So, not farewell after all...

Phil Plait at the JREF has a 'fantastic announcement' to make. The famous Million Dollar Challenge will not end next March, as previously announced!  After much discussion, ways have been found to get round the drain on time and effort, and to keep it going -  'improved, streamlined, and made more efficient'.

I'm all for this. The idea of a magician's test is too important a part of the skeptical movement to be let go, and I was never very convinced about its demise. It doesn't have to be James Randi that carries it out. But yes please, let it be improved, streamlined and made more efficient. Let it be transparent, so that we can see exactly who are all these nutters who apply, and their crazy crackpot ideas. Let's see what these preliminary conditions are that no one ever passes. Let the details of the tests be open to discussion - taped and posted online.

Expensive and time consuming? OK, but isn't there a million dollars to play with here? Where is the interest on that going? Let the Challenge pay for its keep.

Comments

[Pete]

The million dollars will never be at risk. Trying to make the subjective into the objective is impossible. All psi requires some sort of subjective connection (connection by consciousness outside the 5 senses). This involves creating a field of intent, but purity of intent cannot be maintained in a sceptical environment. It is only reinforced (like a field fuelled by extra intent) where like minds are on the same wavelength.

Consider the TM experiments which reduced crime. If you bring in sceptics, you are bound to interfere with the field - add noise to the signal. So what worked before won't be repeated.

[The Major]

Hi Rob,

did you see the C4 documentary on spiritualism? It was quite interesting but mainly due to the fact that you just knew the journalist was looking to dismiss it.

At one point, he stated that forty minutes of psychic healing had cured some back pain he had experienced for a number of months. Then he merely shrugged this off by saying 'I don't know what to make of it'.

A strange, disappointing programme in some ways.

[Robert McLuhan]

Hi there - sounds interesting, sorry I missed it. I've been away a bit. Would be interesting to have more details. Perhaps I can catch a repeat.

This is something I'm especially interested in, sceptics experiencing anomalous effects that are consistent with what is known about psi, and then saying they don't know what to make of it. An interesting response!

cheers

[The Major]

Hi Rob,

You can watch it here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/revelations/4od#2931500

I would be very interested to know what you think.

[Breanainn]

Heya, I watched the program expecting the usual debunking line that many such documentaries take with the subject, but was nonetheless pleasantly surprised with the sceptical but open minded treatment it recieved from a seeming agnostic regarding the subject of spiritual communication.

Of particular interest to me was the interviews with a practising GP and developing medium who despite giving the interviewer a pretty accurate description of his deceased father, quite candidly admitted that he could just as very well be guessing his hits.

There WAS the usual spread of damaged individuals and eccentrics you'd find at any spiritual gathering, but the interviewer let them speak without dissmissal or ridicule, accepting that the subject was going to attract odd sorts but that this doesn't automatically negate their experiences.

Although opining that a lot of the mediums messages were vague and could be chalked up to confirmation bias on the part of the sitters, he was quick to point out that Spiritualists never start any wars or come to peoples houses proselytising, and that a seeming validation of an afterlife offered freely through mediumship clearly gives people great comfort. No one is forced to attend and no one is exploited.

Although not ending the documentary a "believer" he seemed genuinely unnerved regarding his odd experiences, and perhaps will go on to research the subject in more depth...

This was my take on the show.

[Paul]

I thought it was quite balanced actually. It was better than I thought it would be.

The Doctor was articulate and his anecdotes interesting. There are much better examples of evidence recorded but he sounded genuine and I think he was telling the truth as he saw it. It is difficult to know how much weight to give to his report. He has perhaps something to lose if he is seen as a crackpot but the medical world is not immune to nutters any more than any other walk of life I reckon.

The reporter conceded that he has benefited from healing but seemed not to be convinced it was associated with what had happened at the Church which I find curious given it was a long-standing condition according to him.

The mediumship in the Church had only a limited showing but looked like the usual stuff I have seen in Spiritualist Churches - imprecise, devoid of objective evidence. Even the Doctor's messages were tantalisingly insufficient for the reporter and I think I would feel the same way.

The guy running the Church was curious. I didn't take to him at first but he kind of grew on me a bit as things went on. Not well educated and therefore perhaps not very skillful at explaining why he believes the things he does (this seems to be quite a common factor although I suspect it is true of many attendees at mainstream churches too). Plus the usual collection of aura photographs and mysterious medieval guides and gurus.

On the whole not too bad. It is interesting that the reporter wasn't convinced (but not in the least surprising :lol) . I kind of got the feeling he was puzzled by what had happened but didn't quite know what to make of it. The attendees looked like quite a good cross-section - the gardener, the doctor, the long-time attenders and the mentally ill. Sounds like a typical cross-section of the congregation at Catholic churches (and others) when I did that kind of thing

[Darryn in London]

I tuned into this show quite by accident as it was about to begin; my TV goes on about once every 2 weeks for an hour or so. A lucky catch at a welcome time as I've been so tormented of late by my existential angst which seems to come about this time every year.

I too thought well of "The Doctor", and could imagine as he spoke of his experience with the depressed patient refusing an antidepressant prescription after his apparent perception of her deceased father, that there would be dogmatic skeptic types out there hungry for his blood. Though I think his levelheadedness and lack of dogma ought to protect his career, 'twas still brave of him to talk about these things on national TV.

What incredible stories go unknown to us because their experiencers don't report them or don't have the witnesses or education/expertise to put out journal articles about them???

[Matt]

I thought it was pretty balanced too.

Robert, you can watch it online on 4OD if you like.

[Breanainn]

Elizabth Mayer talks about many "closeted" professionals in her book, Extraordinary Knowing. Medical personel, surgeons, psychologists etc, who describe assorted anomalous experiences, some pretty regular, but would never in a million years admit to them around their peers.

Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin have spoken about this too, "but then they would" some would say, which is why I found it interesting to hear from someone who wasn't a big name psi-advocate at the time encountering the same candid confessions behind closed doors.

[The Major]

I agree the journalist was fairly open minded. I just knew he was always going to keep it at arms length. I don't know, maybe that's what a journalist should do.

I just feel it was a bit odd that he made the programme but 'didn't know what to make of it all'. I don't know. Maybe it was just me.

[Paul]

Without knowing the journo personally it is hard to form a firm view( for me anyway). It sounds a bit irrational. I know I have had acupuncture in the past and had great results then thought "nah surely not" afterwards for no logical reason I could fathom. Even people who have witnessed full-form materialisation (allegedly) have said after a day or so they went into denial. Perhaps this is a defence mechanism of some sort?

[Zerdini]

Here is an extract from another forum which sheds a slightly different light on the subject:

"For me this was a very disappointing documentary. I know that two "normal" well-regarded SNU Ministers were invited to the church and were interviewed extensively about Spiritualism as well as doing services including addresses on Spiritualism and also demonstrations of mediumship. Sadly the documentary makers did not use any of this footage other than a quick glimpse of Minister Matthew Smith demonstrating.

"Instead of focussing on the religion of Spiritualism, they chose to go with the "people angle" with a focus on the the "more interesting personalities" at the church such as the vice-presdent arguing with a publican, the doctor who is still not sure and the lady who has had mental health problems. For me it lacked depth and professionalism given the quantity and depth of footage they shot."

It was obviously heavily edited to present a particular point of view.

[Paul]

Looked like the (admittedly only 4) Churches I have visited to be honest.

[Zerdini]

True enough Paul. These days trying to find a first-class medium who can demonstrate evidence of survival is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

[Harley]

It was an interesting documentary, but I don’t think anything much can be read into it, and even less can be drawn from it.

