In an email, frequent commenter Roger Knights mentioned several areas in which psi has arguably been shown to be of pratical benefit (archaeology, police work, investment, finding oil deposits). Then he added:
Another way to help prove psi would be to issue Anti-Randi Prizes to skeptics who could match the performance of Joe McMoneagle, who annually (roughly) is videoed by Japanese TV correctly guessing the location of people who've been sent to random spots around NYC. Or who could match the performance of other psychic guessers in different challenges, in venues under the control of a team containing representatives of both sides, plus a couple of neutrals acceptable to both sides.
That's kind of a neat idea, isn't it?
Could a mentalist match the performance of a medium tested by Gary Schwartz or Julie Beischel under tightly controlled conditions? According to Schwartz, mentalists have turned down the opportunity to be tested in his lab, and one of them explicitly said he could not perform his act if restricted by Schwartz's protocols.
Could a skeptic, relying on general knowledge and lucky guesses, have the same success in guiding archaeological digs as Stephan A. Schwartz has had with his team of psychics?
The TV show The Mentalist depicts a fake psychic who solves crimes. Could a real-life mentalist be as helpful to a police investigation as psychic Noreen Renier, who has assisted on many cases and has been endorsed by the nation's leading expert in homicide investigation, Vernon Geberth?
The possibilities are endless. This could be a way to turn the tables on skeptics who are always using Randi's challenge (even with all its problems) as their trump card.
My grandfather was, for most of his life, the water commissioner for the town where I was born. Cleaning up the house after my grandmother's death, I found a pair of steel rod "L"s with the shorter legs in brass tube handles, and my mother explained that whenever the workers were unable to find a buried pipe or valve, they'd send for my grandmother, who apparently was infallible at locating them. All the time I was growing up this was never mentioned--it was just something she did that no one in the family thought was special enough to talk about. In spite of this, my parents are notably skeptical about this kind of stuff.
Posted by: Michael | July 12, 2011 at 09:43 AM
Hello,
It's been done before. Bertrand Méheust, in his history of métapsychique in France, talks about such anti-skeptic prizes.
Skeptically yours,
Posted by: Venom | July 12, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Michael and Roger, I think it's a great idea. I'd love to hear how a skeptic would respond to this suggestion. Seems to me, anyone who's confident that psi is hogwash would jump at this opportunity to prove it.
And you're right in bringing up Stephan A. Schwartz. His work in psychic archaeology, which involves true triple-blind experiments, provides stunning evidence for psi.
Venom, what happened with the anti-skeptic prizes that Bertrand Meheust wrote about it? You've got our curiosity up.
"it was just something she did that no one in the family thought was special enough to talk about."
Amazing--both her ability (which, of course, is duplicated by many others) and the family's reaction to it.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Yes, it is a neat idea, so lets get it on. I'm sick of these psuedo sceptics and their pathetic attempts to suppress psi.
Posted by: . | July 12, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Michael,
Indeed, great idea. The only trouble I perceive is that an actual psychic could claim to be, or actually be, skeptical, and then say, "Aha! It CAN be duplicated."
So I think the prize could not be "Can you duplicate this?" but "Can this be done?" In which case, yes, it could be done, and actual money would have to change hands.
The Randi Prize thing "works" because those in control make sure they always end up saying, "It was NOT done."
It comes down to the asymmetry of denying vs. proving.
Cheers,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 12, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Truthfully, this idea would work better as a publicity stunt than as an actual scientific experiment. But the same is true of Randi's million-dollar challenge.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 12, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Yes, put the skeptics on the defense! Imo, the best 'comeback' to those who claim that John Edward does nothing more than cold reading (eg, Randi) is to point out that neither Randi nor anyone else has been able to duplicate his 'cold reading' skill.
Some years ago, I saw an internet video of Randi on stage with a British woman who was to demonstrate 'cold reading', by randomly choosing an audience member and telling them arious facts about themselves. The woman was so bad it was embarrassing. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the video.
Posted by: PD | July 12, 2011 at 02:44 PM
"Truthfully, this idea would work better as a publicity stunt than as an actual scientific experiment."
If that's the case, do we really want to play the same game? Wouldn't that ruin the argument that it's the skeptics who resort to such manipulation?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 12, 2011 at 03:57 PM
Good idea.
I also want to say that, IMO, James Randi is irrelevant. He's been caught lying several times. Most of his "subjects" are never actually formally tested. And he routinely makes claims about being able to replicate certain phenomena that he is unable to follow through on.
Kent Hovind had a similar prize ($250,000) for anybody who could prove evolution. Nobody ever won the prize. Does that mean evolution is false?
