# That Fox Psychic show **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280 "2000-05-12T00:46:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/61 "2000-05-19T07:56:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > discipline Oh, please! I’d _love_ to see you back that one up. \*\* [/QUOTE] Here’s the link: [http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980117/nblind.html](http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980117/nblind.html) but considering the special state of denial you’re in and your unbelievable shameless prejudice I’m sure you’ll discredit anything that doesn’t fall into the a priori and unquestionable worldview of DavidB. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/62 "2000-05-19T11:02:00Z")
Interesting link. I’d like to see the real paper, though … Since the results are shown as _percentages_, there’s some significant data that isn’t present. The criteria for choosing the papers is also significant, and not fully explained. Of course, leaving out those details is reasonable in a news article. Designing a study as blind is generally good, but does not guarantee valid results from the study. The blinding design may be flawed (and is, in many of the parapsychological paers that I’ve read; I have no idea of what percentage of any set of blinded studies uses flawed blinding). Other factors can also make the study invalid. So, all in all, that news article raises my opinion of parapsychological reasearch a little, but appears to have no major bearing on the question of whether parapsychological phenomena exist. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/63 "2000-05-19T11:46:20Z")
I found the paper at [How Widely is Blind Assessment Used in Scientific Research?](http://www.sheldrake.org/articles/db.cgi?db=default&uid=&id=29&ww=1&full=1&view_records=1). On a quick reading, it looks like a pretty good paper. Sheldrake does acknowledge that blinding techniques may not be appropriate in many physical science experiments. I don’t know if there’s experimental evidence for or against blinding techniques in physical science experiments. It appears to me that blinding techniques may be impossible or impractical in many experiments, and that for many experiments the likelyhood of experimenter-induced bias is small. I was glad to see that Sheldrake did not draw any conclusions about the _validity_ of any studies based on his data, which is a good thing. He did not draw any conclusions at all from this study; it’s just a review and some interesting thoughts about experimentation. I think that the percentages shown in the original link _did_ conceal significant data. The number of papers surveyed by field (the original further breaks them down by journal) were: ```auto Physical Sciences 237 Biological Sciences 914 Medical Sciences 227 Psychology & Animal Behavior 143 Parapsychology 27 ``` Note the very much smaller number of surveyed papers in parapsychology. The number of papers that Sheldrake ranked as using double-blind methods, by field, were: ```auto Physical Sciences 0 Biological sciences 7 Medical Sciences 55 Psychology & Animal Behavior 7 Parapsychology 23 ``` So we can definitely conclude that the _number_ of papers surveyed in medical sciences using double-blind studies is just over twice the _number_ of similar papers in parapsychology. The meaning of this fact is, of course, arguable. I am definitely troubled by the comparatively small number of papers surveyed in parapsychology. Are there really so few papers that involve experimental investigations in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research volumes 59-61 and Journal of the Society for Psychical Research volume 58 part 3 though volume 60 part 2? (Sheldrake does not list how many “papers that did not involve experimental investigations” he rejected). Why weren’t other volumes of these journals sampled to obtain a sample size comparable with the others? Are there no other journals that would be reasonable to include in this study? My conclusion: interesting study, indicative but probably flawed as proof. Not obvious what, if anything, it proves. Not relevant to the question of whether parapsychological phenomena exist or not. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/64 "2000-05-19T11:53:25Z")
So, based on one study of 1000 papers by a guy who is described as “a controversial figure for his unorthodox scientific beliefs and interest in ‘fringe’ areas,” and with some of the problems listed above by JonF, you feel confident enough to make a blanket statement: > [@](#): > > there are more double-blind studies in Parapsychology per study than any other scientific discipline Interesting. But not unsurprising, considering your inability to actually provide evidence to back up all the claims you’ve made here. You finally come up with _something_ and use it to far overreach its limitations. Still waiting for you to back up all your other claims. But instead all we get from you is more of the same rantings about how anybody who dares to suggest we use a little rational thinking is prejudiced, closed minded, in denial, etc. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/65 "2000-05-19T11:58:24Z")
Oh, and just to beat a horse a little more {grin}: **HorseloverFat** said: > [@](#): > > there are more double-blind studies in Parapsychology per study than any other scientific discipline That statement is somewhere between misleading and untrue. One study showed a greater _percentage_ of double-blind studies in parapsychology than any of several other scientific disciplines, using a sample in which the number of papers chose for parapsychology were an _order of magnitude_ less than the number chosen for other disciplines. The _number_ of double-blind studies in parapsychology were much greater than in any other discipline _except for medical sciences_ where the number of double-blind studies was twice the number of double-blind studies in parapsychology. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/66 "2000-05-19T12:11:18Z")