The narrator claimed to have had a very accurate “reading” from the doctor, but we were not privy to it, so there’s no chance to objectively gauge what went on. Later in the programme, the doctor was giving a reading for someone and asked the sitter about scented candles, which meant nothing to that person, so that wasn’t very impressive. But what was alarming was the doctor admitting that he uses mumbo jumbo as part of his treatment in his surgery. (Actually, if he is a family doctor, any insights into a patient’s problems are more likely to be a result of his knowledge of his patients’ backgrounds than any psychic powers) In any case, it was a personal anecdote, so we only have his word for it. I doubt whether his psychic reading was written up in his patient’s case notes, and if it was, I think the British Medical Council might have some questions about the doctor’s competence to practise.

Even more alarming was the woman with mental problems who said she had been going to the church for fifteen years for healing, but during that time her mental problems had become worse and she now also had physical problems. This is madness – at least on the part of the so-called healers. She admitted that things are worse now than when she started going to the church. Well, pick the bones out of that if you can.

What came over to me was that the church featured in the documentary was really just a genteel social club for middle-aged and elderly people who haven’t much going on in their lives. They reinforce their beliefs to each other, and seem to get some kind of comfort out of it. Fair enough, I suppose.

But the publican summed it up accurately: “He’s a nice bloke, but deluded.”

[Paul]

"Even more alarming was the woman with mental problems who said she had been going to the church for fifteen years for healing, but during that time her mental problems had become worse and she now also had physical problems. This is madness – at least on the part of the so-called healers. She admitted that things are worse now than when she started going to the church. Well, pick the bones out of that if you can."

I think she said she was also receiving medication. I also think you will find a proportion of regular attendees at most churches have some form of mental illness. I don't think it is reasonable for one to infer that if her mental problems are worsening it must be because of something that did or didn't happen at that Church (or any other for that matter) - not based on the programme content anyway.

Why would the method by which the Doctor obtained potential insight into the patient's condition be in her medical notes? I would expect the outcome to be but not necessarily the means by which it was achieved. I wouldn't be surprised if Doctors ask questions of patients based on intuition of some kind from time to time but weren't necessarily be able to explain why they asked the question.Such intuition occurs in most walks of life. Suggesting the Doctor may not be conpetent because you don't consider his explanation acceptable is plain prejudice.

[Paul]

Apologies for typos. I am knackered.

[Harley]

Paul – I neither inferred nor implied that the woman’s mental health problems were worsened by anything that did or did not happen at the church. If her problems have become worse, it is fair to infer that the church has not effected anything that could be construed as a cure. In any case, she was reporting her subjective feelings, not an objective medical assessment.

You ask why the doctor’s methods for diagnosing an illness should be in his medical notes. Are you serious? Doctors have to keep accurate records of patients’ progress, including such things as temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, etc. To fail to do so would be classed as negligence. If the doctor had said that his diagnosis had included the ritual sacrifice of a chicken and an analysis of its entrails, would you still think his competence to practise would not be open to question? Now that the programme has been aired, it is quite possible that the regulating authorities might be contacting him to make some further inquiries. If he had been my own doctor, you can rest assured I would be seeking another; I want treatment for any ailment based on science, not superstition.

And before you accuse me of prejudice, remember it was you who said, “I also think you will find a proportion of regular attendees at most churches have some form of mental illness.” I made no such accusation. I might think the people in the documentary are deluded, but I would not accuse anyone of being mentally ill just because they have beliefs I disagree with.

[The Major]

I think its fair to say you did imply that the woman's mental health problems were worsened by actions at the church. For example:

"This is madness – at least on the part of the so-called healers"

If you are going to make such assertions, stand by then.

In addition to that, Paul is clearly not asserting that people who attend church are therefore mentally ill. He's merely saying that there are mentally ill people who attended churchs, mosques, spiritual centers or don't practice any religion. Sometimes they get better, sometimes they don't. It's unfair to use this one example to damn spiritual churches.

Also, if the doctor helped the patient, isn't that the most important thing? Or would it have been better to follow scientific methods which had not worked up to that point? All he did was ask a question, and then decided upon a treatment based on that. It's not like he suddenly hooked her up to a life-support machine or switched chemo therapy for crystals. He just agreed that she might have the power to get over her depression.

By the by, the majority of sources on the Internet regarding depression state that the sufferer already possesses the tools to get over it.

[Harley]

Major – I do stand by my assertion, although you may have taken it more seriously than I intended it. There was a certain irony inherent when I said that using faith healing to cure mental illness was madness.

Mental health problems are more common than most people realise, so Paul is no doubt correct that a proportion of people who attend church do have that affliction in one form or another. The same applies everywhere, and in all walks of life.

My concern, however, is that although faith healers might not do direct harm to the people they are trying to help, the danger is that some people who do need medical intervention can – and do – forgo the medical treatment they need in favour of what is nothing more than a placebo. In that sense, someone’s problems might well worsen because they fail to seek proven treatments. Many people who seek alternative treatments, including faith healing, have nothing wrong with them anyway, so in that sense, they might as well have their imaginary ailments seen to with imaginary cures.

As you say, it is important that the doctor’s patient was given the help she needed, but I still think it is more likely that his insight was based on his knowledge of his patient than a psychic revelation. Many people solve a problem with a sudden insight while they are not consciously thinking about it; sometimes it happens to me, but I think that is evidence of the brain working on different levels, and in parallel, rather than evidence of psychic ability. I agree with you that people often have the ability to help themselves, in particular in terms of depression, for example. Sometimes all they need is another person to give support while they get themselves through it.

I think we should all bear in mind, though, that this documentary was, in effect, one man’s personal journey of discovery. What was presented was his own take on the matter. No doubt there will have been many hours of footage that had to be sifted through, which could have been edited in many different ways to give a completely different slant on the subject. All we have to go on is what was presented in a fifty-minute documentary, and that was one person’s view of what was going on. We don’t know the full story, and we are limited to making judgements about it on the basis of what was presented.

[The Major]

Hi Harley, I was intrigued by your quote:

"As you say, it is important that the doctor’s patient was given the help she needed, but I still think it is more likely that his insight was based on his knowledge of his patient than a psychic revelation. Many people solve a problem with a sudden insight while they are not consciously thinking about it; sometimes it happens to me, but I think that is evidence of the brain working on different levels, and in parallel, rather than evidence of psychic ability."

Isn't this a bit of a catch all statement, that dismisses all evidence without even considering it?

I agree that someone with health problems would be foolish to ignore science and instead place their health in the hands of faith healers. However, with regards to symptoms such as anxiety, depression and OCD, it can be just as dangerous just to rely on medicine to treat the illness.

[Harley]

I don’t think that was just a catch-all statement, Major. We have evidence that brains exist, and that there are, in the average brain, trillions of neuronal interconnections. We know that damage to specific areas of the brain can have specific effects; and that sometimes other areas of the brain can compensate to a greater or lesser extent for that damage. Other times, damage cannot be compensated for, and in any case, a person’s mood or entire personality can be affected by environmental influences rather than physical trauma. One person can be a genius, and another a complete dimwit: it’s a complex area, and no-one pretends that it is fully understood. My point is, we know that there are real physical factors involved in the function of the brain, but there is no firm evidence that there is an intangible and independent mind/soul/spirit that operates this physical “machinery.”

I’m sure you’re right that there are dangers inherent in relying solely on medicines to treat depression, etc. There are many effective ways to treat a variety of ailments that do not involve pills and suchlike. But a doctor should still be the first port of call for such problems. (Whether you would feel confident visiting the doctor in the documentary is up to you)

[The Major]

I guess my point is, Harley, that you say there is 'no firm evidence that there is an intangible and idependent mind/soul/spirit that operates this physical machinery'.