Posted by: Pat | July 12, 2011 at 03:59 PM
When has he been caught lying?
Posted by: Kris | July 12, 2011 at 05:26 PM
When has he told the truth?
Posted by: Michael Duggan | July 12, 2011 at 05:46 PM
"When has he told the truth?"
Good line, Michael. :o) But Randi did tell the truth at least once.
He said that no matter what happened in the one million dollar challenge, he would always have an out.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 12, 2011 at 06:00 PM
Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html
More later.
Posted by: Pat | July 12, 2011 at 07:00 PM
There are some examples of Randi lying here:
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/james_randi.htm
Posted by: Vitor | July 12, 2011 at 07:52 PM
In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.
Really. See his comment in January 17th 2003:
http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html
My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since.
That's it.
Posted by: Vitor | July 12, 2011 at 08:12 PM
"Made an error"?? He said he "viewed the entire tape". That's not just "an error". He was lying.
Posted by: Pat | July 12, 2011 at 08:32 PM
According to Sheldrake, Randi did not "promptly admit it," but admitted it only after Sheldrake had backed him into a corner from which even the veteran escapologist couldn't escape.
Anyway, as Pat says, claiming to have viewed a tape when you haven't laid eyes on it is not merely an "error."
Randi also claimed (ludicrously) that he himself had carried out psychic dog experiments that disproved Sheldrake's results. This appears to have been another lie, inasmuch as Randi could provide no documentation whatsoever of these alleged experiments.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM
it's annoying that a skeptic like randi can make remarks that were flat out lies, or were descriptions of how it could be done, but NEVER carried out the actual experience, under the same condition, and then the rest of skeptics followed his words as facts while researchers like Sheldrake and Dean Radin not only had to do the actual research but to reiterate their methods over and over again to those armchair critics.
they can say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, but shouldnt they AT VERY LEAST make a darn effort on doing their own research rather than just take someone's word for it?
i mean, if someone as reputable as bruce greyson ever said, "i've shown that the consciousness exists without any brain activity thru my NDE research," wouldnt the first thing we (we as in like-minded people who have posted on this board) do is to read the research and we will never just take his words for it?
but again, u would hardly ever hear such definitive statement from these researchers who worked so diligently and with integrity.
kudos to them!
Posted by: TomC | July 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM
also, to defend one of my favorite shows, the mentalist, there were actually couple episodes that left the door open for the notion of afterlife even though the main character, the mentalist himself, repeatedly asserted to the audience that there's nothing after death.
i'm talking about the episodes with guest star leslie hope who played a medium and was a love interest of the mentalist at one point.
one specific example was at the end of one episode where she had a message for him about his daughter who died. she said that since their death, he had this question about his daughter, and that his wife wanted him to know that it happened really quick and she didnt feel anything.
so that's what kept me coming back to watching the show. if all else, he did pretty good job debunking charlatans.
Posted by: TomC | July 13, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Oh, here's a slam piece on Cracked.com that's pretty infuriating:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-psychics-need-to-stop-pretending-they-can-solve-crimes/
The writer gets POed because a psychic actually succeeded. Hmm...
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 13, 2011 at 12:51 AM
Hi, Michael,
According to Sheldrake, Randi did not "promptly admit it," but admitted it only after Sheldrake had backed him into a corner from which even the veteran escapologist couldn't escape
Where Sheldrake says this?
Posted by: Vitor | July 13, 2011 at 08:48 AM
I love the idea. It so neatly turns the tables.
I had a similar idea some years back that I tried to convince the Shroud of Turin people to do, of putting up a Randi-like prize for those who could duplicate the known characteristics of the Shroud.
What I really think we need is something analogous to CSICOP (I forget what their new name is), an organization whose purpose is to influence public opinion. We've got the science on our side, but not the PR. There's nothing like organizing to achieve an end.
Then our first project could be the Reverse-Randi Prize.
Posted by: Robert Perry | July 13, 2011 at 09:05 AM
"Where Sheldrake says this?"
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html
Okay, I phrased it more colorfully than he did, but my point was that Randi did not "promptly" admit to anything. Sheldrake:
"I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.
"I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply."
So he was put in a position where even his own board members were telling him he had to respond. Only then did he grudgingly admit to anything, and even then he tried to save face by making absurd claims about his own secret dog experiments. Not exactly the same as "I promptly admitted it."
See the link for more.
If you want another example of Randi lying, see my article on the SRI controversy, and pay particular attention to Randi's claims about the cameraman who filmed the tests.
http://michaelprescott.net/FlimFlam.htm
From the article:
"[Scott] Rogo writes, 'I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book [Flim-Flam!]. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged "expose" of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labeled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!)' Rogo also reports that Puthoff showed him Pressman's signed affidavit."
