# What would be a fair and effective way to test for psychic abilities? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2008, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594 "2008-01-15T07:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**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:** [January 15, 2008, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/1 "2008-01-15T07:56:06Z")
Not mentioning any previous people and/or associations dedicated to either side of this issue, what would be an effective means to determine if someone has a paranormal ability? Should those who do the testing be a neutral party, and if so, what exactly does that mean? Should the test be scientific in nature? Should there be an incentive to encourage people to come forward? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/2 "2008-01-15T08:18:04Z")
Offer a million bucks. Let the person state what they propose to do. Watch them try. If they do it give them the million bucks. Check their sleeves for rabbits though. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/3 "2008-01-15T09:08:05Z")
If you check YouTube, you can see several tests that James Randi did, and all of them seem like reasonable tests. But, each one depends a lot on the specific “power” that the person claims to have, and what method would have to be employed to fake such a gift. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all test, since psychic/paranormal abilities covers quite a bit of ground. Example: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/4 "2008-01-15T09:34:10Z")
I think the JREF challenge framework has some good points - particularly the idea that the applicant largely defines what constitutes success or failure. I don’t think it necessarily helps having an acerbic skeptic celebrity as a figurehead. I also think there needs to be a better solution to the pre-screening of applicants than the JREF challenge had in either incarnation - but I don’t know what that would be. Something that doesn’t present an administrative headache to the applicants but at the same time doesn’t let just any old lunatic timewaster stroll in. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/5 "2008-01-15T09:47:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I think the JREF challenge framework has some good points - particularly the idea that the applicant largely defines what constitutes success or failure. I don’t think it necessarily helps having an acerbic skeptic celebrity as a figurehead. I also think there needs to be a better solution to the pre-screening of applicants than the JREF challenge had in either incarnation - but I don’t know what that would be. Something that doesn’t present an administrative headache to the applicants but at the same time doesn’t let just any old lunatic timewaster stroll in. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure that there is any solution to the celebrity issue. The two big psychic debunkers, James Randi and Harry Houdini, were both able to do their job because they had knowledge of “magic” and how one can go about faking results while being scrutinized. Randi’s [Project Alpha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) showed that a scientist really doesn’t have the right thinking patterns and knowledge to successfully test someone who is using sleight of hand. So the person will, by necessity, be a performing magician, so that already raises the lower limit of their celebrity-hood. And then, for anyone to take it serious, the person needs to have enough of a reputation that it’s worthwhile for a psychic to try and get through a successful test. If the tester is a no-name that no one has ever heard of, everyone can ignore him with impunity. And I don’t think that anyone who wasn’t ascerbically sceptical would be particularly interested in the job. I mean, I suppose that you could hire Ryan Seacrest (or someone) to be the spokesman, and then keep a stable of magicians to come in and review stuff, but I suspect that anything which seemed like it might actually make headway would just be **extra** avoided by the psychics. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/6 "2008-01-15T10:13:16Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] If you check YouTube, you can see several tests that James Randi did, and all of them seem like reasonable tests. But, each one depends a lot on the specific “power” that the person claims to have, and what method would have to be employed to fake such a gift. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all test, since psychic/paranormal abilities covers quite a bit of ground. Example: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/QlfMsZwr8rc/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/QlfMsZwr8rc?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque [/QUOTE] Yeah, some of those tests seemed okay. But he lost me on the one for the graphologist. First of all, is anyone claiming that is psychic ability? Second of all, it was a bum test. I guess, if the guy claimed he could tell what jobs people HAD by their handwriting, then he failed. But graphology is probably as good as anything (Myers Briggs etc.) to predict what kinds of things people MIGHT be good at, or not so good at. If that’s what the guy was claiming (and of course I only saw the clip, which was a few minutes, there wasn’t a lot of what he was claiming), then the test was poorly set up. He looked at samples, then put the person into an occupational slot–got one right out of five. I’m probably wrong, and the guy probably did claim psyability of some sort…but as someone who’s had training in handwriting analysis, I thought that particular test was kind of an unfair demonstration of anything useful that might be gleaned from handwriting analysis. I do understand that lots of wacky claims have been made i.e. “change your handwriting and change your life.” I’m sure the psychics believe the same things about the psychic tests. Still, I have to wonder. If it can’t be done under controlled conditions, does that mean it can’t be done, period? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/7 "2008-01-15T10:49:36Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] I’m not sure that there is any solution to the celebrity issue. The two big psychic debunkers, James Randi and Harry Houdini, were both able to do their job because they had knowledge of “magic” and how one can go about faking results while being scrutinized. Randi’s [Project Alpha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) showed that a scientist really doesn’t have the right thinking patterns and knowledge to successfully test someone who is using sleight of hand. So the person will, by necessity, be a performing magician, so that already raises the lower limit of their celebrity-hood. And then, for anyone to take it serious, the person needs to have enough of a reputation that it’s worthwhile for a psychic to try and get through a successful test. If the tester is a no-name that no one has ever heard of, everyone can ignore him with impunity. And I don’t think that anyone who wasn’t ascerbically sceptical would be particularly interested in the job. [/QUOTE] I agree with everything you’ve written here - despite it being a counterpoint to what I posted above. I think maybe what this really means is that it’s not possible to formulate a testing organisation/framework that would do everything it needs to do - that is, be an effective and true test, at the same time as not appearing to take up a stance in opposition to that of the applicants. But I guess that’s pretty much a trusim anyway. the only test that applicants are going to be interested in is one where they think they can prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/8 "2008-01-15T13:36:39Z")
[QUOTE=Hilarity N. Suze] I’m probably wrong, and the guy probably did claim psyability of some sort…but as someone who’s had training in handwriting analysis, I thought that particular test was kind of an unfair demonstration of anything useful that might be gleaned from handwriting analysis. I do understand that lots of wacky claims have been made i.e. “change your handwriting and change your life.” [/quote] Graphology might not fall under psychic power so, for instance, I’m not sure whether it would fall under the scope of the JREF challenge or what we’re talking about here. But as something which can be tested by a sceptic, it’s perfectly valid. Lots of medical doctors learned what was essentially a load of crock up until the 20th century. They didn’t claim to have or use psychic abilities, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t selling falsehoods. “Pseudoscience” might be a better term. And perhaps you believe that you can tell something based on a person’s handwriting, via what you learned, but have you ever tested this in a situation that didn’t allow for [confirmation-bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), [selective perception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception), [observer-expectancy effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect), etc? [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html) Quote: “No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done “raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use.” The experts were frequently wrong–in one test “the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time.” The most basic principles of handwriting analysis–for example, that everyone’s handwriting is unique–had never been demonstrated. “The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards,” the court wrote. Testimony by the government’s handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.” [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031024.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031024.html) Quote: "You’ve misunderstood what Dean is studying. The issue is not whether you, regular guy, can deduce something about Citizen X from his handwriting. No one doubts that you can–if nothing else, that Citizen X knows how to write. But is it fair to call that a personality trait, like honesty or dependability? I venture to say you’d also have little trouble distinguishing the writing of a five-year-old from that of an adult, or the writing of a sober person from that of a drunk. In adding sex and intelligence to this list, Dean is simply affirming that certain personal characteristics (as opposed to personality traits) are evident in handwriting. What does this prove? In itself, nothing. What amateurs can do is of secondary importance–amateurs are the baseline, the control group. The question is whether a professional–someone versed in the supposed science of graphology–can outperform a layperson. Dean, based on his meta-analysis (which I did mischaracterize, having relied on a mistaken summary in a scientific periodical), says it ain’t so." > [@](#): > > Still, I have to wonder. If it can’t be done under controlled conditions, does that mean it can’t be done, period? If something can’t be accomplished under controlled conditions (e.g. where the aforementioned biases and fallacies can’t be ruled out), then something just plain off isn’t **science**. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily an impossible feat, just that it **hasn’t been proven to actually be a possible one**. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/9 "2008-01-15T13:43:23Z")