However, any evidence that begins to point this way is dismissed as being 'unlikely'. What I am saying is that you state there is no evidence, but then dismiss evidence away as being more than likely something else.

[Harley]

Major – I think we are probably going to disagree on what counts as evidence. Realistically, evidence has to be testable for it to count as evidence. There has to be a way to confirm or refute a claim for it to be classed as evidence. This is why anecdotes are not evidence.

For example, an acquaintance of mine recently told me he had been doing his job as a tradesman in someone’s house. He glanced up the stairs and saw the ghost of a Cavalier – complete with musket, sword, feather in his hat and all the rest of it. But there’s no way his claim can be tested. I allow for the possibility that he really did see a ghost, but there are other possible explanations that are much more likely. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, but I can also think of several possibilities that do not include ghosts. To say that people can make mistakes, or are pranksters, or even pathological liars, is not an extraordinary claim, so in the absence of evidence either way, the most likely explanation is that he did not see a ghost.

In circumstances like this, there is no evidence to examine, therefore no evidence to dismiss, so on the balance of probabilities, I regard such claims as unlikely.

[Paul]

Harley - the friend's testimony is evidence. Such evidence is accepted in Courts of law throughtout the world every day. It may be uncorroborated evidence, as witness evidence often is, in which case it is a matter of judgement as to how much weight to give to it. It would depend on who was giving the evidence and the quality of their testimony. Juries and benches of magistrates hear such evidence from individuals every day.

It can only be dismissed out of hand if you start with the premise that it is impossible to see a ghost. This is only a reasonable premise if you know for certain that seeing a ghost is impossible. Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean no-one else has either.

[Breanainn]

One wonders who/what could possibly be found about a house that could reasonably be mistaken by anyone for a Cavalier if, as you say, you don't doubt the guy's honesty.

Unless the homeowner was in the business of hosting members of the Sealed Knot, I find the ghost to be among the least complicated explanations... But then I'm biased.

I suppose I have to ask what would count as evidence in such a case? Skeptics never accept photography as evidence, even when the photograph is lab-authenticated and you've reasonably ruled out pareidolia as an explanation. To which I mean, a clearly humanoid figure with identifiable clothes, gender and facial structure, as agreed by most reasonable people, etc is conciderably less likely to be a psychological artifact than a blob of mist with an outline that sorta vaguely looks a bit like a person if you squint at it long enough. The problem is that if it's not explained as pareidolia (and skeptics can explain a LOT away as pareidolia, simply by refusing to see what's blatently in front of them and calling it rational) and your brain IS actually doing it's job in identifying body and facial features that really ARE there, then it must be a fake (it's just "too good to be true"). One wonders what they would actually accept as evidence regarding such a transient phenomena if it exists at all.

Nice story anyways. Thanks for sharing it Harley.

[Harley]

Paul – I think we’ve had this conversation before. But your assertion that courts of law accept personal testimony is a false analogy. In science, anecdotes are considered to be the weakest form of evidence; in a court, personal testimony can be very powerful, but on an emotional level rather than a factual level. It is said that a court of law is a place where twelve jurors decide which side has the better lawyer. A court of law is not necessarily a court of justice. A maxim in the law profession goes thus: “If you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have nothing on your side, pound the table.” A court of law is as much about theatricals as it is about the truth. Sometimes the innocent are convicted, and sometimes the guilty go free.

I wonder if you would care to re-read my last comment. I said clearly that I allow for the possibility that the person I mentioned might actually have seen a ghost. I do not claim that ghosts are impossible. And you are making a huge assumption when you say, “Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean no-one else has either.” I, too, have experienced some very strange happenings; but if you see something you cannot explain, it does not follow that that happening must be supernatural. To do so would be a non sequitur, and would be called an argument from incredulity. If you want to argue in logical terms, you really need to know your modus ponens from your modus tolens. You also need to know the difference between deductive and inductive logic.

Breanainn – I’m familiar with The Sealed Knot, a worthy historical society that recreates episodes from the English Civil War - a great family day out to see history come alive.

You say that the ghost explanation is the least complicated, but at least you do admit you are biased. I merely claim that I do not have definitive answers, and that the believers in the paranormal cannot supply evidence that will pass strict scientific scrutiny.

The person I quoted as an acquaintance is not a close person friend. Although he seemed absolutely sincere, and I still do not doubt that, I do not know very much about him. Perhaps he really saw a ghost. Perhaps he is a secret drug-taker. Perhaps he is a paranoid schizophrenic. Perhaps he lives in his own personal fantasy world. Perhaps he knows I am a sceptic and made up the story just to test my reaction. Perhaps there are dozens more possibilities. You have to exclude all possibilities until only one remains – definitively – that is the answer to the problem.

If my past experience on this blog is anything to go by, any replies to this post will not include my acceptance of the possibility that the paranormal is a real thing. As is always the case with the true believers, my request for unequivocal evidence will be regarded simply as an attack, rather than a request for supporting evidence of the claims made. But the unequivocal evidence is unlikely to be forthcoming.

I would appreciate it if anyone who replies would refrain from caricaturing my comments in the form of a straw man argument.

[Breanainn]

I'm not a regular Harley but your posts have seemed reasonable to me.

Like I said, if ghosts exist at all (and I'm far from a true believer in anything) they seem to be frustratingly evanescent and not prone to leaving much in the way of physical evidence for us mortals to examine. It's a pain in the ass if you take the view that there might just be something to the whole thing (due to the sheer amount of seemingly empirical encounters throughout history) but can't actually produce anything solid bar the odd creepy photo.

[Paul]

Hi Harley

Whether or not you accept the paranormal is real or not is a matter for you. As I have said in earlier postings on other matters - I do not know you and can make few inferences about your fundamental beliefs, and none about your personality. I don't think its necessary to caveat every comment on here as this is a simple discussion. Neither you nor I know for a fact whether or not paranormal (whatever that means in real terms) phenomena occur. However, that is not necessarily true for all posters on this forum.

Your points about law versus science are good ones however 'science' as you may or may not agree is as riddled with and to prone examples of fraud and 'mistrial' as any other venture in life (including the judicial system). The point I was making, is that personal testimony as you rightly concede can be powerful and is a form of evidence - in your original posting you stated it wasn't.

From my own perspective I would simply like people to remain open-minded, particularly in the face of well-attested personal evidence. I am not suggesting personal testimony is proof of survival, or that some other possible explanation may not be at the bottom of the experience, merely that rejecting the paranormal explanation by using a model that places such an explanation lower down than any other in the circumstances suggests a bias that may prevent one from learning from another's experience.

[Harley]

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Breanain: ghosts are not prone to leaving physical evidence. So it is fair to ask: what is the difference between a ghost that leaves no evidence of its existence, and a ghost that does not exist? They look the same to me.

Paul – there certainly are examples of fraud in science, but I disagree that science is “riddled” with fraud. You make it sound as though fraud is the norm in science rather than the exception. Science is very good at policing itself through the peer review system and the fact that for findings to be valid they have to be replicated by other scientists. People like Cyril Burt, for example, were caught out because of the scientific process itself.

