Paranormal Abilities: Genuine or Hoax?

Great Debates
1

I read that someone is offering a million dollars if someone could demonstrate some type of paranormal ability (telekenisis, physic, esp, magik, etc.) If you want to read the offer : http://www.randi.org./research/index.html

"To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests. "

But that does not necessarily prove that it is all a fraud or hoax, right? Although most mainstrean psychics and ppl claiming to possess an abnormal ability are a hoax, I belive true extrasensory abilities exist (I presume many of you do also). From what I’ve learned about the paranormal , such as in http://www.spiritonline.com to give a source for basing my opinions on, I learned that most ppl who demonstrate some type of strange skill do it for good and usu. in times of danger and emergency. You don’t use it to show off or for ur selfish gain(whether fame, money, or to do harm towards someone u loathe), otherwise, it might backfire. That’s probably why no one with true psychic ability took his offer.

And if you have watched that fox show “Beyond Belief:fact or fiction” you’ll notice that all the true stories involve life or death situations or to bring moral justice. It’s kinda of easy to figure out most the false one, if they have no moral lesson or are for evil purposes, etc.

So does anyone have an argument for why the paranormal may still be a duped phenomenon?

2

Because there is still mucho money to be made without satisfying Rand’s scientific criteria-
or to be generous,
if anyone is really capable of performing an action which cannot be explained by science, rigorous testing of that ability causes it to disappear.
Or that is what they always say.

(To be fair, there are several types of neurological dyspraxia where common place abilities disappear during stress- perhaps paranormal abilities are like that.)
(I personally don’t think so, but I, and even the Amazing Randi, could easily be wrong.)

3

I wouldn’t make that presumption. From my own observations, I’d say the vast majority of posters on the SDMB are highly skeptical of anything that can’t be proven by a chain of logic. Psychic abilities are way up there on the doubt-o-meter.

I’m not sure what you mean by “duped”, but in any case, the onus isn’t on us to provide arguments on why psychic abilities might exist, but on you to provide evidence that they do.

4

What about cases of miracles? Like on shows like “Beyond Belief: fact or fiction”, 20/20, and other claims?

5

The fact that something appears on television doesn’t exactly constitute evidence.

6

Winning the million dollars doesn’t have to be for selfish gain - the money could be donated to whoever the winner felt was most deserving. I assume that anonymity could be preserved by the testers if the winner didn’t want fame.

Not wanting money or fame is not a valid excuse for declining a test, since money and fame can be given away or avoided if the claimant chooses.

7

As has been mentioned in other threads, there is something suspect about a theory that restricts its own refutation.

Esentially, the theory proposed in this thread is that psychic phenomena exist, but (1) true psychics will not submit to testing; and (2) psychic phenomena do not present themselves under ordinary circumstances anyway.

How could anyone prove this wrong? And if there’s no way to prove it wrong, why should anyone take it seriously?

8

I’m skeptical about most paranormal claims. I do suspect that some people have better developed psychic and precognative abilities than others, but they are not necessarily the ones who are in the “psychic business.”

I do believe that if psychic abilities really do exist, someday there will be a scientific explanation for it.

Some of the women in my family appear to be highly intuitive about what is going on with other women in the family.

For a while I kept a dream journal. I dreamed about a Swedish ferry disaster a couple of months before one happened in the way I described it. That was as specific as I’ve gotten.

But until the scientific method can verify the existence of such phenomena, I’m going to assume that it is coincidence.

If you really think about it, everything that happens is a coincidence.

9

You are assuming science has all the answers, or can find them given enough time. Are you aware that science is just a collection of rules and methods written by man. The religious people believe the same about their Bible, it was all the answers, or can lead one to them. The Bible is a collection of rules and methods written by man. Is man not fallible, does he never make mistakes?

I don’t buy into either method, that is why we have free will to think on our own.

10

I follow a strict adherence to naturalism myself. As far as Randi’s money going anywhere, I don’t think it’s ever been as safe. Physicists have their own reasons of well established laws of why these things are probably impossible. Some will still investigate the claims, while others won’t bother wasting their time. Milton Rothman’s has a excellent book that applies the laws of physics to psychic phenomena, telepathy, and other pseudoscientific claims, and he explains in terms to show you just what the psychics are up against, and why the likelihood is about zero for any such phenomena existing. While science may not hold all of the answers, and it may not always give you the answer you was wanting, it does give plenty of answers.

**So does anyone have an argument for why the paranormal may still be a duped phenomenon? **

“A Physicist’s Guide to Skepticism” by Milton Rothman, Prometheus Books

And if you have watched that fox show “Beyond Belief:fact or fiction” you’ll notice that all the true stories involve life or death situations or to bring moral justice. It’s kinda of easy to figure out most the false one, if they have no moral lesson or are for evil purposes, etc.

That’s not a very good criteria to go by. It may make for a good story or show, but basing it on some moral justice doesn’t make it true or not.

JZ

11

One other tibbit I wanted to address:

You don’t use it to show off or for ur selfish gain(whether fame, money, or to do harm towards someone u loathe), otherwise, it might backfire. That’s probably why no one with true psychic ability took his offer.

Don’t kid yourself. They could donate the prize money, or better yet, I’m sure Randi wouldn’t have any objections to amending it to where they got zero if that is what the problem is, since having such high moral conscience maybe has kept them from participating. Let me know if you hear of any takers.

JZ

12

Do you mean that you’ve decided that most ppl who demonstrate some type of genuine paranormal psychic skill do it for good and usu. in times of danger and emergency?

