# Psychics fail scientific test. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448 "2012-10-31T16:07:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/141 "2012-11-05T18:17:36Z")
I am faintly shocked to see this thread made it to four pages. I am _very_ shocked to see it did so without the intervention of some True Believer who joined yesterday. _… it’s taking longer than we thought._ ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/142 "2012-11-05T18:53:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Ooopsie! > > Although in my version, that paragraph ends with “the man in the yellow hat.” > > Okay, I don’t have King’s Quest V or the manual. I wonder if there was just some kind of glitch that would have allowed any word to be entered and accepted. If so, had I had gone with the first image that came into my mind at that time, the correct response would have been “beaver.” I looked at a couple of manuals for preceding and following titles in King’s Quest. Ctrl+F found no monkeys but in IV’s defense, many pages had boxes labeled Copyrighted Information so it’s possible there was something about a monkey. (But not probable. The page was about runes in a cave on a cliff.) ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/143 "2012-11-05T20:41:50Z")
[A direct link to the King’s Quest V manual.](http://www.sierrahelp.com/Documents/Manuals/Kings_Quest_5_-_Manual.pdf) It’s not been run through an OCR, so no control-f-ing, but the last word in the second paragraph on page 32 is indeed “problem”. To the best of my knowledge monkeys don’t feature in KQV, so I’m not sure why that word would be in the manual anyway, but who knows. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/144 "2012-11-05T22:28:52Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > To the best of my knowledge monkeys don’t feature in KQV, so I’m not sure why that word would be in the manual anyway, but who knows. Why would you end it with “who knows.”? Several of us have looked it up and there is no “monkey” in _any_ of the King Quest series manuals. So, **Shayna** , what’s up? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/145 "2012-11-05T22:36:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But _really_ seriously, when has this _ever_ happened in real life? It hasn’t. However, we don’t know why, and there are at least a couple possibilities (one of them very small): there are no psychics, or there are psychics and they don’t want to get experimented on. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/146 "2012-11-05T22:41:27Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > It hasn’t. However, we don’t know why, and there are at least a couple possibilities (one of them very small): there are no psychics, or there are psychics and they don’t want to get experimented on. If it ever happens in real life, I’ll consider it a factor. In the meantime, I’ll just view it as ill-thought-out excuse-“If I get tested, The Government will grab me…so I’m gonna keep a low profile by boasting about my abilities all over television and the internet.” ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/147 "2012-11-05T23:02:00Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Why would you end it with “who knows.”? > > Several of us have looked it up and there is no “monkey” in _any_ of the King Quest series manuals. > > So, **Shayna** , what’s up? So maybe she was remembering a different game. Or a different word. Or a different friend or time. But that doesn’t mean she’s wrong. It’s just you mean skeptics who are trying to make people doubt her. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/148 "2012-11-05T23:08:37Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > AFAIK, The James Randi Educational Foundation takes on all comers. No, they don’t. It’s a while since I’ve bothered logging on and having a good look round, but at least until a few years ago the JREF used to have a section of their message board devoted to correspondence with would-be applicants. It wasn’t terribly uncommon for people to be told that their claim was just too silly or subjective or dangerous or vague or whatever to be tested. > [@Latro](#): > > Why would you end it with “who knows.”? > > Several of us have looked it up and there is no “monkey” in _any_ of the King Quest series manuals. > > So, **Shayna** , what’s up? **Shayna** forgot the first rule of woo: True Supernatural Effects are not practically falsifiable. If any supposed supernatural effect is found to be false, that means it wasn’t a True Supernatural Effect. Consequently, the falsification of mere claimed supernatural effects does not hold any implications for the veracity of claimed True Supernatural Effects. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/149 "2012-11-05T23:21:20Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > No, they don’t. It’s a while since I’ve bothered logging on and having a good look round, but at least until a few years ago the JREF used to have a section of their message board devoted to correspondence with would-be applicants. It wasn’t terribly uncommon for people to be told that their claim was just too silly or subjective or dangerous or vague or whatever to be tested. There is a difference between an official response from JREF itself and an unofficial response from members of the message board. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/150 "2012-11-05T23:24:51Z")
I probably wasn’t clear. It was a sub forum devoted to releasing the actual correspondence between applicants and the JREF personnel who deal with them. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/151 "2012-11-05T23:35:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If it ever happens in real life, I’ll consider it a factor. In the meantime, I’ll just view it as ill-thought-out excuse-“If I get tested, The Government will grab me…so I’m gonna keep a low profile by boasting about my abilities all over television and the internet.” Oh, sorry, I wasn’t too clear on that… I also think the people claiming to be psychic are incorrect about it… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/152 "2012-11-05T23:43:02Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > . . . And, yes, there are such chemicals. Is it your suggestion that so-called psychics have an arrangement with a friend in an airplane, dispersing such chemicals overhead during Randi’s test? . . . > [@Colibri](#): > > . . . I have no idea why you might draw such a interpretation from my remark. . . . It was the best I could think of that rescued you from having posted a non-sequitur. > [@](#): > > How do you know his group refuses to bother with it? Has anyone ever approached them claiming to be able to dissipate clouds? Yes! They get a LOT of that. And they have said that they aren’t interested in assessing such claims. [Here is a reference](http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html), although a second-hand one: > [@](#): > > “Claims involving “Cloud-Busting”, for example, are rejected because Science (along with keen observation) tells us conclusively that clouds will move and disperse despite the efforts of humankind to move them according to their wishes.” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/153 "2012-11-05T23:44:49Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > AFAIK, The James Randi Educational Foundation takes on all comers. They had a “Breatharian” who claimed to derive every necessary nutrient by breathing. He was caught sneaking over to a Burger King during the multi-day test of his abilities. From the same source I quoted a moment ago: > [@](#): > > There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the “Breatharian” claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions… ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/154 "2012-11-05T23:53:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It was the best I could think of that rescued you from having posted a non-sequitur. It shouldn’t have been that hard for you to figure out. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/155 "2012-11-05T23:56:20Z")
The JREF forum I mentioned above still exists: [Challenge Applications](http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)forum. I recall from long ago for example a guy who claimed he would be able to make it snow using the power of his mind or something, somewhere in the south of the US on a particular day in midsummer. He got blown off by the JREF as being too silly and vague, which I thought was a bit of a cop out since I thought his claim was easily testable. The guy who ran the challenge applications for JREF in those days (Kramer) was a bit too impatient and short tempered for his role in my view, as I told him at the time. I recall also some woman who claimed to be able to influence the flickering of a candle flame with her mind. I think I recall that JREF suggested to her very strongly that she was wasting her time. Whether JREF actually refused in her case I can’t remember and can’t be bothered looking up. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/156 "2012-11-06T00:31:19Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > The JREF forum I mentioned above still exists: [Challenge Applications](http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)forum. > > I recall from long ago for example a guy who claimed he would be able to make it snow using the power of his mind or something, somewhere in the south of the US on a particular day in midsummer. He got blown off by the JREF as being too silly and vague, which I thought was a bit of a cop out since I thought his claim was easily testable. It wasn’t “blown off”-they couldn’t get him to stay focused long enough to submit a workable plan, even after many pages of effort. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/157 "2012-11-06T01:06:54Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > The JREF forum I mentioned above still exists: [Challenge Applications](http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)forum. > > I recall from long ago for example a guy who claimed he would be able to make it snow using the power of his mind or something, somewhere in the south of the US on a particular day in midsummer. He got blown off by the JREF as being too silly and vague, which I thought was a bit of a cop out since I thought his claim was easily testable. The guy who ran the challenge applications for JREF in those days (Kramer) was a bit too impatient and short tempered for his role in my view, as I told him at the time. Kramer was sadly not of the temperment for the job, and Randi standing by him was a bit too close to a ‘Heck of a job, Brownie’ moment. Alison Smith was much better at the job and was able to handle pre and post changes to the challenge. Sadly, she no longer works at that position - I have no idea who does, really. > [@](#): > > I recall also some woman who claimed to be able to influence the flickering of a candle flame with her mind. I think I recall that JREF suggested to her very strongly that she was wasting her time. Whether JREF actually refused in her case I can’t remember and can’t be bothered looking up. IIRC, the problem was that she said she could effect the direction 30% of the time, and that just wasn’t statistically good enough to quality. I think she just faded out after that. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/158 "2012-11-06T01:36:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It wasn’t “blown off”-they couldn’t get him to stay focused long enough to submit a workable plan, even after many pages of effort. I’m not sure that there is any important difference between me saying he was blown off for being silly and vague and you saying he couldn’t stay focused long enough to submit a workable plan. Anyway, I don’t really agree with your characterisation. That challenge was a low point in Kramer’s incumbency. There are a couple of whole threads devoted to it on the JREF forum if you want to see my views. I’m not going to rehash here concerning something that happened seven years ago. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > IIRC, the problem was that she said she could effect the direction 30% of the time, and that just wasn’t statistically good enough to quality. I think she just faded out after that. Yes, that sounds right. IIRC Kramer took the position that challengers needed to be able to simply do something, definitively. He wouldn’t accept for the challenge an ability to merely alter the odds of something happening. I don’t know if that is current policy or just a Kramerism, but if so it is quite limiting. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/159 "2012-11-06T01:55:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It shouldn’t have been that hard for you to figure out. NM ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448/160 "2012-11-06T01:57:52Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Yes, that sounds right. IIRC Kramer took the position that challengers needed to be able to simply do something, definitively. He wouldn’t accept for the challenge an ability to merely alter the odds of something happening. I don’t know if that is current policy or just a Kramerism, but if so it is quite limiting. I’m pretty sure it was policy as the figure given really was too low IMHO, but Kramer just wasn’t very good at getting people to focus, and tended to fly off the handle too soon if they didn’t get on with things. Smith encountered the same thing, but merely kept her head over the issue and didn’t fuss. If they couldn’t get around to a point she simply closed the file and told them to reapply once they got their shit together. Kramer had too much of a ‘OMG, I cannot \*\*\*\*\*\*\* believe this!!!’ when dealing with the more ‘unfocused’ whereas Smith had more of a ‘thank you, drive through’ attitude. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychics-fail-scientific-test/639448.md?page=9)