I think we should stay away from courtroom analogies. In the UK, at least, the system of law is adversarial, and two opposing parties argue their case in front of a judge and jury. Any and all emotional arguments are brought to bear, in addition to any actual evidence that is presented. Science is rather more impersonal – “Just the facts, Ma’am” as it were. There is no judge or jury to influence, and no amount of rhetoric will alter the outcome of a properly conducted scientific investigation. (You might nitpick that statement, but the principle is sound)

In terms of evidence, personal testimony is still next to useless. All it entails is an observation that something has happened that someone cannot explain. In itself, personal testimony explains nothing. If you saw me do one of my amateur conjuring tricks – making a coin disappear, say, or levitate myself, you would probably wonder how I did the trick. You might even ask me to show you how I do it. (I wouldn’t tell you, by the way) But if you saw someone like Uri Geller do the same thing, I think you would claim it as evidence that he can make things vanish paranormally – even though the effect is identical in both instances. So a question comes to mind: what is the difference between a psychic who makes a coin disappear, or levitate, and a conjuror who does the same thing? They look the same to me.

One final point: this thread has gone way off topic. Just to bring things back into perspective, I do not think I could win Randi’s million with my conjuring tricks. So I wouldn’t even apply for the prize. Then again, neither does Geller, Van Praagh, Browne, etc. In that sense, we all look the same to me – and everyone else, except the believers.

[Paul]

Hi Harley

Firstly you appear to be doing what you criticised me for doing - telling me how I would react when I see something. You know nothing about me and very little about my opinions. It would be more consistent of you to remember that.

Personally testimony tells us what a person thinks they saw. We are at liberty to determine from the description what may or may not have happened but it is often difficult to determine whether was was reported is accurate and to infer the cause.

This does not make it reasonable to rule out a so-called paranormal cause in the example you cited, or some cause based on phenomena we may not have witnessed ourselves or even believe is possible unless we can demonstrate that fact. You have already conceded that you cannot.

The Court room is about fact not about emotional arguments - perhaps you have watched too much TV? It is also about how given facts may be interpreted. Convictions based on emotional arguments that are not supported by the facts are overturned on appeal. True justice is impersonal - as with science. Except that science isn't as impersonal as you make out really is it? Science is big business and needs finance to make its way. In addition to competing financial interests, ego and personal standing are as import as financial drivers to scientists (as indeed to humans in most endeavours) and have been at the core of many "science" scandals.

The difference between a psychic and a magician is down to truth. The magician by calling himself such presents himself as a person deceiving the eye and as an entertainer. A psychic who uses the same techniques but presents it as evidence of paranormal phenomena is a fraud.

As far as Randi is concerned, assuming anyone can demonstrate the required phenomena, the fact that Randi has in the past misrepresented himself and covered over his own failures makes him look like as much of a fraud as those he investigates. In fact he has described himself as a fraud. Perhaps those who believe they have a paranormal talent believe the chance of a fair hearing from Randi is slim.

[Paul]

God I wish I could edit posts afterwards lol

[Harley]

Paul – I stated how I thought you would probably react based on comments you have made previously. I wasn’t telling you definitively how you would react (I’m not psychic, after all). It’s true I don’t know anything about you, but your opinions are posted on this blog regularly for all to see. Anyone who reads this blog therefore knows what your opinions are.

Personal testimony does indeed tell us what a person thinks they saw. But we are not at liberty to determine what has really happened; there is simply no logical basis for a definitive conclusion based on what someone “thinks” they saw.

I will say, yet again, I do not rule out a possible paranormal cause for anything that has not been verified one way or another. It’s just a fact that there is no definitive evidence that the supernatural is a true phenomenon. It also just happens to be the case that after more than one hundred and fifty years of paranormal research there is nothing to show for it except wishful thinking on the part of the believers. The probability that psychic phenomena exist is so close to zero means that for all practical purposes you can forget it.

You say, “The Court room is about fact not about emotional arguments - perhaps you have watched too much TV?” I’m not sure if you were trying to insult me there, but your argument is ad hominem. Let me tell you something: I have first hand experience of the court system. Some years ago I was violently attacked by four young thugs. But I was the one who was arrested, interrogated, charged with GBH and prosecuted in Crown Court. After all, you can’t have people who can fight back defending themselves, can you? As it happens, I was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, using reasonable force to protect myself and my family. I was cleared on the facts, but not before the barristers in the case added any and all emotional arguments to sway the case. It wasn’t like you may have seen on TV.

The other time I was in Crown Court was a few years later when I was the key witness in a trial that hit the headlines. My evidence to the court resulted in the perpetrator being handed a life sentence, but not before his defence counsel attacked me, questioning my character, my integrity, my reliability, my honesty, my motives… etc. That part of his cross-examination had nothing at all to do with the facts of the case. His client was guilty, but he was willing to try any method to get his client off. It was a dirty and unpleasant experience, very unlike your own experience of the judicial system. (What, exactly, is your experience of law courts? You forgot to mention it. Presumably your expertise is also first hand, and not just from TV.)

Science itself is not big business. The companies that have a financial interest in the products of science are big business. That is where any corruption you might be alluding to comes into play. Many scientists would like to have the funds available to do pure research – the kind of research that has no particular goal in mind. But private companies will not fund anything that does not have a known financial reward at the end of it. It is a shortsighted policy, because many of the greatest scientific discoveries have their provenance in the pure research that some scientists have been able to do just out of curiosity.

You state, “The difference between a psychic and a magician is down to truth. The magician by calling himself such presents himself as a person deceiving the eye and as an entertainer. A psychic who uses the same techniques but presents it as evidence of paranormal phenomena is a fraud.” How very true. How very very true.

And as far as Randi is concerned, all a person who claims to have paranormal abilities has to do is something paranormal – at will – under properly controlled observing conditions. Your criticism of Randi is a red herring. A person’s chances of winning a million from Randi is proportional to their psychic ability.

[Paul]

I have extensive first-hand and regular experience of Law courts over many years (read into that what you will LOL).

Your experience of cross-examination is exactly making the point I made earlier - your testimony is challenged based on your character - it is directly related to your bona fides as a witness ie "why should we accept your testimony?". It can be most unpleasant and is intended to goad you into showing a reaction which undermines your evidence either in fact or in character. Also, you have no idea what part of your advocate's performance affected the decision of the jury or whether these so called emotional arguments swayed opinion one way or another. The jury may have been convinced by your honest presentation of your side of the facts (assuming you gave evidence). Getting people to understand how you felt at the time and your reaction is not an emotional argument, it is about putting the event in context.

Your comments regarding science and big-business is I think correct. However it does not undo the point I made about how much we can rely on it practically speaking.

I still don't see why you think I would assume a magic trick by Geller was paranormal based on an earlier posting unless you are implying I am naiive or gullible - maybe I am but you don't know that.

We have only your word that Randi would be prepared to accept a genuine paranormal event and to accept it in a setting which is conducive to such a phenomena.

[Robert McLuhan]

Hi Harley – thanks for sharing these experiences, and for your considered comments. I just wanted to pick up on this:

‘It also just happens to be the case that after more than one hundred and fifty years of paranormal research there is nothing to show for it except wishful thinking on the part of the believers.’

The reality is, a century and a half has produced an enormous amount of data suggestive of psychism, some of which is considered by those who are familiar with it, including university-tenured scientists, philosophers and academics, to be convincing enough to accept the case as proven – on empirical and rational grounds. You’re entitled to reject this as a minority view, but not to imply that there never was a case that serious people could support.

Unless of course you actually want to make propaganda, which judging by the quality of your other contributions does not seem to be the case. This sort of statement is what gives sceptics such a bad name. What do we think of people who say there is no evidence to support the notion that species are formed by natural selection, or that there is no evidence of global warming?