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 13, 2011 at 09:36 AM
Randi is generally clever enough to state things in such a way that others are left with an incorrect impression that is just not true (though Randi never quite says what was untrue) so that others lie for him. How many "skeptics" have confidently told me that project alpha involved his pet magicians successfully negotiating formal psi experiments by experienced researchers (the primary experimenters were new to psi research and had never spent any time in an established laboratory, and the "alpha boys" never performed a formal experiment -- the experimenters simply observed a series of demonstrations preliminary to them setting up a formal experiment -- when they brought their observations to a Parapsychological Association meeting, the inadequacies of their observations were -- at times rudely, I'm afraid -- pointed out and controls were suggested. When the controls were added, purported phenomena ended and Randi announced the hoax).
In more spontaneous circumstances, however, Randi has openly lied. [Sorry, Topher, I had to remove this part of your comment; I don't want to get into allegations about Randi's personal life - MP] A more explicit example just appeared at http://dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2011/7/Hoaxing-the-Hoaxer .
The clearest indication that a self-proclaimed skeptic is the exact opposite, is that they have any familiarity with Randi's history and believe that his word on any statement can be given any credence without independent confirmation.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | July 13, 2011 at 09:46 AM
Sorry, my post got truncated somehow [I fixed it - MP]:
...The Daily Blog (http://dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2011/7/Hoaxing-the-Hoaxer).
The surest sign that someone who claims to be a "skeptic" is the exact opposite, is that they have any knowledge of Randi's history and take anything he says as credible without independent confirmation.
(For the record, and given Randi's predilection for suing people for saying things he doesn't like, the statement about [ ... deleted by me to avoid getting into personal issues and legal controversies - MP] was from memory and I invite people to check the facts and if I have misremembered some detail I will be glad to retract and apologize for the error -- nobody should take anything that I or anyone else says, particularly about so sensitive an issue, as true without checking the facts for themselves).
Posted by: Topher Cooper | July 13, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Unfortunately, the "skeptics" have the semi-legitimate "out" of claiming that their lack of the level of skills to pull it off doesn't mean that others don't have them. They also have the more debatable "out" that those enforcing the controls would be stricter with them knowing that they are "frauds" and that the relationship is openly confrontational.
In fairness I have seen many cases of "exceptional subjects" violating protocols without the experimenters being aware of it -- even when they view the videos themselves. That is an important part of the art of being a magician. It is why I disagree with Stephen Braud and consider the lower level of phenomena obtained from groups of non-special subjects as being much better evidence than all the old seance room mediumistic phenomena combined.
Of course, Randi has repeatedly claimed that he personally could reproduce this or that phenomena under the same conditions but never, to my knowledge, actually demonstrated this. That is a different claim entirely than that someone could have used non-paranormal techniques to produce the phenomena.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | July 13, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 13, 2011 at 01:49 PM
Good comment. Filtering out the fakes from reality should be the only goal.
Posted by: Dave | July 13, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 13, 2011 at 02:02 PM
There are many shut-down Rust Belt factory sites containing buried pipes and electrical cables in their yards, rail sidings, parking lots, etc. The location of these would be documented in blueprints of the owner (in many cases) and could be verified with 15 minutes' worth of jackhammer drilling.
I suggest that scoftics be allowed to:
There could be dozens of "episodes" involved, using different sites, different dowsers, different testers, and perhaps somewhat different protocols. E.g., perhaps a utility company or city department could be “loaned” a dowser for a week or a month to see if he could really help it find buried pipes and cables. The “test” would be if it offered to hire him or put him on a retainer as a consultant afterwards.
These episodes would make great TV!!
Afterword: It’s puzzling why dowsers failed Randi’s test. All I can think of is that they can’t detect items that have been recently buried. From a psychic point of view, there’s some plausibility in that “out.” I.e., it could take a while for a buried item to make an imprint on the earth’s psychic “field.”
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 13, 2011 at 02:40 PM
Here's a longer version of my "COPSI Challenge" suggestion, which I posted as a comment about a year ago on Dean Radin's site (or somewhere similar):
---------
I notice that Randi was referred to above as a showman. Instead of gnashing our teeth about the razz-ma-tazz effectiveness of his Million Dollar Challenge, let's put on our carny-hat and devise an equally effective Anti-Randi Challenge.
Here's how I envisage it. Members of CSICOP would be challenged to attend simple tests of psychic ability involving psi-talented subjects guessing about ping-pong-balls, Zener cards (ideally color-coded), being stared at, etc., and to bet against their achieving over-chance results. At the end of a series of trials, each "hit" above the range of chance (one standard deviation, say) would take something out of their hide; each "miss" (within that range, or below it), would win them something.
