taisch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"ESPer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ESPer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Anomalous cognition" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anomalous cognition. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Anomalous cognition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"ESPPP" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ESPPP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPPP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Sheep-goat effect" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sheep-goat effect. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Sheep-goat effect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Percipient" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Percipient. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Percipient until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Vision anomalies

Hi, it should be said that humans can see infra-red light through a two-photon method. Some better than others and this has in fact been documented here. http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-humans-can-see-infrared-light-02313.html#:~:text=Human%20eyes%20can%20detect%20light%20at%20wavelengths%20in,it%E2%80%99s%20possible%20for%20humans%20to%20see%20infrared%20light. I've done some tests here and can clearly see IR light down to 760nm as a dim red glow with green spots but testing with a camera filter confirms its actually NIR thats being observed. Also tested with a range of known wavelengths and it appears that certain IR LEDs also have off band emission at near visible light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.156.140 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That is sensory perception. Does not seem to be connected with the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)