I suspect the problem is that like many convinced sceptics you just aren’t aware of the literature of psychical research. But do correct me if I’m wrong: I would genuinely be interested to know if you have read any of the papers on Leonora Piper and Gladys Leonard, the cross correspondences, the Miami poltergeist episode, Phantoms of the Living and other surveys of spontaneous experiences, the ganzfeld and remote viewing data, the near-death literature, memories of past lives, etc., etc, and to hear your reasons for dismissing it all as ‘wishful thinking on the part of the believers’.

[Harley]

Paul – your statement, “I have extensive first-hand and regular experience of Law courts over many years” is the sort of vague generality so beloved of psychics. Picture a psychic saying to his or her client, “I’m getting a person who has first-hand experience of Law courts over many years.” Almost anyone could think of someone they know that fits the bill: a magistrate, judge, solicitor, barrister, police officer, usher, victim support worker, cleaner, CCTV installer, career or petty criminal, newspaper reporter and a host of others. I won’t read anything into it because I have nothing to go on. I don’t even know if your name is merely pseudonymous, or what your gender is – your name might be an abbreviation of Pauline, for all I know. But I’m sure some readers of this blog will have jumped to a conclusion of their choice.

I’m sure I’m wasting my time by saying this again: an honest person can be thoroughly convinced that he saw something, but might be mistaken, or has interpreted an event in a way that does not reflect what actually happened. No amount of cross-examination will shake that person’s conviction about what he believes he saw if he can withstand the intimidation and bullying of a determined lawyer. He is an honest person, but his honesty is not a guarantee that he is right. This is why such claims have to be tested objectively, not by cross-examination.

They reckon that although most people are buried six foot under when they die, lawyers are buried thirty foot under. Apparently, deep down, lawyers are very nice people.

I’m not implying that you are naïve or gullible, but, like the point I have made above, (again) you are sticking to the idea that eye witness testimony is decisive evidence. For some reason, you do not accept that an eye witness might be wrong. What happens when two credible witnesses to the same event have opposing accounts of what they think happened?

You say: “We have only your word that Randi would be prepared to accept a genuine paranormal event and to accept it in a setting which is conducive to such a phenomena.” A setting that is “conducive to such a phenomena” usually means terms dictated by the candidate for the million dollars. That is just out of the question.

Robert – you’re right that there is an enormous amount of data, but whether data is evidence of psychism is another matter. When I installed a security camera at home, I installed it inside the front window looking out. When I checked it after dark, I saw an “orb” on my TV screen floating along the driveway. That, some would say, is data. But is it evidence of psychism? I opened the curtain, but when I looked out there was no sign of the orb. I looked back at the TV and now there were numerous orbs, but no sign of them outside. So I picked up a cloth and flicked it in front of the camera and suddenly there were scores of orbs. (Don’t worry – I have had words with Mrs Harley about her standard of dusting) Some people think that a photo or video with an orb is proof of ghosts; I have reason to believe orbs are just dust particles. It might be data, but what is it evidence of? In this instance I tested the data and it turned out to be non-paranormal.

Yes, there are university-tenured scientists who believe they have proof of things that other scientists do not accept, for example Michael Behe, but have a look at what his own university says, at:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

They conclude their position statement about him with:
“While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

The fact that someone is qualified in one field does not imply that he is qualified in another. Personally, I would not employ a fully qualified plasterer to install my new gas water heater. And I suspect you would not really want a fully qualified dentist to do your triple heart bypass if you were ever unfortunate enough to need one. The fact that some scientists have gone off into non-science does not mean that their beliefs have any scientific validity. A lot of serious people do, indeed, support beliefs that do not, in fact, have objective support. A PhD sounds impressive, but it is mistaken to assume that it gives authority in an unrelated field.

I’m not making propaganda, as you seem to acknowledge, but who is it that gives sceptics a bad name? You make it sound as if it is a universal given. I am a sceptic, (not a denialist) but I feel justified to be sceptical of claims that have no solid evidence to support them. I am not familiar with some of the references you quoted, but I am familiar with many others, and the ones I have read I am not impressed with. People like Dean Radin seem to have to torture their statistics to get anything out of them, but we are still left with the question: what benefit have we had out of psychical research? Science has given us the most technologically advanced society that has ever existed; the best psychics can do seems to be, “I’m getting the letter J…” Let’s be honest, remote viewers have not found Osama Bin Laden, and there are no confirmed cases of psychics solving crimes.

As I am writing this post, it has just been announced that a woman in America who was abducted as a child has been found after eighteen years as a captive, having had two children by her abductor. She was found by the police (no psychics involved), but as the story unfolds, I will not be surprised if it is found out that in the past, psychics have courted publicity with various pronouncements. If so, then obviously they weren’t much good, and on a par with every other psychic I have come across. But I predict that psychics will now be crawling out of the woodwork claiming that they had known about it all along, police had ignored their offers of help, etc, etc.

If psychism ever becomes as obvious as powered flight, say, I will be converted.

[The Major]

Harley, I would say Paul isn't saying anecdotal evidence is definitive for science, but that it is merely supportive. Some people say it is completely worthless, but Paul is saying that it does have its uses. Some areas rely on it more than others, but its never completely worthless.

Also, do you think the majority of paranormal scientific investigation is on a par with failing to dust where a CCTV camera is placed?

"People like Dean Radin seem to have to torture their statistics to get anything out of them." Do you have examples of this, or this a vague generality?

"the best psychics can do seems to be, “I’m getting the letter J…" Really? You've looked at the best evidence for psychics and that was your final opinion? If you're basing it on the type of person at the end of 0891 number, then that would be like me basing my view on science on someone doing their GCSEs.

What about a case like this:

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/R-101.htm

"Remote viewers have not found Osama Bin Laden" Should we be able to fully understand how a mechanism works whilst we are the beginning of exploring it? During the Reagen era, remote viewing was used to find a crashed plane. Is Osama Bin Laden a more verifiable scientific discovery than a plane? Is there a sliding scale for that sort of thing?

What benefit have we had from psychical research? Maybe its a bit early for that due to the high level of resistance, but what are the future implications? A spiritual approach to life? A more holistic approach to medicine? Comfort to those who have recently been bereaved?

[Robert McLuhan]

Harley – not sure orbs are such a good example. I know some people think they have a paranormal origin, but as far as I’m aware there’s no compelling reason to think so. Photographic ‘evidence’ of any kind just doesn’t do it for me. The point about the data in the literature, eg some of the things I mentioned, is that it can be very difficult to explain in terms of normal causes – but you’d have to read it to see what I mean.

Behe is a great example from your point of view. The intelligent design thing is a challenge for parapsychology, which has to avoid being tarred with the same brush. For me the essential difference is that parapsychologists are working with their own data whereas creationists like Behe, as I understand it, are putting their own spin on existing biological data. Parapsychologists are pioneering a new field of study; creationists are ideological sceptics of Darwinism.

‘The fact that someone is qualified in one field does not imply that he is qualified in another.’ Not sure what you mean here. As I say, parapsychologists are the experts in their field. Also, they often bring their specialism, as physicists, psychologists, biologists, mathmeticians and philosophers to bear in their work on psi.

I could add that some of the most influential figures in parapsychology – William James, Henry Sidgwick, William Crookes, Charles Richet, Gardner Murphy – made their reputations in orthodox fields. It may have been the ‘collective position’ of their critics that they had gone off into non-science, as you put it. But how much did the sceptics really know about it? What qualified them to talk like this?