What an interesting theory.
If someone took the test under the condition that his name not be released to the public and gave the money to starving, homeless babies? Would that eliminate the selfish gain element?

How did you come to this conclusion as to probability?

How would watching the Fox show enable me to make judgements about the valididty of stories about events that I didn’t witness?

What an interesting theory too.
It seems though, that if you accept the idea that stories about paranormal psychic abilities are necessarily false if they have no moral lesson or are for evil purposes, etc. there is still not a reason to decide that stories that have a moral lesson or aren’t for evil purposes, etc. are necessarily true.

Could you please rephrase this question? I don’t understand it very well. I thought that only people or creature capable of making a judgement could be duped. However,…
In relation to the title of this thread-
Since a definition of hoax is something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means I would have to vote that, (regardless of the existance of paranormal psychic abilities), paranormal abilities fall into the category of hoax because they have been established by fraudulent means.

13

This is what is so scary about post-modernist thought. Science is not like religion, scientific theories must be evaluated with regard to evidence. Religious dogma, by definition, cannot be evaluated or rejected with regard to evidence. It might sound awfully “wise” to say “they are all thought up by man and are fallible” but it is a pretty empty statement that brings no real intellectual rigor to the analysis. Science is an inductive method that has been our most sucessful approach to date in understanding the world around us. Its conclusions are always open to reevalution in light of new evidence provided that new evidence is valid and repeatable.

I suggest you read the rather huge Psychics thread in this forum, all of this has been picked to pieces many times before.

PS… TV shows are not a good source for paranormal evidence.

14

I also have noticed that most religious dogma I’ve ever seen is ** very **resistant to change.

I agree that wise should be in quotes. After the thought up by man and are fallible part the similarities start dwindling.

I think that this has already been suggested to Lekatt at least once.

15

Oops… I meant to direct that last part at the OP.

16

I believe a more useful operative description might be “wishful thinking.”

17

Applying this to the question asked in the OP, are you saying that we can arrive at an answer simply by thinking about it? How Platonic. It was Plato who posited that science was an ineffectual tool for learning, and insisted that knowledge could be gained simply by philisophical means. In other words, don’t study and scrutinize, just sit back and think about it.

Luckily for us, Plato died and science lives on.

18

Telepathy, ESP, precognition, metal-bending, giving uncannily accurate readings, blah blah blah… it’s all accomplished by perfectly normal, non-psychic means. My qualifiactions for saying so are:

  1. I’ve been professionally involved in this area for over 20 years.
  2. I’ve demonstrated all of the above and more in my stage shows and on TV numerous times (most recently for ABC Primetime last Hallowe’enwhen I duplicated the John Edward ‘hotline to heaven’ schtick)
  3. I’ve read hundreds and hundreds of books on all this, from every conceivable viewpoint.

It’s all bunk. You don’t have to believe that, and maybe you don’t want to, and I’m not asking anyone to agree with me. But it’s all bunk nonetheless.

Some stuff you might like to know…

If a ‘demonstration’ of psychic ability isn’t given under controlled experimental conditions, then it doesn’t prove anything. It could just be a trick, and I speak as one who knows how all the tricks are done and has demonstrated them lots of times.

Also, you have to factor in that every form of media is a filter. When you watch a TV show about a psychic, you aren’t necessarily getting any hard and fast facts you can rely on. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes to produce that show. You have no idea how the material was shot, what was left out, how the producer and the crew might have ‘helped’ certain sequences along to make them look better. The quest for ratings can lead to all kinds of distortion. Personality comes into it. If a producer is an arednt skeptic, he might go out of his way to make a TV show that rubbishes psychics. Equally, if he’s very pro-psychic, he can go out of his way to ‘fudge’ the show to present the strongest possible ‘evidence’ for psy power. You, the viewer at home, have no idea how selective and biased the material might be. It’s the same with print journalism.

So, what about evidence for psy gained under experimentally controlled conditions? First off, be aware that people have been trying to obtain good, control conditions evidence for psychic power for a long time. It got under way in the 1890s with the formation of the Society for Psychical Research in London (and the SPR is still going well today). Since then, a lot of research has gone on all around the world, and some of it very well-funded too. Guess what? No such evidence has been obtained. Seriously - none. Big fat zero. Most of the experimental research turns up nothing at all. Occasionally, a scientist claims that his research is different and has produced positive evidence for psi, but in every single case the evidence doesn’t hold up when subject to peer review, analysis and other boffins trying to replicate it. So, to reprise with greater accuracy:

It is true to say that there is no scientific evidence for psychic ability which was obtained under controlled, experimental conditions and which, having been subject to independent analysis, peer review and independent replication, is accepted as credible.

Please don’t fall for all the psychc crap you see on TV and in papers. It’s all bogus, and you could end up wasting a lot of time and money if you start paying these fakes to ‘help’ you. They’re just after your money.

Doing some reading around on the net. There are lots of good skeptical sources that will give you the facts behind the fakery. I highly recommend Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Society and their magazine, called ‘Skeptic’ unsuprisingly, which offers a wealth of delightful insight.

19

SimonX,

“What an interesting theory.
If someone took the test under the condition that his name not be released to the public and gave the money to starving, homeless babies? Would that eliminate the selfish gain element?”

“How did you come to this conclusion as to probability?”

you are right. someone already took his offer and remained anonymous. so it’s only a possibility that you are right.

20

Your post was very interesting, the only thing it lacks is proof.

Do you discount all controlled studies that have shown positive psi ability or just a few. Duke University studies have been showing psi abilities for decades. Even Randi admits to psi ability. I don’t believe anything you say.