If skeptics wound up getting stung on balance, or if they chickened out, it would wrench away JREFers’ right to say, "Nyah-Nyah, you couldn't pass the test" and bestow it on our side. E.g., we could challenge any obnoxious online skeptic to attend a psi-test and put his money where his mouth is.
Details:
CSICOP member(s) would be involved in designing the test set-up, and ideally also in overseeing the circumstances of each test.
If stricter controls were requested, such as a body-scan of participants or use of a Faraday cage, skeptics would have to pay for them, being recompensed if the guessers failed under those conditions.
Closed-circuit TV, which is available on many campuses, should be employed where available to eliminate data leakage and prevent skeptics from having an "out."
Challenge-tests could be sponsored by one or more parapsychological organizations on a quarterly basis (say). (More frequent tests would be an imposition on psi-gifted subjects.) And/or perhaps psychology professors could oversee demonstrations on-stage in their school auditoriums.
Bettors could select the "chip size" that fits their means, up to some upper limit. If anti-gambling laws were a problem, losses and winnings could be pledges to CSICOP (if the skeptic won) or IONS (say), or play-markers like donuts could be used.
These events could be televised (broadcast and/or streamed on the Internet) and archived on YouTube.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 13, 2011 at 02:52 PM
OT: Here's a neat title for a book of accounts of NDE's: Back from the Bourne.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 13, 2011 at 03:16 PM
Would be a good idea if a psi proponent who could fund this. The challenge would bring in a lot of mentalists probably claiming they could do what a real medium can. Actually come to think of it probably not.
Posted by: Leo | July 13, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Although I think that debating the evidence with skeptics is good I sometimes think that maybe the community should move to deciding what to make of the evidence we have.
I wanted to ask you, Michael, precisely about this. I've seen some posts where you move towards an explanation of the phenomena which describes the events as arising from the unconscious elements of living minds. This goes for NDEs, OBEs, mediumshp.. at least this is what I take from your posts. At other times you seem to tend more towards a survivalist position. To which interpretation doyou tend to these days?
Its a theoretical framework I'd like to see debated more ;P
Posted by: cvrsed | July 13, 2011 at 05:06 PM
I have moved through all the various stages, starting out as a skeptical atheist when I was younger. The thing that finally put me on the "right" track of inquiry was the recognition of the possibility that it simply wasn't possible that everyone who claimed to see a UFO was lying, especially given who some of those people are. This spread out to a lot of other reading on fringe topics, culminating in my current run on spiritualist stuff. Along the way I tried to synthesize some sense out of all the disparate info that's out there, and have done that to the extent of my personal need for plausibility.
I mention this because I have experienced both sides. I'm pretty sure that belief in this kind of stuff isn't something you can force-feed people. They have to come to it through their own path, in their own time. All the evidence in the world (and when I started looking I discovered that there's more than enough evidence already, IF someone is willing to hear it) isn't going to change someone who doesn't want to change; addiction to false world views is no different than any other addiction.
The problem is ignorance, but the ignorance is willful. More data is not going to change that, since there's already plenty of data. In that perspective, more, better experiments are not the answer, because they will be ignored, just as all the previous ones are.
So, does anyone here have any NEW ideas?
Personally, I think this is a battle that is won one person at a time, working one-on-one with people who aren't dead-set stupid, and that's what I've been trying to do. It's been enlightening to me how many of my friends are open to rational discussion about these things, too. Just recently I did a little net check of the perceived meanings for not throwing "pearls before swine", and the common Christian view seems to be that you shouldn't waste your energy trying to convert those who aren't open to it. I think it's time to stop letting the skeptics frame the debate on their terms, to stop trying to use their own type of materialist-styled proofs against them, and to work individually with those who really are open-minded, not those who refuse to be.
People here who think that Randi and his friends just need one good solid-gold triple-blind study to change their opinions need to go wash out their brains with strong soap and come back to reality. In my opinion. :-)
Posted by: Michael D | July 13, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Michael D said:
"addiction to false world views is no different than any other addiction"
Good point!
"So, does anyone here have any NEW ideas?"
There ARE no new ideas. :o) Just some good ones we need to focus on more.
"Personally, I think this is a battle that is won one person at a time."
I completely agree, though I'm not sure "battle" is the right word. That sort of attitude can get people's guards up and strengthen the old paradigm rather than ushering in the new.
One thing I like to stress is the importance of one's own personal experiences. I started a thread over at the Skeptiko forum on how to prove to yourself that psi is real, based on the precognitive dream experiment described by J W Dunne in An Experiment with Time.