‘People like Dean Radin seem to have to torture their statistics to get anything out of them’ – again, not sure about this, unless you mean that the statistics aren’t striking enough to carry conviction. You may have a point, the margins in psi experiments are sometimes only slightly significant, and of course often not significant at all. But as I understand it even many sceptics acknowledge that if they average out at 33% over a large number of experiments, where 25% is the chance mean, that requires an explanation, which mostly they look for in terms of flawed methodology, not flawed statistical interpretations. Statistics is something that parapsychologists actually are masters of, in contrast, it seems to me, to some of their sceptics.

I sympathise with the rest of what you say, particularly about dodgy psychics. But I say again, you talk as someone who has little knowledge of the reasons why parapsychologists think that psi is a real entity. Your scepticism is entirely understandable; it the de facto starting position and although you may not think so, it’s where parapsychologists themselves mostly start. They just think it’s worth checking out, and are astonished by what they find.

It’s true that some people may be interested in psychic detection, and of course others at various times have been convinced by spoon benders and so on. But this is just the public aspect of the subject, and mostly rather uninspiring. If it was the sum total of the evidence for psi I’d be a convinced sceptic too.

You ask, what benefit have we had out of psychical research? I sense that you are looking for insights that can be turned to practical use; scientific knowledge equals handy gadgets, medical treatments, whizzy transport systems, etc etc. Some people I know actually do think that psi will have this sort of role to play; I’m less convinced. But for me that’s not what it’s about. Science surely is more than a source of technology, it’s about understanding who we are, what kind of world we live in.

You might say that about Darwin. Of course genetic science has all sorts of practical uses, but that came later – Darwin’s chief contribution arguably was to change the way humans view themselves and their origins. If psi is ever acknowledged to be genuine it would force a similarly epoch-changing reappraisal. Which is precisely why it’s so fiercely resisted and why sceptics want solid proof.

This, finally, is where it gets really interesting for me, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot recently. You’re on safe ground demanding solid proof, because there isn’t going to be any, at least not the kind you want. Being a psychological entity - albeit one with quasi-physical properties, apparently - psi is never going to be capable of being demonstrated on demand, in reliably repeatable experiments, in the same way that we expect a physical entity to be. There’s no natural law I know of that says something that’s real and exists in our world, and has enormous implications about ourselves and our situation, must be easily verifiable. But we require that for sound social and political reasons; it’s a fundamental value of our democratic and secular humanist society.

How that gap can ever be bridged I don’t know. But a good starting point will be to make the data of psychical research better known, and then we can start to have sensible debates about it.

[Zerdini]

Harley wrote: 'Paul – your statement, “I have extensive first-hand and regular experience of Law courts over many years” is the sort of vague generality so beloved of psychics.' and

'I don’t even know if your name is merely pseudonymous, or what your gender is – your name might be an abbreviation of Pauline, for all I know. But I’m sure some readers of this blog will have jumped to a conclusion of their choice.'

Paul is exactly who he says he is and his statement is not a 'vague generality' at all but a simple fact.

I know nothing about you either Harley - your name might be Davidson or a motorcycle enthusiast or anything really - it's not relevant to the subject under discussion.

Paul has probaly forgotten more about the law than you have learned from your few experiences.

If he doesn't wish to discuss his life experiences on here that is his prerogative.

May I suggest you just address the issues under discussion.

[Harley]

Major – an anecdote might be useful as an initial observation of something that justifies further investigation, but on its own and without corroboration, it is, indeed, worthless.

My point about the CCTV is that I did a bit of investigation that most other people would not bother with. I suppose I could have merely claimed in all honesty that I had witnessed an orb, and there would be plenty of people who would have claimed that anecdote as evidence of the paranormal. Last year, I witnessed a UFO taking off from its undersea base – at least I saw a light travelling at phenomenal speed straight up, turn at ninety degrees and shoot off into the distance. Does my anecdote satisfy the criteria necessary to establish UFOs as a fact? In fact, I spent several weeks investigating what I saw, and it took some effort to be able to reproduce it, but I can assure you that the answer was rather mundane and nothing more than an optical illusion.

A lot of Radin’s work involves meta-analysis of data, and there are inherent problems with that approach.

Yes, psychics often get the letter J, and not much else. I would be impressed if a psychic could give specific information that does not have to be interpreted and contorted by the sitter to make it fit. Someone doing a GCSE in science is at least doing something that is unequivocally based in fact and can be proven to be so.

So far I have had time only to skim the Michael Prescott link you gave (I will read it in full when I have time). My initial reaction is that his review is very biased, but I cannot be more specific right now.

During the Reagan era, President Reagan – the most powerful person on Earth – was taking direction from an astrologer. That is scary. But with regard to remote viewing, I think you are referring to Project Stargate – a CIA-funded operation that was cancelled after billions of dollars were poured into it without any results. It was a complete failure. Your story about a plane being found is, I think, an anecdote.

A friend of mine died suddenly early this year. Since then, his daughter has spent – and is continuing to spend – hundreds of pounds going from one psychic to the next to get what you call comfort. It is causing her only more heartbreak. Some comfort!

Robert – orbs are just one example among many. Some people take them seriously to the point of obsession, as do others with UFOs, etc. They can, of course, be difficult to explain in terms of natural causes, but before you claim that something is out of this world, you really have to be sure that it is not in this world. I gave Michael Behe as an example because he is attempting to explain natural phenomena in supernatural terms, and his university’s stance is pretty much the same as other scientists’ views regarding people such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake and other well-known paranormal proponents. If the same people were doing research in their original areas, I have no doubt they could be making great inroads into the practical problems that face us as we contend with our own survival in the face of the changing environment we live in.

You say that parapsychologists are experts in their field, but someone less charitable than me might ask how anyone can be an expert in something that isn’t real.

I can accept the idea that Crookes, etc, were delving into areas that were previously unexplored, in a methodological way. In the same way, Charles Darwin, who had actually trained to become a member of the clergy, was also delving into areas that had previously been unexplored. The difference, however, is that Darwin’s work has been confirmed and there is a huge scientific body of evidence that his theory of evolution (not hypothesis) is correct. While medical scientists are developing life-saving techniques based on Darwin’s research, I think you have to admit that Crookes, et al, have not left a similar legacy in terms of the paranormal hypothesis.

With regard to statistics, I am trained in statistical analysis, but I admit it is quite a few years since I have needed to use the technique. I would have to do a refresher course before I would confidently do a statistical analysis of anything important. Nevertheless, I still understand the principles concerned and can recognise the problems that occur when analysis of that sort is right at the edge of probability.

You might think I have little knowledge of why parapsychologists think psi is a real entity, but mainstream science regards parapsychology as a fringe science at best, and it is certainly controversial. I have said elsewhere on your blog that I do not mind if the paranormal is ever proved to be true, and that is still my position.

People are, indeed, convinced by spoon benders and so on. And that is, as you say, the public aspect of it. I think that those people are not following this debate, though, or any similar debates on either pro-paranormal or sceptical websites.

You’re right that I wonder what practical benefits could come out of psychical research. Then again, what would be the consequences if it were true? Our privacy goes out of the window straight away. It’s bad enough that we are followed by CCTV everywhere we go; what would it be like if our thoughts weren’t private? There are far-reaching possibilities; but we do still have our private thoughts, so even though psychics do not win the lottery every week, neither are they making huge amounts of money by blackmailing everyone who has a skeleton in the closet. Darwin did change the way we view ourselves, but if psychics could really read our minds, resistance to this new paradigm would be futile and the proof would be self-evident

I was surprised that you said, “psi is never going to be capable of being demonstrated on demand, in reliably repeatable experiments, in the same way that we expect a physical entity to be.” That’s pretty much what sceptics expect to be the case.

