The Skeptics Association (CSICOP) claims to have countered and disproved every piece of evidence put to them suggesting the existence of paranormal phenomena. James Randi and the boys have dissed psycho, tele, every kinesis known to man. But, if there was one thing left that scares them a little, one thing that seriously comes close to forcing them to part with their money, what would it be? They offer thousands of dollars to anyone who has proof of the supernatural. Is there anything CSICOP has given the slightest credence to?
James Randi claims to have a challenge to the masses. He has a single word written on paper sealed in a glass container in his home. Any psychic that can tell him the correct word can claim a cash prize. I believe at one time the prize was 10 grand? No one has claimed it so far, I don’t know if anyone has actually tried. I don’t know if there is a control process by an outside concern to verify the attempt. If not what would keep Randi from just saying “nope, that ain’t it”? The fear of getting it wrong is enough to thwart attempts by people not wanting to lose credibility in the psychic community. Assuming there is credibility in the psychic community.
G. Nome said:
First, some clarification. James Randi has not been officially associated with CSICOP for some time now. He now runs the James Randi Educational Foundation ( http://www.randi.org/ ). The million-dollar prize for proving a paranormal phenomenon is from Randi, not CSICOP.
Now, on to your question – there has not been any paranormal phenomenon that, to my knowledge, “scares” Randi – or the folks at CSICOP, for that matter.
As for what they give credence to – the scientific method.
Just for the record, I think they have made some tentative statements that lean towards acceptance of kinesis by touch, magnetism, and gravity. 
Like everyone else who responded before me, I don’t know of any supernatural phenomenon they’ve found evidence to support.
There are, of course, plenty of unexplained natural phenomena that aren’t a problem for skeptics because they don’t require a rewriting of the basic laws of physics.
I understand how scientific methodology is based on objectivity, replicability and generalisation and I believe science and scientists are the world’s greatest antidotes to mental instability. But because I’m not trained in science I’ll always be receptive to paranormal ideas to a certain extent. If there is one thing, in my opinion, that comes close to being paranormal it’s the ability of autistic savants. A levitating chair would have a claim on being a supernatural event because that trangresses the laws of physics. But why not say that autistic savants trangress the laws of neurology?
G. Nome:
Because they don’t? Just because a savant can do things you and I can’t do doesn’t mean they’re doing something beyond the capabilities of the brain. Most autistic-savant “tricks” like calendar calculation and instant retrieval of large primes can be done by many (otherwise normal) people as well. So why invoke the paranormal?
FIVE: Well, knowing that the brain, the mind and consciousness are yet to be fully understood I suppose I had hoped you would say well, the brain, the mind and consciousness are yet to be fully understood but when they are, autistic savants will become demystified. Because that sort of argument from a skeptic always sounds weak. Thank you for answering. Even though I do strongly believe in science as an antidote to mental instability I believe also that in balance with the exteriority of the physical world there is an interiority which cannot be denied and that perhaps some forms of so-called mental illness are adaptive. It wouldn’t be that wrong to hope, for instance, that deaf shepherd boys of the 6th century did have a rich imagination to draw off of or that prisoners in solitary confinement have a resilience of mind that comes from a pragmatic approach to schizophrenia.
Well, since that ruined any vestiges there might be of my mental health reputation could you answer this CISCOP related question about coincidences? It will make this the longest post I have ever done but here goes:
I used to work with a guy who was a fantastic amateur artist and when my brother’s 21st birthday came around he agreed to produce a card for me with original artwork. He had never seen my brother and the only disappointment I had with the finished card was that he was drawn with no resemblance to his real appearance - he seemed to have an Art Garfunkel afro and a weird triangular face shape.
Six months later I was taking photographs of my brother in a swimming pool and took one as his face surfaced out of the water. This photo when it was developed was almost identical to the drawing on the card. Are the odds for this kind of thing happening quite high?
Ok, I don’t really believe that exteriority and interiority are that much in balance. There’s more exteriority, much more. Somehow W.B. Yeats’ The Irish Airman Foresees His Death has been mixed up in my post - in balance with this life this death … that kind of thing.
The odds for that exact specific thing happening are very low, but the odds of that kind of thing-- i.e., a drawing looking like some real scene that eventually occurs-- is nearly one. Think of all the things that could have happened there: You brother could have worn an afro wig with a costume some day. He could have married a woman with big hair. He could have left a funny-shaped footprint in the snow one day. This is not to mention all of the drawings you’ve ever seen that never looked like him at all, but could have.
G. Nome said:
Um, maybe I’m being presumptuous, but wouldn’t it make sense to try to learn more about science instead of just saying you’ll always be receptive to something that you seem to acknowledge is rebutted by science?
Would you first care to tell me exactly what the “laws of neurology” might be?
I’m NOT receptive to things that are rebutted by science. I’m just more open to non-reductionist and non-mechanistic viewpoints. I thought a proper scientist had to consider all knowledge as provisional anyway. I know that paranormal forces, should they exist, would undermine life as we know it. 747’s would fall from the sky and the poltergeist problem would lower property values something shocking. But hard science can be a brutal thing and Unweaving the Rainbow just didn’t change that for me, unfortunately. I probably never will possess a full set of scientific assumptions.
Laws of neurology might determine the speed at which neurons can communicate with each other and therefore the speed at which the brain can process information. I thought that biology imposed limits on this, limits that machines don’t seem to have. What I know about the computational skills of autistic savants makes them seem slightly unbiological.
Chronos: Thank you for your useful answer but I don’t quite understand what the words “nearly one” mean in this sentence:
The odds for that exact specific thing happening are very low, but the odds of that kind of thing-- i.e., a drawing looking like some real scene that eventually occurs-- is nearly one
G. Nome, I think he means that the odds of such a thing happening are quite nearly assured, in that instance.
–Tim
1:1 to be specific then. Not 1:2 or 1:4. 1:1. It just looked like the sentence was incomplete or something.
G.Nome said:
I’m no neurology expert, but if neither of us know of any specific “laws of neurology,” how can we say that anybody breaks them?
This is a common logical fallacy that often pops up in discussions about the paranormal. Just because something seems strange doesn’t mean it is.
If you knew how unqualified I am to discuss this with you I think you would consider clicking the submit reply button a real waste of kinesis. I think you must know why people like me read Skeptical Inquirer, Science and Spirit and, in the old days, Omni and Omega Digest. It’s the same reason people who disapprove of sex on television, for instance, spend a lot of time discussing it. They just can’t leave it alone. Somewhere along the line I became converted to a scientific way of looking at things. So I’m no longer turned on by UFOs, telepathy etc. But I still like reading about that kind of thing. I remember reading somewhere about how the issues of Omni magazine that leant towards soft science would sell like hotcakes. But the ones that were hard-science oriented would not sell well. Strangely, though, there’s a road through soft science that leads to understanding what the other sort involves.
Incidentally, if you really like reading about that stuff, check out Skeptic News at http://www.skepticnews.com .