Talk:Pyramid power

Maybe not such a load of old cods-wallop !

Whilst it's quite right that people should be skeptical about 'pyramid power' claims , the fact that Flanagan has gone from this research to develop such great nutritional discoveries as Microclusters and negatively charged hydrogen ions does add to his credibility as a top scientist . I have tested out his 'Crystal Energy' product on plant growth , with dramatic increases in growth . This is not proof , but it is an easily repeatable experiment for anybody who wants to try . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.165.72 (talk)

Recent Findings

In recent findings, a scientist who entered one of the three great pyramids of giza, discovered an eaten apple in a garbage bin located within the king's chamber had not rotted much despite being left there for a while, creating more evidence for the pyramid power. However on the same note, he noticed that the room itself was covered in granite timber, different from the rest of the pyramid.

Experiments which re-created the king's tomb using this mineral, showed that any organic matter trapped by the rock, managed to slow the process of decomposition.

Recent experiments with pyramids in Russia by Alexander Golod should perhaps be mentioned here. -Magermagician — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't stated where these 'recent findings' can be found. We base articles on published reliable sources, not vague statements posted on article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of vague statements, the article as of now is full of them, and they are all critical/skeptical in nature. Skeptics wishing to critique some or all aspects of 'pyramid power' would do well to remember that they too are bound by the constraints of the scientific method. The extraordinary nature of a claim does not invalidate the claim - only well designed experiments can do that. Where are the citations of studies that went looking for pyramid power and found nothing? Unfounded skepticism is just as pseudo-scientific as breathless anecdotal hype.Devthedev (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

popularity period?

I have some sense that this was a pop-fad of the 1970s, but that isn't really spelled out. This silly 1977 cartoon I ran across (Donald Duck) is typical of pop culture references about it. [1].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bait and switch?

They only debunked flowers wilting, food spoiling, razor blades, etc. However, could there be other types of power omitted or not tested and being swept away under the same umbrella? What about an effect on personal power, success, wealth, positive spiritual vibes, etc? There might be invisible energies which are more subtle and don't affect the tested items. So I am not satisfied that all claims are debunked, just the more outlandish ones.68.67.254.133 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, debunking is difficult when a power that claims to do absolutely everything is presented. Let's thank those same mystic powers for inspiring our editors to write our policy on exceptional claims. Edaham (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed that the article directly references unreliable primary sources like Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain which is also a type of original research (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY). Ideally another source, independent and secondary, making those links and interpreting the book/author for Wikipedia editors to summarize would be used. —PaleoNeonate – 11:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Modern studies regarding pyramidal structures

The international academic community has several modern pyramid-related studies that use reputable methodologies worth considering, such as the following.It has been found that with high likelihood there exists some effect that alludes to those described by Flanagan and other scientists of that time. I would love to hear the community's thoughts on the subject, especially from those balanced skeptics who have performed their own due diligence and sought to replicate the described effects in the physical world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erowe33 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Self-published sources/Preprints (Researchgate) are not usually acceptable (see WP:PREPRINTS), and the other source you list is clearly not an acceptable journal, since it obviously promotes WP:FRINGE views on alternative medicine (i.e. quackery) - the publisher was also previously included on Beall's list, so I'd consider it dubious for any exceptional claims - this is an exceptional claim which would "require exceptional evidence", not some poor in-house journal about it (note that the journal is also , per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term="Evid+Based+Complement+Alternat+Med"%5BTitle+Abbreviation%5D , not MEDLINE indexed, so that makes it doubly dubious). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that I have more to learn about Wikipedia's boundaries and favored source types. I have been skeptical of this realm of study for some time, so have been conducting personal research into the supposed effects of these structures, which have been hard to ignore (mostly regarding the stimulated plant growth). I am very much interested in studying this together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erowe33 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for collaborative 'personal research'. Articles are based on published reliable sources. If you want to do such research, you will have to look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Erowe33:Yes, regarding the encyclopedic mandate to discuss only the development of the article and not discuss the subject or anything else, please see WP:NOTFORUM. — Smuckola(talk) 02:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Smuckola:@AndyTheGrump:@RandomCanadian:

I don't know any other way of verifying knowledge rather than running experiments or testing it myself. I have lists of well-funded, modern, reliable studies (from well-regarded institutions) and personally confirmed a few of the experiments mentioned by various scientists (regarding the influence of the pyramidal structure's effect on plants, fruits, and vegetables relative to a control). I am confident there are effects at play here, however, I don't know how to present it on this platform without a first reaction being rejection. Skepticism is what brought me to explore this subject with a scientific mind, I don't know how else to present it to earn an opportunity for listening ears.

Since you folks understand how acceptance works on this platform, I'd love your advice here on how to best convey there are real effects at work here, and they are worth editing this particular wiki away from the realms of psuedoscience and towards the realm of not-quite-yet-fully-understood-yet-actively-being-studied science.