Like yourself, I see no obvious way that the gap between the people on your side of the argument and the people on my side of the argument can be bridged. But at least we have been able so far to talk openly in a civil manner. I hope we can continue that way.

[Paul]

I have not said anywhere that eye-witness testimony is decisive. I merely said it is evidence which was in response to your own comment earlier in the thread that it was not.

With regard to Randi; as far as the setting is concerned you assume again that I have suggested the setting has to be completely determine by the applicant - this is unreasonable and I did not suggest it. It would also be unreasonable to exclude the possibility that the setting may affect the phenomena to be demonstrated. Compromise is necessary in such circumstances (assuming one is after the truth and not merely trying to make a point).

Also, what has my gender or name got to do with the points under discussion? Whether you accept that my claimed knowledge of the legal system is true or not is up to you. I am not trying to persuade you I am right, merely challenging your assumptions which appear to be based on very limited experience in respect of the legal system at any rate.

Of course I can see that an eye-witness might be wrong. What have I said that indicates otherwise? Only an imbecile would would suggest that a witness can never be mistaken. There are however steps which can be taken to determine whether or not this is more or less likely. You seem to be inventing statements and then challenging them. Why not respond to what I have written instead of what you wish I had written?

Unless you want to respond to the point I actually made(as opposed to the ones you think I made, or would like me to have)then there is little point in responding further.

For the record though. I do not know whether so-called paranormal phenomena exist. There is a great deal of well-attested evidence gathered over centuries to suggest they do. I have no personal direct objective evidence of such phenomena. I am not so arrogant as to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such phenomena occur just because I haven't witnessed it myself or because it doesn't conform to what science 'knows' today, or because I can't get my head round it.

[Harley]

Paul – I apologise if you thought that I was making any kind of personal attack on you, which was not my intent. When you said, “I have extensive first-hand and regular experience of Law courts over many years (read into that what you will LOL)” my point was an attempt to underline your own, namely that without enough information, no valid conclusions can be drawn. And yet most people do have a tendency to draw conclusions from virtually no information, hence a psychic saying, “I’m getting the letter J…” and the client responding, “Yes, that’s my uncle Jim – he died last year… etc.” You may well have extensive experience of Law courts, but I am not going to make any assumptions about you – the possibilities are endless. The content of a person’s posts is the most important thing, I think.

I also think there is no legal case anywhere in the developed world that has been decided on the basis of a psychic’s testimony that he or she has solved the case supernaturally. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

As for the Randi challenge, it requires agreement on both sides as to what conditions are acceptable for the test. You might be aware that Connie Sonne recently failed the challenge, even though she agreed to all the negotiated terms of the test. Predictably, after she failed, she has not just made the usual excuses, she has made accusations that the test was rigged and she was deliberately cheated. I watched it live, and I do not think she was cheated. She made a claim to powers that she could not produce, under conditions that she agreed would not hamper her attempt.

It’s pretty clear that personal testimony is going to be a sticking point here. Some people attach undue weight to it, and others give it no weight whatsoever. I don’t think I’ve accused you of making points that you have not made, but in your previous comment you worded your answer to me just like I would expect from a lawyer. (I’m not assuming you are, however)

Like yourself, I do not know that paranormal phenomena exist, but we will disagree that any evidence is well attested. I, too, do not dismiss it out of hand, but the probability is vanishingly small. I have had experiences that are weird, to say the least, but for most such experiences I have been able to find a solution, and for the ones I can’t explain, I suspend judgement. Assuming a paranormal explanation for something that has no obvious explanation is just an argument from incredulity.

Incidentally, I predicted earlier with regard to the case of the woman who was abducted as a child, that the psychics would start coming out of the woodwork. Have a look as this:

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/55677377.html

And do have a look at the comments there. There is a psychic, proclaiming herself in all caps. I think this is just the beginning of my (non-paranormal) prophecy coming true.

I contend that psychics can predict nothing, but they themselves are just so predictable. Here is a psychic who is trying to capitalise on other people’s tragedy and misery. Despicable, don’t you think?

[Paul]

Hi Harley

It depends what you mean by a 'valid' conclusion. I would agree that it is difficult to form a definitive conclusion based on personal testimony as there is always room for error. This does not mean there has actually been any error but it leaves the issue open.

I am not aware of any case resolved by psychic means. Interestingly though in the case of Helen Duncan she did offer to demonstrate her abilities to the Court and it was declined. This was particularly interesting as this was precisely the matter at question. It was also potentially a risky offer to make: either she calculated that they would not accept (there was no legal obstacle to the court accepting the offer) or she was deluded and convinced that the phenomena she could on occasion demonstrate were genuine, or she really could do it.

If the example you quoted (Connie Sonne) was based on an agreed protocol which Connie Sonne and Randi were prepared to conform to and she did not demonstrate the phenomena then I would agree that is a failure. It is however a failure of one person against a significant weight of historical record by some of the finest minds of their day.I know nothing about Connie Sonne or what she claimed and am not especially interested as my own interests lie in evidence of survival and not psi phenomena as such.

As to the weight of the historical evidence, I agree - you should give it whatever personal weight you deem fit. If however one dismisses it then it is important to explain why, other wise in effect one is saying "well that's my opinion and I won't explain it". This is fine of course but of little use to people who do not know us and therefore cannot assess the value of our opinion. I think suspension of judgement is a prudent and sensible position to adopt when the circumstances call for it. As to assuming a paranormal explanation being an argument from incredulity - this depends on the precise circumstances. If one starts by assuming that paranormal phenomena do not exist then clearly one could never accept it as a possible explanation. Without knowing the precise nature of the occurrences for which you have no explanation it is not possible to determine how reasonable a paranormal explanation might be.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't think your woodwork prediction is an indication of any nascent psychic powers :). Whether or not some people have the ability to predict events or demonstrate other such abilities I do not know.

If you are asking if a person purporting to offer comfort to the bereaved whilst knowing they cannot is despicable - of course it is. If the person truly believes they can do what they claim but cannot then this is mitigated somewhat and is sad but delusional. If however they can give the person genuine evidence and genuine comfort (as many have according to the numerous studies conducted and other reports) then this is a good thing surely? The difficulty is separating the wheat from the chaff. From your own viewpoint (and from mine too), the problem is that such third party reports will be valued from 'worthless' to 'interesting but not conclusive'.Even in these cases though if we intend to reject the account, it is incumbent on us to explain why. To reach a final personal conclusion I suspect one needs an objective personal experience of some kind under appropriate conditions.

My own experience researching individual mediums has varied from 'pathetic deluded' to 'interesting but not conclusive' so far. I do know people who have had completely conclusive experiences with mediums and these are people who I have no reason to doubt and in circumstances which make their testimony difficult to dismiss.

I will continue to be open-minded and consider what I see on a case-by-case basis.

[Harley]

Paul – validity in logical terms relates to deductive logic, not necessarily what most people would think of as the meaning of the word “valid.” In inductive logic, one would talk about “strong” vs “weak” arguments. But this is probably not the best place to go into that.

You mention Helen Duncan. I don’t have the time right now to dig out the relevant info, but the case you mention resulted in the repeal of the Witchcraft Act of seventeen hundred and (something…?). In turn, that was replaced with the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951. In the last year or so, that was ditched, and mediums, clairvoyants, etc., are now covered by ordinary trading laws. I suppose that is preferable for psychics, because the worst they face now is a visit from Trading Standards rather than the Inquisition and the prospect of being burned at the stake. I can, though, think of some people who would like to see a return to “the good old days.” A standard disclaimer now protects all psychics – real or not – from prosecution. Then again, does that make it OK for them all to be called frauds because they now have to state publicly that what they do is for “entertainment only”? The statement “entertainment only” implies that it is not real, and that they know it.