**DavidB** : > [@](#): > > a guy who is described as "a controversial figure for his unorthodox scientific beliefs and interest in ‘fringe’ areas True, possibly relevant, but uncomfortably close to _ad hominem_. Sheldrake’s inclinations and beliefs may have led him to bias the study, but it would take a far more detailed analysis to evaluate that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/67 "2000-05-19T12:17:21Z")
Good point, Jon. Now let’s see if Horselover retracts that erroneous statement… ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/68 "2000-05-19T16:13:23Z")
Damn cutting and pasting … For “Are there really so few papers that involve experimental investigations in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research volumes 59-61 and Journal of the Society for Psychical Research volume 58 part 3 though volume 60 part 2?” please substitute “Are there really so few papers that involve experimental investigations in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research volumes 59-61 and Journal of Parapsychology volume 58 part 3 though volume 60 part 2?” ---
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/69 "2000-05-19T18:04:32Z")
this is my last post on this thread, simply cuz I don’t have much time or inclination right now. First, _Crow_, 🙂 I heard you loud & clear the first time, and any “scientist” who’s so quick to imply that a total stranger may be borderline, is worthy of the forementioned comparison. I hadn’t responded, not because I had nothing to offer, but because it wasn’t worth dignifying your presumptuousness. Furthermore, maybe _you_ notice that I didn’t answer you the first time, but I notice how “facts” persons tend to quote members out of context. For example, I was quoted about my **facts-persons comment** and my **crows comment** without respondents’ inclusion of the “borderline-aunt” provocation in the latter case, and my “smilie” in the former case. Secondly, since a few of you considered the preying mantis analogy far-fetched, I’ll offer a past example instead (to try and explain the point of my hypothetical ultra-beam analogy): I heard from someone I know, that scientists used to scoff at cod-liver oil, saying it didn’t have any nutritional value. Then came the discovery of vitamins, and the naysayers were proven wrong. Because cod-liver oil was found to contain vitamins. Similarly, perhaps PSI cannot be **physically** proven in the year **2000**. But who knows whether someone in the future might not discover a physical element which can tangibly demonstrate PSI effects? And then, just as vitamins were discovered in cod-liver oil, proving the skeptics wrong, the **physical** PSI element may also be discovered in psychics in higher amounts. Mind, I only offered these analogies after reading a similar comment by Horselover about possible future developments. Also, it might not necessarily be an **element** , but even something as simple as higher blood flow to a particular area of psychics’ brains, combined with the ability to easily relax (due to a low-pressure lifestyle) and thus lapse into a subconscious state. Added note: I once read that an outward manifestation of a psychic “type” may be a person’s ability to perform a rolling motion of the eye. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/70 "2000-05-19T18:16:44Z")
It was terrible. There was a grand total of one psychic on the entire show–the rest were fakes, as far as I could tell. You might fool non-psis, but you cannot fool another psychic, not if they are paying attention. Joe McMoneagle was the only person on the show with a “psi-active tone”–that means he was the only one who’s energy field gave off the signature that identifies him as an active psi. The others did nothing on a psychic level, through all their tricks. I didn’t even get anything from Uri Geller. Some of the tricks were so cheesy, I was able to easily figure them out, even though I’ve never studied up on stage magic. Truly pathetic, and insulting. As if we needed more bad press. Note that McMoneagle was also the only one who did not have 100% success. No real psi is one hundred percent successful all the time. What he did was the real thing, and that’s how it works. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/71 "2000-05-19T19:33:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Joe McMoneagle was the only person on the show with a “psi-active tone”–that means he was the only one who’s energy field gave off the signature that identifies him as an active psi. Wow. I hardly know where to begin. You claim that there is psychic power and its activity is manifested in some manner that you can detect on television? I cerainly don’t find that credible based on what you’ve said so far. It would take some pretty powerful evidence to prove to me that it is credible. Have you considered trying one of the tests with a big cash prize, such as [The Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge](http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/index.html)? ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/72 "2000-05-19T20:15:04Z")