That experiment was a game-changer for me back in the 90's. But of course, I was quite open to the possibility of psi at the time. Just needed that final shove.
As you said, materialism is an addiction. And if you're a materialist who's not going through a personal crisis, or at the very least, aware of deeper needs that aren't being met, maybe there's little chance you'll be open to change.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 13, 2011 at 07:01 PM
"People here who think that Randi and his friends just need one good solid-gold triple-blind study to change their opinions need to go wash out their brains with strong soap and come back to reality. In my opinion. :-)"
Agreed. The folks at the Windbridge institute, for example, have done meticulous work providing evidence for mediumship under quintuple blinded conditions. It doesn't make any difference to the skeptics. Creating dialogues with the general public who are interested but uninformed (the recent Through the Wormhole on the sixth sense is an excellent example) is a way forward and helps to expose dogmatic skepticism as a lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Michael Duggan | July 13, 2011 at 07:20 PM
I was an atheist at age 13. I wasn't just a rebellious twerp: I read skeptical books, learned the arguments for atheism (most of which I still agree with; I'm a non-monotheist), and I had the same arrogant, mocking, "skeptical" attitude that we have to deal with all the time.
I was an atheist for a darn good reason. To a smart person, it really is the "best" and easiest belief system. Nothing is cleaner. All that "stuff" is lies, superstitions, and chicanery, and anyone who believes it is a credulous idiot.
The fly in the ointment is that the belief system does NOT match the facts. Through in personal experience of psi and the paranormal, and you've got an atheist who is no longer an atheist.
Yet, whenever I tell an atheist, "I was once like you. I have great sympathy for why you believe as you do," I never hear, "Oh yeah, man, thanks. I get why you believe, too. We're cool."
No way! No meeting of the minds allowed! It's the same mockery and derision as always.
Not sure if I read it here or where, but I truly believe that a big part of the explanation is that a lot if not most of these people are Asperger's or worse with some pretty severe social and even psychological limitations. They are almost by definition psi-blind, and they take their lack of experience as proof that others must be lying or deluded about their experiences. They show a pathological inability to empathize with others who have had experiences and try to make sense of them and fit them into their own vision of the world.
In a word, they are, mostly, broken misanthropes who deserve as much compassion as anger.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 13, 2011 at 11:38 PM
"I've seen some posts where you move towards an explanation of the phenomena which describes the events as arising from the unconscious elements of living minds.... At other times you seem to tend more towards a survivalist position. To which interpretation do you tend to these days?"
I lean toward the survivalist view. I think it fits the evidence better. If there is no survival, then there must be a rather bizarre ongoing "conspiracy" on the part of our collective unconscious to fool us into thinking that survival is a fact.
Regarding materialism, I think there are valid reasons for people to hold that view, and I wouldn't stigmatize them for it. Psychologizing is a two-edged sword; those who disagree with us can undoubtedly come up with armchair diagnoses of our emotional problems, too!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 14, 2011 at 05:55 AM
OTOH, *some* materialists are just jerks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 14, 2011 at 06:18 AM
Actually that is pretty funny Michael.
Posted by: Kris | July 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Yes, I should have made it clear that it's only the hard-core skeptics who are misanthropes. There are many atheists who believe as they do and are not dogmatic in their positions.
By the way, the skeptics can and do psychologize us already. Don't they deserve to have the "tables turned" in this way too?
I'm being unsubtle, admittedly.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Oh, read the link. Yeah, funny!
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM
What can be proved by this approach? A skeptic would not match the performance?
That demands that a skeptic is not psychic, but, according to many, almost everybody is.
Therefore, this proposal is 100% nonsense. How about some thinking, I just wonder...
Posted by: uneulv | July 14, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Uneulv,
Yes, I pointed out the same thing. An avowed skeptic might actually have psychic ability, do just as well as another psychic and be able to say, "Hahaha, I PROVED that you don't have to be psychic to do this!"
And the skeptics would crow about it for a hundred years.
Cheers,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 14, 2011 at 03:09 PM
My COPSI Challenge isn’t intended to convert any scoftics, but to wipe the smirk off their faces and prevent them from using Randi’s Challenge as a trump card. It’s pushback.
Open-minded people will wonder and ask why our side hasn’t passed Randi’s Challenge. We need a comeback—a counter-challenge--to cancel-out its rhetorical effectiveness.
Here are two other pushback measures our side needs:
A counterpoint site to Carroll’s Skeptics’ Dictionary site, which mirrors its layout and rebuts or takes the edge off its claims.
