Review
by Justin C. Maaia, Spring, 2002
Berthold E. Schwarz
This article presents the
observations made by a psychiatrist of a patient, K, who presumably possesses
telekinetic abilities. The subject was observed for 11-˝ days by the
psychiatrist as well as various other people. The biographical information
provided shows that family and friends of the subject believed him to have some
“psychic aptitudes.” During the course of the observation, the subject was
unsuccessful in many attempts at various telekinetic feats. However, he was also
successful in certain instances at certain times.
There are a few portions of this
article that render it suspect. First, it begins by the author relating how he
had received a call from the noted magician Uri Geller right before K arrived at
his office. Geller stated that his phonebook had fallen open to the letter S and
so he thought it was a sign to call the author, whose last name is Schwarz. This
seems like an odd piece of information with which to preface a scholarly
article. Also, nine of the 11-˝ days of observation took place while the
subject stayed with the author and his wife at their house. A house seems like a
suitable enough place to test telekinetic ability, but the fact that a stranger
was given board at a psychiatrist’s house seems a little odd. However, I am
unaware of whether or not this is common practice.
Despite these types of issues, the
fact remains that K did perform a handful of presumably telekinetic actions that
were observed by anywhere from one to three people and that were also videotaped
and photographed. Some of the feats were quite remarkable while others could
quite easily be attributed to other factors. Some of the remarkable feats
include bending keys, bending the second-hand of a clock, burning the ends of
matches, and recharging a battery, all of which were performed at a distance.
Another action, that making a broom stand on its bristle-end without touching
it, was “disproved” when the author stood the broom on its end and it
remained that way on its own.
The ratio of successes to failures is
of little consequence. It can be argued that even one telekinetic phenomenon, if
verified, presents science with a phenomenon that cannot be explained by current
scientific laws and theories. However, whether any of the phenomena in this
study can be accepted as true examples of telekinesis is arguable. Where the
skepticism will end–regarding both the phenomena itself and scientific studies
of it such as this one–is also an issue that needs to be explored. It seems as
if any study that verifies a case of telekinesis is seen as suspect. I have my
reasons for questioning the article at hand, but I am not sure whether I would
accept any study wholeheartedly. Perhaps the nature of this subject is such that
one can never defend its truth, much like it has been argued that no argument
against the existence of God will ever convince a believer.
The information on this page is copyright ©1994-2005, Wesley Wildman (basic information here), unless otherwise noted. If you want to use ideas that you find here, please be careful to acknowledge this site as your source, and remember also to credit the original author of what you use, where that is applicable. If you want to use text or stories from these pages, please contact me at the feedback address for permission.