> [@](#): > > “facts” persons tend to quote members out of context. For example, I was quoted about my facts-persons comment and my crows comment without respondents’ inclusion of the “borderline-aunt” provocation in the latter case, and my “smilie” in the former case. I purposefully excluded your smilie, because I don’t like the d\*\*n things and because I felt that it was not important. With or without the smilie, I read your message as using ridicule. My 15 years of experience in on-line communications and moderating on-line communications leads me to believe that others would read it the same way. A smilie does not cancel the clear meaning of a post, it can only serve to make subtle intentions more clear. > [@](#): > > I heard from someone I know, that scientists used to scoff at cod-liver oil, saying it didn’t have any nutritional value. Then came the discovery of vitamins, and the naysayers were proven wrong. Because cod-liver oil was found to contain vitamins. . Ah, now that’s convincing; a vague statement that you “heard from someone”. The [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,25008+1+24613,00.html) and [Chronology of Some Events in the Development and Application of the Science of Nutrition](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gr_frank/nutrchrn.htm) agree that vitamin D (which is not really a vitamin, although cod liver oil does contain other real vitamins) was identified in cod liver oil in 1922. I am unable to find any references to scientists scoffing at the nutritional value of cod liver oil. But we know now that it _does_ have nutritional value; an example of how the scientific process _works_. A non-scientists who believed that cod-liver oil had no nutritional value would have no interest in checking that conclusion; a scientist does. > [@](#): > > Similarly, perhaps PSI cannot be physically proven in the year 2000. But who knows whether someone in the future might not discover a physical element which can tangibly demonstrate PSI effects? Perhaps that will happen. I would be very interested in seeing that happen, and many others (including many scientists) would too. But it hasn’t happened yet (to the satisfaction of any significant number of scientists). And our experience _suggests_, it does not _prove_, that it will not happen. Should paranormal powers ever be proved, it won’t be on the basis of the kind of evidence you have offered. > [@](#): > > And then, just as vitamins were discovered in cod-liver oil, proving the skeptics wrong, the physical PSI element may also be discovered in psychics in higher amounts. What you “heard from somebody” is now presented as established fact? > [@](#): > > Also, it might not necessarily be an element, but even something as simple as higher blood flow to a particular area of psychics’ brains, combined with the ability to easily relax (due to a low-pressure lifestyle) and thus lapse into a subconscious state. It _ **could** _ be anything. It doesn’t matter how many fanciful possibilities you can imagine. The question is _is it anything at all_? > [@](#): > > I once read that an outward manifestation of a psychic “type” may be a person’s ability to perform a rolling motion of the eye. Do you believe that is a convincing argument? * * * It’s sad that you have neither addressed or responded to _any_ of the reasonable and polite questions and suggestions. “He who knows not & knows not that he knows not is: Smug-ly Smog-ed” sounds like you’re speaking of yourself. Very sad. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/73 "2000-05-19T20:17:28Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > Wow. > > I hardly know where to begin. > > You claim that there is psychic power and its activity is manifested in some manner that you can detect on television? > > I cerainly don’t find that credible based on what you’ve said so far. It would take some pretty powerful evidence to prove to me that it is credible. > > Have you considered trying one of the tests with a big cash prize, such as [The Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge](http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/index.html)? > \*\* On television? No, I seriously doubt that’s how it works, though I couldn’t begin to tell you how I can read someone while seeing them on TV. I might have followed the signal back–a very impressive feat, if so, but quite instinctive. It was a live show. You don’t find it credible based on what I’ve said so far? I’ve made a total of one post, and you know absolutely nothing else about me. I don’t find YOU credible based on what you’ve said so far, either. Evidence? You want me to teach you psi? It’s a lot of work. But I’m guessing you don’t actually want to go that far. \ Most persons who are violently against the notion of the existence of psi would never dream of actually trying it. On a deep level, it frightens them. And no doubt about it, it is frightening, I don’t really blame them. No one likes to have their view of reality shaken, particularly not by the currently unexplainable. As for Randi–I don’t trust him. First, there’s the possibility that he’s not running a fair game. Second, just how good of an idea is it to publically prove the existence of psi? Have you actually thought about what that would mean for those of us who are psi-active? I can tell you, we have. And I don’t like it one bit. I’ll be content to be disbelieved, if the alternative is mass hysteria and witch-hunts, with me as the target. Psis get enough of that already. I’ve friends who have been shot at and fired from jobs for being seen doing something with psi, or it being found out that they were psi, and for no other reasons. I teach psionics. Personal experience is my proof–and personal experience is my students’ proof, along with validation by other psis. That is more than enough, for now. If we find a way to mechanically detect psi, that will be great…but if it were me, I’d sit on that proof for a while. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/74 "2000-05-19T20:26:49Z")
