Talk:Clairvoyance

Creepy/poor picture

The article's picture is extremely unsettling and poor quality, I suggest a replacement.--Sığe |д=) 22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

September 2016

A recent diff (among other things) changed the capitalization of section headers. It's my understanding that section headers follow MOS:HEAD and should be in sentence case. I'll fix these if there's no objection.

Some of these terms for other flavors of clairvoyance seem unlikely to me. "Clairofactus", for instance. Do more reliable sources exist than some devotee's website glossary?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Check out page and post Humm56700 (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

jmcgnh: Yeah, I undid that edit – I have no opinion on or rs's for that specific terminology, though. Debouch (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clairvoyance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314213256/http://archived.parapsych.org/historical_terms.html to http://parapsych.org/historical_terms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314213256/http://archived.parapsych.org/historical_terms.html to http://parapsych.org/historical_terms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is too dogmatic

This article is too dogmatic in attempting to write the study of clairvoyance off as a pseudo-science - there must have been controlled experimental studies of the subject. Vorbee (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think "fringe science" needs to replace "pseudoscience" in this article and it--the article needs to chill on the rhetoric. Not the Britannica article on Clairvoyance it doesn't waste space and froth at the mouth about Clairvoyance's failure to be "proved." There has been researchers using established as of 2010 methods to research, though nothing conclusive was produced since as a result of his study, Dr. Daryl Bem's research entered psychology into an epistemological crises. Dr. Bem is still established as a researcher and still researching Clairvoyance (as of last year). Clairvoyance attracts therefore attracts serious research and has had findings published in a high factor impact journal by a well established researcher (Dr. Bem). Therefore "pseudoscience," while also being an oxy moronic term (please see my talk page) anyhow is inappropriate and overly strong language. I will edit the article to refelect and reference it differently--to the Encyclopedia Britannica article (less opinionated and one sided then the current references which are often simply individual opinions) and this Slate article <https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html> if no discussion ensues over the next week--He is who is silent is said to consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been warned about WP:PROFRINGE and discretionary sanctions. Did a clairvoyant won Randi's (JREF) million dollars? No? I guessed so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Britannica. We follow our own editorial policies, not theirs. The relevant ones here are WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRIND. These policies have been explained to you on your Talk page, and you've had ample opportunity to review them. It has been explained to you how these policies affect articles such as this one, and why it is appropriate that clairvoyance be referred to as pseudoscience. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is not an acceptable response if you want to stick around Wikipedia for long. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@GoatGod: While a very interesting treatment of the subject - into which both skeptics and believers can read support for their positions - that Slate piece does not appear to come up to the level of reliable source I would expect to be given weight in this article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I might add that we go by the cumulative weight of reliable sources, which in this case, justify statements of fact using the word pseudoscience. It's not our job to find ways to make it sound more ambiguous so as not to discourage personal belief or research funding. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the "dogmatic" assessment above. The article empahsizes the skeptic view and is not objective. Compare it to this online encyclopedia which is more realistic and even-handed: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Clairvoyance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.20.56 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No clairvoyant has ever won the million dollars from Randi (JREF)? I guessed so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned James Randi. First of all, he himself has said that maybe some paranormal events are real. Second of all, I do not know, nor do you I suspect know, the difficulty of actually obtaining the million dollars even if sufficient proof were demonstrated. What would count as proof? Imagine two people in a room demonstrated that one of them was telepathic, by having one simply write down the subvocalized sentence of the other. Say scientific controls were carefully set in place, and the ability was still demonstrated. Would most in the scientific community believe the psychic, or would they simply assume the absence of effective controls? Do you know with absolute certainty that such studies do not exist? Have you even looked? Will you?

Now, let me understand the policies - correct me if I'm wrong. Since the majority of the scientific community does not believe in something that is apparently extremely unlikely, there should therefore not be allowed either the discussion of, nor reference to, possible supporting scientific evidence, because such studies and evidence are not high impact. Is thst not circular logic, since it is possible the studies are not high impact exactly because most scientists are unwilling to review the evidence? Derwos (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling the study of clairvoyance a pseudoscience is the same as calling Religious Studies a pseudoscience. A scientific study on a topic is still a scientific study, regardless of whether the object of study does not appear to be real. That is, unless you want the article to state that studies showing evidence against clairvoyance are pseudoscience. Derwos (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The current understanding in mainstream psychiatry is that clairvoyance is hallucination. So, yes, there can be studies of hallucinations, it is just that such studies don't pretend that hallucinations aren't hallucinations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A scientific study pretends nothing, it records and objectively evaluates experimental data. Derwos (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Clairvoyance is WP:FRINGE/PS, there is nothing you can do to undo that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the wording of WP:FRINGE/QS, I see no reason why clairvoyance cannot be characterized as QS rather than PS. It is a fact that some parapsychologists strictly adhere to the scientific method, and therefore practice science.

Additionally, in my opinion it's inappropriate to request arbitration against users merely in response to talk page contributions rather than article contributions. Derwos (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not requested AE in your regard, I have just informed you that there are WP:RULES for such articles. WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TE will lead to blocks or bans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References in Pop Culture

Would a "References in Pop Culture" section be an appropriate addition to this article? Kenneth Sweezy _{Talk to me..... Please?} 23:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is also used figuratively to describe any keen insight in general. [1] Clinton Daylight Time (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, the irony

Although its name says seeing clearly, Rudolf Steiner's works show that it is anything but clear, and clairvoyants, even if we assume that it is not hallucination, may easily get lost in their own clairvoyant experiences.

@Clean Copy and Qexigator: could you produce a quote to that extent from Steiner?

I don't suggest to call his point either true or false, just state the point he made according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

AFAIK, Steiner wrote something like the sensory organ of the clairvoyant is the clairvoyant himself/his own soul, so his thoughts and emotions taint the clairvoyant perceptions. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So: do I think that Steiner's claim is true, epistemologically and ontologically? No, absolutely not.

Do I think it is something worth pondering on, regardless of your worldview? Yes, absolutely! tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Later thoughts

I still hold the stance that claivoyance is hallucination. However, Rudolf Steiner understood its mechanisms. That's why various clairvoyants are able to agree upon the images induced by eurythmy.

My reasoning is the following: if clairvoyance, clairaudition, and so on, were giving deeper insights into natural phenomena, the vast majority of the Nobel Prizes would go to clairvoyants. Since this hasn't happened, they don't. The ordeal of mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is that Anthroposophy is full of pseudoscience and of pseudohistory. So full that most scientists and scholars don't take Anthroposophy seriously. While scholars of religion studies examine it, they are by no means bound to agree that it's true. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Clairaudience

Clairaudience redirects to this page. Yet this page does not mention 'Clairaudience', not even a single time. Is this appropriate? Jamesdowallen (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Claircognizance too. See: Wiktionary:claircognizance. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing reference to Swedenborg

Why does this article fail to describe one of the most famous cases of clairvoyance in history, that of Emmanuel Swedenborg? Swedenborg was at Gothenburg when he saw a fire, many miles away near his home in Stockholm. He saw that it stopped just several houses away from his own house. When he was back in Stockholm, he found that a fire had happened, just as he had described it. Rollo August (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pagan

Was wondering which religious or other groups were being referred to by the pagans comments? Surely there must be other groups than just Christians referred to throughout the world? TykeLass (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Pls read my life Peaceful 28 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)