Many of you have been using science to attempt to prove kinesis to be fake. Yes, it could be fake. There's a decent argument on either side, and like Insight said, whether you believe it or not is based on faith. I personally believe in it, only because I've never had anyone give me solid, rock hard proof that it was fake. I've never had anyone give me solid, rock hard proof that it was real, either. For a long time, some members of my family have been immune to cold. They literally did not get cold. They never shivered, they never had "goose bumps". Does that mean they were cryokinetic? Not necessecarily. It could be some form of hereditary disease. I believe that the human body can do many things. For example, there are documented cases of sudden, massive increases in human strength in times of need. The human body has an electrical feild, so why does manipulating electricity get labeled as impossible? The human body heals naturally, so theoritically certain people can produce more of the things that heal our body (excuse my ignorance, I can't remember what it is exactly.). The human body can regulate its own temperature, so could it not theoritically control temperatures around it? I'm just saying, science can't actually disprove as much as some of you believe it can. Nor can it prove as much as others claim. Science is not all knowning. Science is simply the documentation of what is currently thought. 500 years ago, science said Earth was flat and that our flat little smidge of land was the center of the universe. It was wrong then, it'll be wrong again. Keep that in mind, because even if something is disproven, ten or twenty years down the road it might be back in the spotlight for being real.

I agree with you LPFan, and I like your attitude about this stuff. It's best to always just keep an open mind and respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.
Welcome

I agree as well. w00t.

If kinesis is real... I tend to believe that it is not the person manipulating the environment, but rather the person communicating with spiritual entities, which manipulate the environment as requested.

Which means "charisma" or the power of pursuasion is the issue.

Just look at our history... the leaders who had charisma or pursuasion over their followers (or had the ability to gain followers to begin with)... they were powerful figures in their society... and some of them had global influence.

So, IMHO, if a person can master spiritual charisma, they can accomplish telekinesis. but I'm not convinced that spirits exist, so I don't believe in kinesis.

So, it's just a theory of mine.

Is psychokinses or energy field manipulation real? Maybe. Can it be proven? no. Is it scientific? NO. Why not? Becvause it can not be proven. The entire basis of science is proving a theory to be true. If you can't offer proof its not a theory its just some random idea. Why? Because its impossible to disprove some thing. Try it some time. Can you prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents to every good christian house hold in the world every year? Before you laugh try and prove that idea wrong. It can't be done. You can argue that he couldn't reach them all that fast but then again maybe he can stop time. You can argue that you put the presents under the tree but maybe your kids just aren't good enough. This is why for an idea to have any meaning in science requires proof(the same is just as true of logic) not simply that you can't disprove it.

Just because something hasn't been proven YET doesn't mean that it won't be. Scientific research is a process that involves hard work, ingenuity, resources and funding, time, reproducible results, reliable test subjects, in addition to many other factors that aren't readily coming to mind. If any of these factors are missing, then the process is flawed, not necessarily the hypothesis that is being tested. While it is true that psychokinesis has not yet been satisfactorily proven to the entire world, to say that it cannot be proven is incorrect. That'd be like one of Columbus' contemporaries prior to his voyage saying "Well I can't see how the world could possibly be round, so it must be flat. And you haven't proven me wrong yet, so I must be right."

NEver said it can't be proven. Said it might be but as it stands its not a scientific theory. Its a hypothesis based on what people want to believe not on any form of objective proof. Unlike beliefs science is subject to change so if proof is found then I will happily say yes it is true. Untill then its just one more idea that could be. The quest to demonstrate psychokinesis can be scientific(many labs do it in a very unscientific manner which is why they are fooled so easily) but pscyhokinsesis itself is no more scientific then any other form of magic.

Actually a lot of what is now thought of as science facts were discovered by accident while looking for some thing else. Radar(micro wave) ovens came about by ww-11 radar operators that pointed the emitters at rabbits for fun. Fried them in their tracks!

I am Ex- Air force and I hate to tell some of what we used the (toys) for.
But I sure had Fun!

It's a hypothesis based not on what people necessarily want to believe but on what they have experienced. Some of these people have objective proof in the form of witnesses. Concrete proof seems to be hard to come-by from what I have witnessed on this board, but hey, if you'd pay for my time and effort, I'd be happy to spend the next year of my life proving that this stuff exists - mostly because I know it does through personal experience.
What makes it so hard watching people debate over psionics is knowing that it exists through personal experience but not being able yet to manifest it at will so that there is solid scientific proof.
It's like trying to prove that love exists. It's not necessary to prove love exists because everyone, or most everyone has felt it in their lives. It's not scientifically provable, though (at least, I don't see how it could be). Any physical manifestation of love could be attributed to hormones, acting ultimately in your own self-interest, instinct, etc. But if a sociopath who has never felt love asks you to prove it exists, what proof could you offer him?
The same goes for proving many of the psionic abilities, mostly the purely cerebral ones.

Glad you had fun, Roger. Just hope your karma doesn't come back to get you! Or the bunny's pissed off relatives...

It is written, within the book that claims to be of great knowledge and enlightenment from the well known religion that has spread its belief through out the world, that there was once an individual long ago who on many occasions could do that of which was thought to be impossible.

NO NO NO NO. Anecdotal evidence IS NOT scientific evidence. Witnesses can misremember events, can lie, and can be very easily tricked by a sufficently clever stage magician or by naturally occuring scientificly understood phenomenon. If it hasn't been reproduced under controlled conditions don't call it science. All you can show is a bunch of people think they saw psycho kinses. So what? Thousands of people have seen a lady sawed in half and put back together that doesn't prove that it can actually be done.

NO, NO, NO, NO... what? Did I mis-speak? Or have you misunderstood me?

"Some of these people have objective proof in the form of witnesses..." Is this the statement you object to? Believe it or not but people witness other people's psychic abilities all the time. What are controlled conditions? Scientists are as capable of being at fault as witnesses are. In fact, one of the primary roles of the scientist is to be an observer of science. Please don't try to pretend that science is a perfect, faultless process. Or that scientists are as reliable as robots...
If it's the word "objective" you object to, well that just means un-biased. Un-biased does not mean concrete, as I pointed out earlier...