Can you define "psychic"?

Question

It seems to me that there is a huge misconception about what really falls into the term "psychic".

People seem to *know* that nobody can "have those powers" --- yet "those powers" are not really defined.

Seems to me that a large group misinterpret "psychic" strictly with being "telekenetic" only.

It would also seem reasonable that you've logically determinded that ANY psychic ability is impossible -- rather than highly improbable -- you first went and made a list and did the research, personally conducted experiments and came to the logical conclusion that these things do not exsist.

No, wait...turning your nose up and saying it doesn't exsist doesn't qualify; neither does 'RUN IT'S THE DEVIL'.

Prove it with facts, not fiction or personal opinion.

Here's a good place to start http://www.leylijnen.com/paranormal.htm

Answer 1

Being in tune to what's going on around you... that's what it is.

Answer 2

Since I cannot disprove the existence of ghosts, psychic powers, etc., I try to avoid absolute statements about them. However, it's a lot easier to type "no such thing as psychic powers" than it is to type "there is no credible evidence supporting the existence of psychic powers, and since the existence of psychic forces is an extraordinary claim that would overturn modern physics, I am disinclined to believe in them". The latter is an expression of doubt and doubt requires no burden of proof, while the former is phrased as a claim and a claimant does bear the burden of proof.

However, while you'll hear the former statement often, I tend to think that it is shorthand for the latter. I am guilty sometimes of using absolute statements just because it gets the point across with much less typing! If you do encounter an absolute claim from a skeptic, ask for clarification. If they stick with the absolute language, then you can rightfully demand that they supply the burden of proof for their claim. Note, however, that this would not relieve you of your own burden of proof for your claim.

Answer 3

Malachi-

The burden of proof is on so-called psychics. You want facts. Here they are- there is not one reputable peer-reviewed piece of research literature that supports the existence of psychic ability. Not one single example of psychic ability has been verified to be nothing more than trickery. However, clearly that is not enough to convince the people who want so badly for the world to be more interesting and more magical than it is.

Ask yourself what is the mechanism by which these so-called powers work? We know quite a good deal about how cells work and we know their capabilities. What mechanism allows them to beam out energy or sense something beyond the typical electrical/ chemical stimuli (telekinesis, fire-starting, card reading, future telling, ghost talking, spoon bending, etc. etc. etc.)? The answer is simply that there is no such mechanism present.

"Psychic phenomena" should be relegated to the same bin as religion. There is not one iota of proof and they are solely supported by faith. Faith is not proof, and faith is not evidence, rather, faith allows people to grasp at illogic.

Oh, I'm sure someone will counter with something along the lines of "we don't know everything...blah blah." However, an argument in which one says that because we don't know X, then Y is true, is a compete sham. Show me any evidence whatsoever of Y. If these powers are so prevalent, why has no one stepped forward to capitalize either financially or by helping someone, anyone? Why haven't any of these so-called future-seeing psychics not won the lottery using their powers?

Also, regarding your assertion that most consider psychic to mean telekinetic- I would argue that most people actually define a "psychic" as someone who can see past or future events.

Answer 4

Psychic is just a word. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, it is a fact that there has never been a case of someone demonstrating telekinetic, telepathic, or future-predicting abilities (beyond mere coincidence) that's been verified by multiple scientific sources.

If "psychic" means something other than telepathy, telekinesis, and future-prediction, then it may or may not exist. If it is limited to these three abilities, it does not exist.

Answer 5

I've never been to the moon.I can't prove it, but I'm sure nobody lives there.By your reasoning that's not enough.I should go and search every square inch.Otherwise someone may be there.Here's a fact.No person ever has demonstrated any psychic ability.That could stand up to scrutiny anyway.Where does one go to get a PHD in metaphysical science?

Answer 6

Thanks for the link it's a good one. :) I hope everyone gets to read it.

If people are open to experiencing something "paranormal" they will. If they have made up their mind it doesn't exist though, they won't. I'm not one to bang my head against a wall trying to convince those people otherwise.

Maybe it's not for them to know anyway...

Answer 7

why should the speed of light be finite? Well, one reason I'd like it to be finite is that, if aliens from the Andromeda galaxy are going to hurt me, then I at least want them to have to come here first!
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012
http://netlib.bell-labs.com/who/cafuchs/
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104088
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

Answer 8

Me, to many facts to list.

Answer 9

It can't be proven that psychic abilities don't exist. It's not up to us to prove that they don't. It's for you to prove that they do.