Is Psychokinesis Fact or Fiction?

[NewToTheWorld]

Is it possible? moving objects at a distance? without toching them...
only by looking at them or something?
is it true or is it only movies? and impossible?
(think its called PSYCHOKINESIS)
is it possible?

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically? Non-existent.

I'm not saying it hasn't been achieved - there's no dirth of claims - it just hasn't been demonstrated under anything approaching scientifically controlled circumstances.

 

[tozhan]

There have been attempts made by a guy in mancester, UK, to prove his telekinesis or psychokinesis or whatever mathmatiaclly, but i don't know the details or whether he was successful...i assume not seeing as i didnt get a wonderful email from CNN about it yet. If it was possible, id be the first to jump into the subject and research it.

But think about it...moving objects with your mind? Brainwaves? affecting matter in such a way as to translocate it?? NEVER! (maybe that's a little close minded for a scientist but i don't care!)

Tom

 

[brewnog]

In Manchester? That might explain why my dictionary keeps jumping off my shelf whenever I turn my back...

 

[godzilla7]

math

I can proove practically anything you like with maths, but the key of course is scientific method, like string theory: sounds fine on paper but let's see the proof before we start arguing either way, arguing is fine but don't mistake it for science, and don't say mathematically 0=1 therefore it exists, maths is a tool for science amd vice versa don't cofuse mathematical proof with anything aproaching reality, if someone can lift something with the power of their mind its simple do it under scientific conditions, putting the chicken before the egg by saying if I can prove it mathematically! Its worth studying? Its not quite sohphistry but its pretty damn close, why use maths to proove or disprove something without science, experiment first: use math later if it turns out to be true, why waste so much time trying to come up with a nonsensicle mathematical answer, which incidently might never be prooven, study it and produce math or vice a versa, I have no problem with philosophising but at some point you have to look at experimental evidence, I know there's a divide between mathemeticians and the experimenters but there shouldn't be be, true physisists should be both, otherwise you can't explain what you see, don't just say I've prooved it mathematically and then spend the rest of your life hypothesising on conjecture, wait for some tangable proof and then proove it mathematically, or proove it mathematicaly and then look for some tangible proof, don't just say I want to see mathematical proof, prove it yourself through experiment and use maths at the same time, otherwise you might find you've come up with a load of nonsense, or vice a versa surely? I am waiting for maths is a pointless waste of time, and I'm beleiving just the experimental evidence without repeating it is just as bad, have some objectivity after all that's what being a scientist is all about, scientists don't say if this true then ergo they say if then if and then set up experiments to proove it, don't take philosphy as evidence, and likewise evidence as proof.

 

[NewToTheWorld]

http://www.holysmoke.org/w002/004.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/psychokinesis.htm