A debunk-the-debunkers anthology consisting of book-extracts and essays like MP’s “Why I Am Not a Skeptic,” Winston Wu’s stuff, etc. (This could become a multi-volume series.) It would sell well as a $3 kindle book, and provide a bit of royalty-revenue to the contributors. Suggested title: No Fool Like a Wise Fool.
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 14, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Scoftics claim that many psychic feats are either attributable to cheating (confederates in the audience, for example, or loose controls) or to “cold reading.” IOW, they imply or state that a feat attempted under their control either could not be accomplished, or could be matched by a magician or mentalist. Well, my anti-Randi Challenge puts that claim to the test.
Not according to any scoftic. If they want to change their tune to avoid defeat in this battle, they’ve lost the war.
But if he matches a psychic’s performance he’d be performing at above-chance levels, which he and CSICOP couldn’t explain away. In addition, his claim that he only accomplished something ordinary would raise the objection, “Then why can’t another scoftic match your performance?”
Incidentally, a situation like this actually occurred, and the successful scoftic did make such a claim, but very timidly, because he knew it sounded feeble. I.e., Michael Shermer attended one of Houck’s spoon-bending parties and managed to fold the bowl of a spoon—something no non-musclebound human can do without the aid of PK. This was “caught on videotape” (it’s on YouTube somewhere), and his wry smile as he held up his spoon was something to behold.
He tried to explain it away by saying that his adrenaline level must have been elevated. But that is easily disposed of by the fact (I presume) that people who are injected with adrenaline still can’t bend such bowls. Or they can do so only with a lot of straining and position-shifting to employ leverage and reduce discomfort, none of which successful party-participants exhibit.
(And I suspect that testing successful party-participants would show their adrenaline levels to be only slightly elevated.)
If Shermer were really curious about proving his explanation correct, and disproving spoon-bending for good, he would volunteer to be injected himself and “show the world” on videotape or live TV.
But he may feel that he’s entered the twilight zone and:
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 14, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Very interesting, Roger Knights. I see what you mean now. If WE imposed the controls and WE were confident that no cheating was taking place, then a skeptic who succeeded would either have to say,
1) I don't know how I did it, which would be lame
2) Or reveal the actual cheating method, which in theory we could prove false if we were in control of the experiment.
Yes, quite a nice idea.
Cheers,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 14, 2011 at 07:32 PM
Venom,
Bertrand Méheust, in his history of métapsychique in France, talks about such anti-skeptic prizes.
Where exactly? In an article? In a book? Is the material online?
Posted by: Vitor | July 15, 2011 at 06:19 AM
Our side could be confident in an absence of cheating even if we weren’t the only ones in charge. Design & oversight of psychic tests should include representative “skeptics.” (That’s one of Randi’s not-bad ideas, although he doesn’t think it’s good for the gander; i.e., he doesn’t allow the involvement of believers in the design and evaluation of HIS test, which weakens its legitimacy—or ought to.) Here’s my quote on the matter, from the top of the thread:
This raises a more general point: Investigation of ALL (or nearly all) allegedly anomalistic phenomena requires involvement by both sides (plus neutrals as a buffering agent), because each side distrusts the other so deeply. The adversery method of conventional science is fruitless, because it is based on an assumption of a modicum of good faith and competence by the participants.
Another clarification: The Anti-Randi Challenge comes in two flavors:
1. “Can your side match this?” This flavor would be preferred for performances that are hard to judge numerically, such as remote viewing, psychic archaeology, crime-solving, “mediumship,” etc.
2. “Care to place a wager?” This flavor would be the choice when psychics claim they can “beat the odds” in guessing about things with computable odds like ping-pong-balls, Zener cards (ideally color-coded), being stared at, transmitting images (ganzfield tests), locating hidden pipes and cables, etc. This flavor would involve less “overhead” and should be tried first.
Incidentally, psychics would win only if their results exceeded chance levels by some reasonable margin, and scoftics would win if the psychics performed below chance levels at all. This biases the setup in the scoftics’ favor and gives their side an edge, making it hard for them to credibly decline. (Performances in between chance levels and the above-chance-margin level would count as draws.)
Of course, there could be betting involved in first-flavor testing too. (E.g., bets that a scoffing “mentalist” like Daren Brown could or could not match a “genuine” medium.)
Randi’s test sets the bar very high, at above-chance levels of 1000-to-1 for the preliminary test, and a million-to-one for the ultimate test, because passing it would be amount to “scientific proof” of a very extraordinary claim. E.g., it would amount to guessing the serial number on a hidden dollar bill.