Does anybody have a n adjustable crescent wrench, or maybe a Phillips-head screwdriver, that I can borrow? I need to fix my bullshit detector. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/75 "2000-05-19T20:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Does anybody have a n adjustable crescent wrench, or maybe a Phillips-head screwdriver, that I can borrow? I need to fix my bullshit detector. > \*\* I’ll assume that means "No, I would never try it! I can come up with a lot of excuses as to why I won’t, too! If I make fun of it, no one will think it’s odd that I’m not trying it! \ ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/76 "2000-05-19T20:53:44Z")
…but I just want to say I’ve enjoyed this thread so far, and now that we have a _real life psi (-kick?)_ this’ll be my favorite GD for awhile. **Winged\_Wolf** , I’m just in awe of how smoothly you asserted your abilities in one breath and then expressed your fear of persecution in the next breath to justify your lack of proof. You sir, are a wonderously facile charlatan. Bravo! ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/77 "2000-05-19T21:00:08Z")
> [@](#): > > You don’t find it credible based on what I’ve said so far? I’ve made a total of one post, and you know absolutely nothing else about me. I don’t find YOU credible based on what you’ve said so far, either. Exactly. You’ve made a total of one post that I’ve seen, and that post didn’t contain enough evidence or argument of plausibility to convince anyone who is not already a believer. There are many of my posts available, several of them in this thread, and I think that if you read them you will find me consistently polite and willing both to listen to others and to support my arguments. If you believe otherwise, please let me know where you think I’ve erred; I’ve been doing this online communication stuff for 15 years but it’s a very limited medium and I do not always convey my meaning accurately. I certainly did _not_ accuse you of fraud or even error. Had I spoken those words instead of writing them, you would have heard an astonished tone; but I was honestly astonished by your claims. {joke alert} Or did you sense some other mood psychically? {grin} Do you contend that your original post in this thread should be sufficient to convince someone to believe your claims? > [@](#): > > You want me to teach you psi? It’s a lot of work. But I’m guessing you don’t actually want to go that far. Not without some more convincing evidence that my work would bear fruit. > [@](#): > > As for Randi–I don’t trust him. First, there’s the possibility that he’s not running a fair game. Remotely possible, but IMHO very unlikely. First, his work is subject to scrutiny and testing by other scientists, and he has a reputation to maintain. Second, he has a reputation for fair play among those who know him (at least that’s what I get from reading about him and seeing him on television and seeing him discussed on telivision; I’ve never met him). > [@](#): > > Second, just how good of an idea is it to publically prove the existence of psi? Have you actually thought about what that would mean for those of us who are psi-active? I can tell you, we have. And I don’t like it one bit. I’ll be content to be disbelieved, if the alternative is mass hysteria and witch-hunts, with me as the target. Well, I doubt that would happen, but witch-hunts have happened and I don’t have any argument with which to try to change your mind. > [@](#): > > Personal experience is my proof–and personal experience is my students’ proof, along with validation by other psis. That is more than enough, for now. If we find a way to mechanically detect psi, that will be great…but if it were me, I’d sit on that proof for a while. OK, it’s your call. But posting messages on Internet boards such as this one is guaranteed to generate questions about and challenges to your claims of psychic powers. I do not believe that you have such powers, based on my knowledge of how the world works and my knowledge of various investigations of claimed psychic powers (and I’m skeptical of skeptics, too). I’m undoubtedly wrong on some things; maybe I’m wrong on this one too. But without evidence I’m not going to change my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/78 "2000-05-19T21:03:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > …but I just want to say I’ve enjoyed this thread so far, and now that we have a _real life psi (-kick?)_ this’ll be my favorite GD for awhile. > > **Winged\_Wolf** , I’m just in awe of how smoothly you asserted your abilities in one breath and then expressed your fear of persecution in the next breath to justify your lack of proof. You sir, are a wonderously facile charlatan. Bravo! > \*\* I don’t think my lack of proof needs to be justified. If I had proof, and were willing to present it, I’d be very rich. Obviously I don’t have it. I’d love to have it–for myself, and for the others I know. But we haven’t come that far yet. I have no doubt that we will, eventually. As for being a charlatan–according to whom? Have you spoken with anyone who knows me, or has encountered me? Have you talked to any of my students? Tested my abilities? Shame on you, using such poor scientific method to make a determination… Let’s see the double blind tests revealing my lack of ability. Failure to jump up and prove it to you means I must be faking it? \ I offered to teach you how to do it. Can’t fake that, now, could I? You either learn it, or you don’t, no guarantees. But as I said–I’m pretty sure you won’t try. 🙂 It’s not as if I asked you for recompense for this. Oh, and by the way–that’s “ma’am”, to you. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/79 "2000-05-19T21:28:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Shame on you, using such poor scientific method to make a determination… Sorry; I’m not one of the scientists here, just an amused bystander. But, to be fair, _ma’am_, I guess I should’ve said “You _seem_ to be a wonrously facile charlatan. _Brava!