The only thing that can be 'presented' here, in regard to scientific claims is content from scientific journals compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your own personal experiments are of no relevance whatsoever. Wikipedia reflects current scientific consensus, as a matter of policy. You can't use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate changing that consensus. That isn't what it is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Grumpy Andy is correct, but to go a little further and answer your question about how to edit this wiki away from pseudoscience, you have to do some science yourself, get your results published in a reliable publication, and wait to have your revolutionary results confirmed by other researchers, and commented on by independent writers in some depth. Then you could use those as sources to support what you want to say. Good luck. -Roxy . wooF 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

...with the appropriate adherence to WP:COI under community proxy or review, of course! — Smuckola(talk) 07:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

... Indeed, but I am sure that because of the collegiate nature of the project, many of us would help overcome any WP:COI issues. -Roxy . wooF 07:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time. I am thankful for the considerable efforts you take for the sake of the platform's integrity. I understand why skepticism comes first. After years of research and validating experimentation, I suppose I didn't realize how much effort it would take to move the current absolute presented on this page "There is no scientific evidence that pyramid power exists." to something more balanced such as "The existence of pyramid power is not a fully understood phenomenon, therefore is actively being debated and studied in the scientific community." I will continue to do my homework on which of the following studies and references are suitable enough to convince this community there is a real phenomenon at play in regards to "pyramid power". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erowe33 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you are under a misapprehension as to the difference between science and pseudoscience. A claim that 'pyramid power' exists simply isn't compatible with scientific discourse in the first place, since it is undefined, and amounts to an assertion that 'funny things happen if you put stuff under pyramid-shaped objects'. Neither 'funny stuff' nor 'pyramid shaped objects' are defined sufficiently well to be even remotely testable as a hypothesis. Now, if someone can perform and publish a specific, independently repeatable experiment involving some testable phenomenon which occurs as a result of being placed under a specific, fully-defined pyramid-shaped object, and can it can be demonstrated that it isn't just the 'placing under' that causes the effect, but that the 'pyramid-shape' matters too, there is at least the possibility that it might possibly be worthy of further investigation (but not here, since Wikipedia doesn't do scientific research). It would however achieve nothing as far as providing proof that 'pyramid power' is a meaningful scientific concept, since it still hasn't been defined in any useful way.

And note that it isn't 'this community' that you have to convince regarding whatever pyramid-shaped-object-effects you are claiming occur, it is the scientific community. You have to convince them first, and then demonstrate to us that they are convinced. Which isn't going to happen through posting links to a few primary studies making implausible claims about different supposedly pyramid-related phenomena, published in the sort of journal that will print anything they are paid to. The shear quantity of primary scientific studies published (even in reputable sources) ensures that you can, if you look around enough, find something that appears to support a claim that there is scientific backing for any vague assertion regarding 'powers', 'cures' or whatever. Such papers don't however affect the scientific consensus. Not until they get noticed, and any claims made get independently tested, and subject to detailed critical scrutiny. And even then, if the scientific community accepts that there is a real specific phenomenon occurring in one specific experiment, they aren't going to generalise this to an acceptance that 'pyramid power' is a real thing in any scientific sense, since it still hasn't been defined. It is pseudoscience because things you don't define cannot be measured. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't that hard. This is a high school science project. With the exception of the Mpemba effect, such things just don't get published because the people doing "real" science don't take it seriously.

Here's an experiment that is repeatable by anyone. My sister, also a skeptic, did this in the 1980s for her 9th grade science fair project. Get 32 of those square little 2×2-inch plastic plant pots, fill them with soil, and place a bean in each one. Put one group in a 4×4 array under a copper-wire-frame pyramid (my sister used 12-gauge straightened wire soldered together) constructed as close as possible to the proportions of the Egyptian pyramids, so that the entire group of pots is inside the bounding volume of the pyramid. The pyramid is oriented so that one side faces true north. Place the other 4×4 array of pots nearby. Give both groups the same controlled light level and the same measured doses of water. Result: The plants under the pyramid experience rapid growth, reaching at least double the height of the group that isn't under the pyramid.

Is this pyramid power? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the bean plants, being naturally climbing plants, somehow "sense" the structure above and try to reach it more energetically, but that explanation is just about as far-fetched as pyramid power.

This is an easily repeatable experiment. It just takes a little bit of effort and some time. Until an observation like that gets published like the Mpemba effect was, nobody will take it seriously — And neither did the science fair judges, who were scientists at a local university. I recall one of them looked over my sister's meticulously prepared presentation and huffed "how do you explain this?" and walked away, as if an scientifically-conducted observation without an explanation isn't worth considering further. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not treating this as a forum. I am trying to explain why there is a dearth of reliable sources we can cite in this article. A topic that isn't taken seriously by legitimate scientists will never get a proper investigation. It's that simple. And it's also simple to investigate as I described above. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Anyway, the sourcing rules haven't changed, so no further discussion seems to be needed. ApLundell (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)