But, just because psychics can’t reach the “extraordinary proof” level of accuracy doesn’t mean “there’s nothing to it” or “it’s been disproved,” which is what the Randi-bots claim or imply. That’s a non sequitur. If there were truly “nothing to it,” then psychics couldn’t “beat the odds” and/or outperform a non-psychic at various lower-bar tests. This middle zone of outperformance is what Randi’s test implicitly excludes from consideration, but to which attention must be paid. Because that’s where we have the edge. And where the truth is to be found. (And where there’s money to be made!)
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 15, 2011 at 10:55 PM
The idea of a believer/skeptic quota for conducting experiments seems silly to me. I just don't see any point to giving skeptics like Randi the time of day, let alone the kind of acknowledgement including them in some kind of testing would bring.
I think the prudent thing to do is to ignore the "skeptics" and publish good work using rigorous scientific protocols. Yeah, I know, the skeptics are a bug up believer's butts. I don't see how resorting to their tactics brings us up a level. It's more like dropping down to where they are.
Posted by: Sandy | July 16, 2011 at 05:41 AM
I don't see a problem with involving sceptics provided they are prepared to be honest. Sir William Crookes started off as a sceptic.
Posted by: Paul | July 16, 2011 at 06:12 AM
Randi and the people involved with the MDC have a long track record of dishonest behavior. My understanding is that they are the "skeptics" being addressed in this thread.
If you are looking for an honest, true skeptic... well that could (and should) be anyone in the scientific community, including people who call themselves parapsychologists. Good scientific methodology suggests a skeptical attitude to begin with, so there is no need for the adversarial "skeptics vs believers" approach.
Posted by: Sandy | July 16, 2011 at 07:05 AM
Sandy said:
"I don't see how resorting to their tactics brings us up a level. It's more like dropping down to where they are."
"Good scientific methodology suggests a skeptical attitude to begin with, so there is no need for the adversarial "skeptics vs believers" approach."
Beautiful, Sandy! I love both of those comments.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Thanks, Bruce! :)
Posted by: Sandy | July 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM
I agree Sandy though I am not sure whether pure parapsychologists would be considered scientists by all. I think you are right that the adversarial approach isn't helpful. In legal matters at least, I think it can make the truth more difficult for the observer to see clearly.
Posted by: Paul | July 16, 2011 at 05:41 PM
If someone is using proper scientific methodologies, they are behaving as scientists. Why would a parapsychologist be anything less just based on his/her designation as a parapsychologist? Are chemists more "scientific" than theoretical physicists? Is there a quality scale of scientificness that no one bothered to tell me about as an undergrad?
Posted by: Sandy | July 16, 2011 at 06:02 PM
Sandy, yes, you did miss the lecture:
http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm
Posted by: Michael D | July 16, 2011 at 07:28 PM
:D
Posted by: Sandy | July 16, 2011 at 07:38 PM
I'm long past "is it real." It's so tiresome. It's like arguing about the color of grass or the sky. Everyone can read the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind.
It's like two little kids sitting in the back seat of station wagon sticking their tongues out and yelling back and forth at each other "tis" .... "tis not". You just want to reach back there and tell them to shut up.
Posted by: Art | July 16, 2011 at 09:04 PM
I basically agree with you, Art. The argument has been going on for centuries -- probably for thousands of years. For all we know, there may have been a caveman who believed in an afterlife, and a guy in a neighboring cave who thought it was all hooey, and they would argue about it after a mammoth hunt.
At some point it's best to simply agree to disagree with those who hold a very different worldview. After all, it would be a dull world if we all agreed on everything ...
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 16, 2011 at 11:56 PM
The trouble with the sceptical materialist crowd is that their objections now look more and more desperate. There is just so much evidence it's an impossible agenda to maintain.
There's a game for children that requires them to smack little pop-up creatures on the head with a mallett, the creatures appearing all over the board and coming up faster and faster.
That's how I picture the battle.
Posted by: . | July 17, 2011 at 03:19 AM
Hi Sandy
I take your point however it depends what you mean by 'scientist'. I use mathememtical principles in my work but I would hesitate to call myself a mathematician. I have qualifications in computer science but wouldn't consider myself a scientist. I also apply legal principles but I am not a lawyer.
The point I was making was that at one point at least, psychology and i guess by association parapsychology, was not recognised as a scientific discipline. It is just a question of semantics I guess. I don't think it alters the point you were making. I am just trying to qualify what you mean by the 'scientific community'.
The point Art made about simply looking at the evidence before making a judgement is IMHO spot-on. I am astonished at how many can make dogmatic assertions without having done much or indeed any research.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2011 at 03:59 AM
"There's a game for children that requires them to smack little pop-up creatures on the head with a mallett, the creatures appearing all over the board and coming up faster and faster."