_” > [@](#): > > I don’t think my lack of proof needs to be justified. If I had proof, and were willing to present it, I’d be very rich. Obviously I don’t have it. I’d love to have it–for myself, and for the others I know. But we haven’t come that far yet. I’m assuming you’ve not thoroughly read this thread or any other threads in “Great Debates”, or that you’re not familiar with generally accepted rules of debate. Otherwise I’d have to believe your statement that proof is unnecessary for such an assertion made in this forum to be highly disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/80 "2000-05-19T21:32:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Exactly. You’ve made a total of one post that I’ve seen, and that post didn’t contain enough evidence or argument of plausibility to convince anyone who is not already a believer. \*\* I’m not even a believer–I think belief is very overrated. My two options are that I’m either psi, or I’m completely out of my mind, and going on a journey to la la land with everyone around me. While that’s possible, it’s not a very productive choice for my life, so I tend to assume it’s the other. I do find “mass hallucination” to be even less plausible than psi. > [@](#): > > \*\*There are many of my posts available, several of them in this thread, and I think that if you read them you will find me consistently polite and willing both to listen to others and to support my arguments. If you believe otherwise, please let me know where you think I’ve erred; I’ve been doing this online communication stuff for 15 years but it’s a very limited medium and I do not always convey my meaning accurately. \*\* I’m impressed so far. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\* > I certainly did _not_ accuse you of fraud or even error. Had I spoken those words instead of writing them, you would have heard an astonished tone; but I was honestly astonished by your claims. {joke alert} Or did you sense some other mood psychically? {grin} \*\* Actually, I don’t know this system well, so I haven’t really been picking up anything yet from these posts. (joke or no, \) But there are others who were not quite so polite. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\* > Do you contend that your original post in this thread should be sufficient to convince someone to believe your claims? \*\* Heck, no! I wouldn’t, and I already have experience with it. But I do generally expect an open mind, and tend to disrespect closed ones. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not without some more convincing evidence that my work would bear fruit. \*\* The first few steps’d be enough to do that–or at least to open up a reasonable possibility of it. It’s not that hard to work with the first few things that offer a possiblity of validation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Remotely possible, but IMHO very unlikely. First, his work is subject to scrutiny and testing by other scientists, and he has a reputation to maintain. Second, he has a reputation for fair play among those who know him (at least that’s what I get from reading about him and seeing him on television and seeing him discussed on telivision; I’ve never met him). \*\* He makes me terribly uneasy, and that would be the main reason. One would think I’d jump at a million bucks \. Am I paranoid? Admittedly so. Most psis are a bit paranoid, and that’s no joke. Some of the rumors that go around the psi community would curl your hair. Maybe they’re just rumors–probably most of them are. That’s not enough to make me ignore a sense of unease like this one. No one has won that prize yet, but I’ve seen people who could have. That makes me terribly suspicious. Most psis aren’t willing to face public scrutiny, even for that much money…they aren’t easy enough with themselves, or self-confident enough. These abilities are not like a lightswitch–sometimes they just don’t work. If you can get them to work when you want them to, even 60% of the time, you’re pretty good at it. If you can do better than 90% of the time at anything, you’re a master–but no one’s 100%. Think about exactly how much information the brain is being asked to sort through to do something like remote viewing. It is absolutely awe-inspiring. It’s staggering. That anyone can do that with any consistancy at all just blows my mind, but there it is. How can I find a person 1200 miles away? That’s worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack. Locate a single person in a photo of 1 million with only a photo to go on. Yet I’ve done it, and there were able to tell me exactly what I was doing there, with no prompting from me. The implications alone are mind boggling. > [@](#): > > \*\* > OK, it’s your call. But posting messages on Internet boards such as this one is guaranteed to generate questions about and challenges to your claims of psychic powers. \*\* And if a few people who’ve had such experiences may feel that they aren’t alone after all, and that they aren’t freaks or demons–that they aren’t crazy, and just might have a place where they aren’t looked at sideways… that’s worth a world of snide comments, to me. [quote] \*\* I do not believe that you have such powers, based on my knowledge of how the world works and my knowledge of various investigations of claimed psychic powers (and I’m skeptical of skeptics, too). I’m undoubtedly wrong on some things; maybe I’m wrong on this one too. But without evidence I’m not going to change my mind. The only one who can really give you evidence in this case is you. I could help you get it, but I couldn’t get it for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=5)