How many practice telekinesis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Ki2-VzUVs

Has anybody been able to debunk the John Chang videos?

Just to throw in my little bit here:

Personally, I believe telekinesis is possible, if only because the idea of it had to come from somewhere.

Do I think it is easy to do? By no means. Why? Because I also believe that the magiks and energies of our world have weakened. If I were to put it into a Jedi perspective, it would be because the Force has weakened. Whether it is weakened in us, or the world around us, I'm not sure.

The reason I say my belief is based on the existence of belief or stories is because some of the "non-existent" beings of legend have so much detail to them, I personally find it had to believe they are 100% derived from the human mind.

So yes, I am that person who also believes in dragons and unicorns and fairies. But that's just me. I'm not expecting others to suddenly turn to my beliefs. Everyone's belief is theirs.

Am I myself a practitioner of telekinesis? No. I wouldn't know where to begin. I do, however, practice divination, and have performed a successful reading on someone who was quite skeptic, and did not provide much information for me. The reason it is only one is because I do not read for those outside my circle of friends out of a fear of judgement. I say "successful" because the person in question confirmed what I found in the cards. From there, I also build my belief in the supernatural.

Anyways, I feel I may have digressed some. For that, I apologize.

Connor, are you arguing that above video is irrefutable evidence of telekinesis?

Has anyone debunked Criss Angel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GinnxRKtHc0

Oh wait, he freely admits its an illusion.

can anyone here move stuff with their mind?

has anyone reading or posting in this thread figured out how to telekines at will?
or even once in a while?

No, I'm not saying it's evidence, Khaos. I asked if anybody has debunked the video.

I do wonder why, with all these so called practitioners and mystics, none of them can accomplish any more than your average stage and street magicians...

Again, why is the shoreline of discovery not receding? Why does it not progress beyond parlor tricks? Or what faith healers do.

You would think that it would build with subsequent generations of study to where, even if its effects were subtle and minute at one time, it would get progressively stronger.

Connor L. wrote:
Has anybody been able to debunk the John Chang videos?

Google it, there's more than enough to go around...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sErvoaeNzac

So since I've addressed every point the OP is going to make at least once now and there is no expecting honesty of him again for the time being, allow me to respond to a few other points, if I may...

cedricwinterwolf wrote: I would like to point out that science was once witchcraft (so sayeth the church, god wills it) and gravity was a pseudo-science.

That is very much a matter of how you define witchcraft, science, gravity and pseudo-science respectively. Assuming the definitions provided in, say, the Oxford Dictionaries, no that statement is incorrect. Gravity is not science or pseudo-science nor was it ever defined as either and neither was science ever any subset of witchcraft.

Hell, we've only been able to study something like 0.0000000001% of the known universe.. gravity might still be a pseudoscience, or at least an regional anomaly.

I wouldn't dare put a number on how much we have been able to study out of the whole thing, ignorant as I am of just how deep the rabbit hole goes, but let me tell you as a physicist that gravity is not a regional anomaly by any stretch. Not only do Newton's description of it offer staggering accuracy on every scale (albeit, granted, on some more accuracy than on others...), its predicted effects have been observed at distances on the same order of magnitude as the extent of the universe, and the more accurate predictive models that are relativity and quantum theory were developed and rely on it.

Point being, Science is effectively a belief system itself (albeit a well documented, well studied, very popular, and very easy to trust one).

Again, depends on how you define science or belief system, respectively. Again, wrong using colloquial or dictionary definitions, seeing how science doesn't either require nor prohibit any one particular belief. Short of plain death, it is the furthest from a belief system one could possibly get.

Hell, they named the "atom" as such because atomos means "not divisible" thinking that it was the smallest building block of the universe, and look how that turned out?

Technically irrelevant for the point you are trying to make, but I will address this outside of that, if anybody wishes so.

Also, when reading that chart, herbalism is brought to mind... but it's becoming a known fact that western medicine is driven by money and influence and politics, not ecological balance and health(though those are considerations, after the fact) and therefore it gets pinned as a pseudoscience by the people who get paid to only label certain things science....

Not necessarily very true across the globe, but I see where this is going, yes... Not everybody who wears a lab coat is a scientist, you see. Nor is every scientist unbiased to begin with. Certainly a pharmaceutical company that seeks to sell its product would only ever try to optimize it and not invest into studies of substances outside of its control. And having the money they do, the lion's share of medical research is of course in their labs and under their conditions, and what comes out of that would often enough also go through their approval. However, that is no fault of the medical researchers and the government would do everybody a favour by actually contributing to health economy in at least subsidizing medical research at state universities with non-pitiful amounts of resources. That being said, enough studies are being done on the fringes with and without that and everything that is relevant to medical science becomes medicine rather soon.

... I would no sooner go to Christianity to tell me if wicca is legitimate than I would go to science to describe telekinesis or herbalism. Because Christianity has not studied the pagan gods without bias, and science has done the same with the metaphysics and "pseudosciences".

Well, Christianity has in fact not studied anything with any rigor yet, but science has studied just about every pseudo-scientific claim, which is how we know that this is what they are. You see, science doesn't in advance get to decide of a perfectly new claim how to classify it. It rather blindly applies its methods of testing it and either it passes or it doesn't. Most claims don't pass, regardless where they come from, and most that pass initially fail later on eventually. Pseudo-science is what we call those fields that are still being held up by flawed reasoning and dishonest tactics, usually so for profit, and most of the time pretending to be genuine science when they are nothing like genuine science - hence the name. Another thing I will grant is that many skeptics will operate on precedent, and while that is reasonable in practice, it is of course flawed in theory. In theory, everyone who claims telekinesis is making a unique claim and in theory we would have to evaluate them each before dismissal. Likewise, anybody who claims to have built the perpetual motion machine also is making a unique claim. But if the count of claimants has not been tens or thousands but literally millions, and all of those claims that were testible failed without even one single exception, the scientist may be inclined to no longer waste their time on it unless the claim somehow stands out. In other words, the idea that the claim is accurate has become so unbelievable that we expect the claimant to bring us something really solid at the outset, such that our curiosity be sparked again. Now, you may call this a bias, if you must, but you wouldn't be having the computer you respond from, if instead of optimizing silicon FETs we carried on wondering if sorcerer #608'504'852 might finally be the genuine one.

Connor L. wrote: No, I'm not saying it's evidence, Khaos. I asked if anybody has debunked the video.

How would you go bout debunking a fairly poor quality video Connor?

How would you go about debunking Criss Angel? Aside from him admitting hes BSing you?

His is in high definition. Shows a greater display of TK, and is directly facing camera.

Now, tell me how he did it?

John Chang is welcome any time im sure to make more videos, under stricter, more controlled environments, etc. Its not as if he would find it hard to do so I am sure, were he so inclined, but he is " protecting his power" right?

I think people confuse evidence with proof. There's plenty of evidence and hints that telekinesis is possible and has been done before. What you want is undeniable proof. Proof is not the same thing as evidence.

Notice that after the Renaissance, society was almost trying to get rid of the idea that magic or psychic abilities was all hogwash, when previously, magic and psionics in some way shape or form was looked at for thousands of years in many societies, tribes, ect. Now why would a society try to purposely get rid of the notion that such abilities was possible? Even the greatest scientists and philosophers looked at it or had an interest in it. Anyone find this strange?