----------------------------------------------
LOL! It's called "Whack a mole." Great analogy.
Posted by: Art | July 17, 2011 at 03:41 PM
Thankyou. :-)
Posted by: . | July 18, 2011 at 02:53 AM
"I don't see how resorting to their tactics brings us up a level. It's more like dropping down to where they are."
----------------------------------------------
I pretty much agree with Sandy here. While I admit that it would be kind of interesting to see the tables turned on the pseudo-skeptics, it really wouldn't help us in the long run.
The way I see it, people like James Randi and others who hold up the pseudo-skeptic banner are actually their own worse enemies. Randi has been caught lying numerous times about different cases and will eagerly suppress evidence and other facts when talking about different cases so his readers won't know the whole story. Since he is such a public figure for pseudo-skeptics, these actions only make them look worse.
Also, someone who is entirely new to studying the paranormal can just look at some of the people on each side and see which ones are more credible based on their credentials. For example, let's compare Gary Schwartz and James Randi. Schwartz is a graduate of Harvard University and has received a PhD and was a professor of psychiatry and psychology at Yale University. Randi, on the other hand, dropped out of high school at the age of 17 and became a magician in a carnival roadshow.
If this was the only background information you knew about either of these individuals and each of them told you their opinions on the paranormal, which one would you believe? The college professor with the PhD or the high school drop-out magician? Now, I'm not saying that people who didn't finish high school or don't have a college degree can't be experts in the field, but if you were to look at things on face value alone, most intelligent people would side with Schwartz because of his education and credentials.
Like I've already said, I think pseudo-skeptics are their own worse enemies. If we were to do things like an "Anti-Randi Challenge", we would just be stooping down to their level and hurting ourselves in the long run.
However, I will repeat that it would be very interesting to see them try and recreate some of the evidence. They love to say it is so easy to do, but when asked to do it, the refuse to. By refusing to do something you say is so easy to do, it makes it look like you are hiding something, which is never a good thing to look like when you want people to believe you.
(How, I didn't mean to type out a long-winded comment as my second comment on this blog).
Posted by: Cody | July 22, 2011 at 02:18 AM
I agree with you, Cody, in that seeing them try to recreate some of the evidence would be interesting. I once had someone tell me that spinning a pinwheel inside a sealed jar could easily be explained by convection currents after he had seen a video of me spinning such a wheel inside a sealed jar.
Now, to be fair to the guy, at least he didn't accuse me of cheating somehow. He was quite convinced that the effect he saw on the video was easily explained by convection. So I asked him to repeat the demonstration and make his own video to show me how it worked. I said I would be quite happy to have someone demonstrate the same effect so that it would all makes perfect sense to me.
Instead of showing me how simply things could be explained and making a video for me, the man got angry and actually logged off of that forum for good. Before leaving, he accused me of using the forum to promote delusional thinking.
It wasn't a very logical response, was it? If he had truly been correct, why not make a video to show me the error of my ways? But he wouldn't even entertain the thought of doing that (as far as I know, it is possible that he tried and failed). I was supposed to accept his explanation on faith, even though I didn't expect him to take mine on faith. I'm doing experiments to figure things out for myself.
Posted by: Sandy | July 22, 2011 at 05:49 AM
"Instead of showing me how simply things could be explained and making a video for me, the man got angry and actually logged off of that forum for good. Before leaving, he accused me of using the forum to promote delusional thinking."
--------------------------------------------
For some weird reason, this tends to be the reaction that some pseudo-skeptics have (I say pseudo-skeptic because I don't want to compare open-minded skeptics like myself with people like Randi) when asked to perform the acts they claim are so easy to fake.
I can actually think of a few reasons why they tend to act like this. 1) They, like you said, might have tried and failed, so they refuse to post anything because they are afraid of damaging their pride, 2)They believe by trying to re-create these events, they will fail and only strengthen their "enemies", or 3) They won't re-create these events because they believe they don't have to.
I just find it rather annoying how these pseudo-skeptics say they can mimic events perfectly, but will never actually deliver on these statements. While I dislike Randi, I at least have to respect him for actually trying to perform a cold reading, even thought it ended up an utter failure wouldn't have convinced anyone if it was actually put on TV (at least, in my opinion anyway).
So, until they are actually willing to deliver on their claims, I think I'm going to stick with the people who have had actual experiences (like you Sandy), and scientists and researchers who have run tests and studies.
Posted by: Cody | July 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I'm sure we all have errors in our belief systems in this life and that we will all become enlightened once we enter the Light. Perhaps it will even be somewhat fun when we find out just how much what we once believed diverges from the actual truth?
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 24, 2011 at 07:45 AM