Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-5553481-20160309220808/@comment-6005647-20160316164718

If we are down to proving everything, we'd start doing tests even for techniques for influencing room temperature. Do certain scanning or energy techniques work? We'd have to get a handful of people to try it, others to scan it, and see whether or not the results match.

I think, at this point, proof is too much to ask for (plus, as said, fake-able). Adfeng has a good idea, emphasis on possibility and realism. Yet, how do we know it is not possible to spawn a small light at one's fingertips? We presume it isn't, based on common sense and what we currently know we can do with psionics, right?

I want to remind all of you reading this that psionics doesn't have clear guidelines of why and how it should work. We could go and try some tests for increasing the room temperature, measure the results, compare them with other results. We could just as well try and go for something which might seem unachievable, like that light-conjuration thing, and somehow achieve it.

I am not saying not to have certain expectations, or standards. I am just saying that people's views on those standards vary wildly; moreover, this isn't a scientifical domain, meaning we can't argue based on facts, but only on personal experiences and philosophy.

I still think we should keep everything as open as possible. Having on the telekinesis page a section with people relating their personal techniques and things which worked for them, other section for theories on why it could work etc. On things such as photokinesis, do the same - the people who believe it cannot be done included. I honestly believe that if we keep everything open to debate, and we, as well, debate knowing that our personal experience with psionics doesn't mean will apply to another, we'll get a healthier community.