Changing the mind of the true believer is about as likely as the sun exploding yesterday. For that reason, no matter how well-designed, fair or simple a test is, it is wishful thinking to expect it will serve the intended purpose of refuting paranormal claims. That’s what you would like to accomplish, isn’t it? Not that we shouldn’t try. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/10 "2008-01-15T14:36:39Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Changing the mind of the true believer is about as likely as the sun exploding yesterday. For that reason, no matter how well-designed, fair or simple a test is, it is wishful thinking to expect it will serve the intended purpose of refuting paranormal claims. That’s what you would like to accomplish, isn’t it? Not that we shouldn’t try. [/QUOTE] Maybe the test won’t convince someone that she/he doesn’t have paranormal abilities and/or is performing pseudoscience, but with properly handled publicity it might influence _others_ who are considering going down those paths. “It must be real-no one has shown otherwise!” is said a lot, and proper testing can counteract this. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/11 "2008-01-15T14:42:59Z")
Sorry, to get back to the OP: I don’t think that there’s much more to be done than to show that the purported powers shown by psychics and family can be explained and duplicated with non-paranormal methods. And that’s really already been accomplished. Anyone who wants to know how a psychic could possibly do what they do, there’s ample documentation explaining how the average joe could do it. **But** , that’s not a proof that any individual practitioner is using non-paranormal methods. The only way to disprove psychic powers is to individually test each and every one of them–which is something that will never happen. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/12 "2008-01-15T14:46:31Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] If you check YouTube, you can see several tests that James Randi did, and all of them seem like reasonable tests. But, each one depends a lot on the specific “power” that the person claims to have, and what method would have to be employed to fake such a gift. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all test, since psychic/paranormal abilities covers quite a bit of ground. Example: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/QlfMsZwr8rc/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/QlfMsZwr8rc?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque [/QUOTE] The test above was torpedoed by Randi. Kinetic energy to move the pages is very subtle and the styrofoam does trap and hold energy. The packing peanuts will stick all over your clothes. He did not let a fair test happen. If Randi was sure air was causing the page to turn a simple piece of tape would have been sufficient. Randi knew the pages were reacting in static energy or suble energy and blocked that energy. Randi fooled the skeptics again. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/13 "2008-01-15T14:49:05Z")
Please, no Randi rants on either side-read the first line in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/14 "2008-01-15T15:06:02Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] The test above was torpedoed by Randi. Kinetic energy to move the pages is very subtle and the styrofoam does trap and hold energy. The packing peanuts will stick all over your clothes. He did not let a fair test happen. If Randi was sure air was causing the page to turn a simple piece of tape would have been sufficient. Randi knew the pages were reacting in static energy or suble energy and blocked that energy. Randi fooled the skeptics again. [/QUOTE] New thread started [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9370098#post9370098). ---
**Author:** ![SpaceDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spacedog/32/9932_2.png) [@SpaceDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpaceDog)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/15 "2008-01-15T15:27:09Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] …what would be an effective means to determine if someone has a paranormal ability? [/QUOTE] They must demonstrate that ability. They must be able to demonstrate it repeatably. The test must be constructed to prevent all normal methods of achieving the ability, thus proving it’s paranormal. The test must be constructed rigorously and by people with the necessary skills. _Hmmm, maybe the tests should be peer reviewed?_. The test should be deemed fair by all parties beforehand. > [@](#): > > Should those who do the testing be a neutral party, and if so, what exactly does that mean? Not necessarily, but I think people would find it more palatable given the current amount of ‘paid-for-research’ or even ‘paid-for-results’. > [@](#): > > Should the test be scientific in nature? Not sure what you mean, but almost certainly, yes. > [@](#): > > Should there be an incentive to encourage people to come forward? People shouldn’t be inconvenienced or out-of-pocket by taking the test, but I’m not sure about an ‘incentive’. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/16 "2008-01-15T15:52:39Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] Sorry, to get back to the OP: I don’t think that there’s much more to be done than to show that the purported powers shown by psychics and family can be explained and duplicated with non-paranormal methods. And that’s really already been accomplished. Anyone who wants to know how a psychic could possibly do what they do, there’s ample documentation explaining how the average joe could do it. **But** , that’s not a proof that any individual practitioner is using non-paranormal methods. The only way to disprove psychic powers is to individually test each and every one of them–which is something that will never happen. [/QUOTE] What you say is not true. Psychic ability has been demonstrated for thousands of years. Noreen worked on 500 cases, that is repeatability. Once she gave the police the state, city, and street a fugitive was living on. He was in jail a day later. No, I know you won’t bother to read about it. You want a test, provide an equal and level playing field. The judges should be picked for their lack of prejudices about psychic ability. If you give the skeptics time to talk to the judges then the psychics would be given equal time. The tests will be video taped before an audience. The psychics will be allowed to demonstrate their abilities in their own way without interference. Run enough tests with multiple psychics and multiple targets or people to insure your data is good. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/17 "2008-01-15T16:01:08Z")
It might be of interest that Utrecht University, a regular and respected Dutch University, has a faculty for paranormal research. The interested can start [here,](http://www.parapsy.nl/)and use Babelfish to translate from Dutch to English. Making up “fair” paranormal experiments is their core business. I studied regular psychology in Utrecht, but I was always up to join in experiments on other faculties for the fun and the money. In one of those experiments, from the faculty of parapsychology, we had to try and influence randomly generated patterns on a computerscreen, by “willing” the colored ball gyrate to the centre of the screen for 20 minutes straight. The faculty has existed for over fourty years; I’ve never heard of ground-breaking results. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/18 "2008-01-15T16:37:15Z")
[QUOTE=Maastricht] It might be of interest that Utrecht University, a regular and respected Dutch University, has a faculty for paranormal research. The interested can start [here,](http://www.parapsy.nl/)and use Babelfish to translate from Dutch to English. Making up “fair” paranormal experiments is their core business. I studied regular psychology in Utrecht, but I was always up to join in experiments on other faculties for the fun and the money. In one of those experiments, from the faculty of parapsychology, we had to try and influence randomly generated patterns on a computerscreen, by “willing” the colored ball gyrate to the centre of the screen for 20 minutes straight. The faculty has existed for over fourty years; I’ve never heard of ground-breaking results. [/QUOTE] Did they ever try influencing plants with thought while the plants were hooked up to a lie detector. Works every time. Did they ever experiment with the placebo effect. No? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/19 "2008-01-15T16:49:00Z")
From the [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9356622&postcount=380): > [@](#): > > Although I have had a pretty good level of training in statistical analysis and research methodology, I am perhaps missing something here. Perhaps some other Dopers can catch any flaws in my train of logic: > > * * * > > A test or series of tests which checked any claim against a control of average statistical likelihood would in fact show whether or not a claim deviated form what one would expect from random guessing. > However, even showing that someone’s "psychic power " was as effective as guess-based/chance-based controls, wouldn’t necessarily prove that their claims were bunk. It could be possible that some “psychic power”, while real, only had an efficacy equal to the control. (As an analogy, if we have a new drug and find that it works as well as a placebo, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the drug never works for various individuals depending on body chemistry and such, only that it doesn’t work better in general than a placebo). > So even a Fail result on a test would not disprove someone’s claims of “psychic power”, it would simply show that they were unable to prove them and/or that their ability was no more effective than random chance, and thus, pretty much useless. > This would of course leave an escape hatch for wooians to scurry out of. > > The epistemological basis of using and constructing a null hypothesis, and the methodological basis by which a NH is either held or rejected is thus at issue. > I believe that a proper NH for a ‘psychic power’ would be “any claimed technique or techniques, ability of abilities, and/or method or methods that the claimant has stated they use to obtain result X , has/have an efficacy no different than the statistical likelihood of arriving at the same results by pure chance.” > I do not, however, feel that a proper NH would be “any claimed technique or techniques, ability of abilities, and/or method or methods that the claimant has stated they