When Connie Sonne failed the Randi challenge, that did not prove that psychic powers do not exist. It did not even prove that she does not have the powers she claims. All it proved was that on that day, during that test, she did not manifest the powers she claims. Perhaps she can do it at other times. It was not conclusive proof that she is not psychic. All we can say for sure is that so far there is not a single case of any psychic ever proving definitively that he or she can produce psychic phenomena. And no, personal testimony will still not do it.

I suspend judgement when I have no answer to any particular conundrum. But many people experience things they cannot explain, and, being human, feel a need for an explanation. Hence, people in history invoking various gods to explain lightning and other natural phenomena they neither understood nor could explain. Any explanation was better than no explanation, even if it was wrong. Many people still have that mindset.

With regard to historical – or any other kind of evidence – the key word is “evidence.” People have a tendency to accept any handy explanation for something they do not understand. There seems to be a deep-rooted need in everyone for an explanation for things even if that explanation has no real basis. For some, a paranormal explanation comes to mind too quickly, when in fact it should be very low on the list of possibilities. Often, the reasoning goes: “I cannot explain this, therefore it is paranormal.” When I and my family started hearing moaning sounds at various times at home, I checked the plumbing before I thought of calling in an exorcist; some people do it the other way round. (It was the plumbing, by the way)

My “woodwork prediction” is always a safe one, and never needs psychic powers. I made a similar prediction here when Michael Jackson died, and, sure enough, the psychics came out in force. You might note that the psychics always appear after the event to try to jump on the publicity bandwagon. And, of course, the abducted girl stayed abducted until the police found her. I don’t need psychic powers to tell you that there will be other high profile stories in the media in the coming months and years that will also have psychics making claims after the event that they cannot substantiate. You will not find a case where any psychic solves a crime; there are many claims after the event, but I – and the believers – are still waiting for the first one that is proven true. When the next such case happens, if I claim to have known it all along, I’m sure you wouldn’t be foolish enough to believe me.

I disagree with you that it is incumbent on me or any one else to explain why we reject anyone’s anecdotal evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant, just as in a court of law it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove their case, not for the defendant to prove their innocence. Anything you can assert without evidence, I can reject without evidence.

My own experience of psychics and mediums ranges from useless to pathetic. One of them, in fact, made the local headlines when she was prosecuted for failing to declare her earnings for tax purposes. Closed due to unforeseen circumstances, as it were. I, too, know people who think their experiences are conclusive, but they are conclusive only to them, however sincere they are.

[Paul]

There isn't much I don't agree with there Harley. Save two points. It is not incumbent on you to explain why you reject a person's interpretation of something they observe. However if you don't explain why, it is of little value to anyone reading your comments. If you want rhetorical discussions that's the way to achieve them. It doesn't add much value to the debate though does it?

Post-fact explanations, unless documented are not of much, if any, value I agree. Unless the 'psychic' leads the investigators to the body/perpetrator - there seems to be some evidence of this having happened (you may of course choose to reject this).

This word 'evidence' seems to be a sticking point. I think what you are speaking of is corroborative evidence. This is very helpful but doesn't mean testimony isn't evidence (this is how we got started). I think I have made my point clearly enough -if you don't accept it that's your business. I think we have laboured the point enough.

Having said that though, if I assert I have witnessed something then this statement is evidence - I don't need to prove it unless I am trying to convince you of my explanation. If I can prove I witnessed it then it is corroborated and therefore stronger. Proving what we witnessed is virtually impossible unless it is something that can be reproduced. Even if others witness the same thing at the same time this has been dismissed as 'group hallucination' in the past (I am not saying it wasn't - I just don't know). In this case what it seems you are suggesting is that any observation which does not have a ready explanation which fits your model of the world must have such an explanation because your model is the correct one.

Finally; the moral character of a person is no indication of whether the have a particular skill or not. I hear Adolf Hitler was quite a good artist.Your comment about others' direct experiences being conclusive to them is correct without adequate supporting evidence.

[Breanainn]

I love group hallucinations. Robert Anton Wilson pointed out how bizarre (extraordinary even?) that particular "explanation" sounds (at least in some cases) when he said "try doing it, try saying 'hey, take a look at that light over there brighter than the sun' and see if anyone believes you" or words to that effect. ;)

Harley said: "Like yourself, I see no obvious way that the gap between the people on your side of the argument and the people on my side of the argument can be bridged. But at least we have been able so far to talk openly in a civil manner. I hope we can continue that way."

I really do think that it comes down to a fundamental difference in how we view the world. Ray Hyman has said "as a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people" and I think he's probably on the mark. It's a "reality tunnel" as Anton Wilson calls it that filters and frames everything you experience without you even knowing it. It's a disconcerting concept, and it often has me questioning my own biases and beliefs.

[Paul]

Breanainn

What we are prepared to accept as an explanation probably does boil down to our view of the world. However if we can show the same phenomenon to a large number of people and they can examine it and rule out possible causes then we will perhaps end up with the true cause and maybe even incontrovertible evidence.

The difficulty with paranormal phenomena is that they appear to be resistant to duplication, especially before confirmed sceptics (although in my own case I would describe my attitude as open-minded but of course that may just be my perception of my own state of mind!). It would appear in some cases (eg Wolpert -v- sheldrake) the sceptics actually manage to observe the same result but find some way to dismiss their own findings!

This apparent elusiveness of phenomena may be because they simply do not truly exist, or because they are affected in some way by the state of mind of the observer. There seem to be significant numbers of people who are convinced such phenomena occur and have had extended opportunities to witness them. My impression, and it may be unfair, is that many of the sceptics sit in armchairs and have never actually participated in investigations. They appear sometimes to simply criticise the research work of others, which is of course a lot easier than doing actual research in the first place.

[Breanainn]

Although there can be disagreements regarding what the data means if you do manage to produce it, I find it hard to believe that experiments are being sabotaged by skeptical mindrays. To me, it sounds like the sort of thing crap mediums come out with when they're with a sitter who (wise to potential cold reading) doesn't give them everything on a plate. I've had "you're blocking my connection to the spirit world, you need to BELIEVE!!" pulled out on me before.

Maybe there's something to the experimenter effect, apparently it might have been observed in some quantum experiments, but it still feels like a bit of a copout to me. If skeptics ARE conducting their experiments fairly (as they would attest) is it just simpler to induce that they're not finding anything because there's really nothing there rather than they're somehow neutralising whatever psi might be present? Or is this just question begging in assuming a phenomena must work the way we think it should before we accept it's existence?

[Paul]

I think before we accept its existence we should have sufficient evidence. This is basically what the discussion with Harley and others was about. It is a question of degree really, it appears to me anyway.

I agree that saying that 'mindrays' may affect the outcome sounds like a cop-out but attitude affects the outcome of many endeavours and since we do not know the extent of the contribution made by 'sitters' with mediums and at seances (assuming there is ever any evidential phenomena behind it at all) it may be unreasonable to dismiss it. Naturally you are entitled to your opinion.

I can't speak for others, but given a review of the historical record I think it is hard to dismiss it all as fraud and misunderstanding by people who looked at the phenomena without an open mind or were unable to properly assess what they were seeing. That again is my own opinion.

If we believe the phenomena don't exist then there is no need to explain how it might work, other than from a theoretical point of view. If we for a moment take the view of those who are convinced it does exist, but that it is by nature unpredictable, then there is no harm in considering what may make it so. One doesn't have to believe a thing or accept it is true in order to consider how it might work.