use to obtain result X, do not exist outside of the claimant’s imagination, and they are either deluded or a fraud.” The problem with this, of course, also being that we can’t know for sure what method someone uses, whether it’s cold reading, hot reading, remarkable subconscious powers of observation and intuition, “psychic power”, or invisible Information Beams from the cloaked Xist motherships in orbit around the planet. Without being able to know for sure how someone endeavored to do something, all we’d know is that whatever they claimed to do either worked better than blind statistical chance, or didn’t. > > For instance, we know that quantum entanglement is a real and verifiable phenomena which may even violate the laws of relativity as it appears to operate FTL . We don’t know how, exactly, this happens. We know something is happening, but the exact causes, processes and dynamic aren’t known. Or as Sir Eddington said about Uncertainty “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” > > Even knowing that someone can do something at a better rate than blind luck would allow doesn’t tell us how they did it. If someone who was a past master at picking up subtle cues was able to score above average at guessing facts about people, but we couldn’t know what process they actually used to get their Hits, we wouldn’t know if they used intuition or the Xist Information Beams. To further complicate the issue, individual statistical results that are sufficiently above the average are also, themselves, part of random chance. Toss a coin 100 times with a person guessing, and the average number of correct guesses will average out to 50 with enough trials. But, with enough trials, the possibility that someone, somewhere, will guess 100/100, rises. And if we perform the trials enough time, the chance that someone can guess 100/100 tosses, and can replicate that feat 100 times, rises as well. Nor is it impossible if we took only one person and only tried it with them 100 times. It is hugely unlikely, but not impossible. So even once we’d confirmed that someone was better at predicting something than blind chance would allow over a large enough distribution of results, that doesn’t mean that their individual results still weren’t the result of blind chance. > > We can most properly talk about probabilistic, not absolute, truth values. Even things that are highly unlikely to occur via blind chance (guessing 100/100) are just highly unlikely via blind chance, not impossible. > > Again this complicates the challenge and allows wooians to scurry out the back door if they get a Fail result, and to make overstated claims if they happen to be the lucky wooian who guesses 100/100 that day. > These things are unavoidable if we follow proper methodology and interpretation of data. > > We can, of course, still point out that we cannot prove a negative in many circumstances. The dynamic is the same as The Dragon in the Garage. If someone claims “supernatural” events and cannot prove them, while the burden of proof rests squarely on their shoulders of the claimants, being unable to prove their claims does not mean that their claims have been disproven… only that there is no rational justification for believing that their claims were true. And in cases where someone alleges an unproven thing is doing something that they haven’t proven, they have to test both parts of the claim. That is, “there is something called the supernatural” has to be tested. “I can do something more reliably than random chance would dictate.” needs to be tested. And “that supernatural thing is what allows me to do something more reliably than random chance” needs to be tested. (yeesh) > And being unable to prove the first or the third assertions does not disprove them, it simply shows that they remain unproven or perhaps unprovable. > > Properly, something that can neither be proven nor refuted is classified as “unknown”, “unknowable” or “meaningless”, depending on context. > > ## I see this whole complex of facts as something that would give some wooians enough room to scurry and escape, and a lack of understanding of the burden of proof and epistemology would still limit the Challenge’s effectiveness in the eyes of those who haven’t learned about research methodology. The issue isn’t a simple one, at all. > > Do I have any errors in the above statements? I think that designing a test becomes increasingly difficult and uncertain when you take certain factors into account, due to various ‘psychic claims’ (“I can move things with my mind” “I can make you pee”, “I hear dead people”), numerous different tests would have to be developed for each dynamic. Some, like testing to see if someone could get more ‘hits’ on a ‘psychic reading’ than someone versed in Cold Reading and/or guessing, would only tell us if they had a statistically significant ability. Further tests would need to be conducted to analyze the nature of the statistical data. Then, hypotheses would have to be constructed, tested, and modified/discarded as new information was gained. A full battery of scientific tests, especially to isolate, qualify and analyze a phenomena which has never been demonstrated under laboratory circumstances, ever, and whose existence would turn physical, biological, cognitive (etc…) sciences on their head, would take a hell of a lot more than a simple challenge. The Challenge, I think, best serves as a ‘put up or shut up’ sort of a test, and shows that those who make claims-of-woo can’t even prove that their claimed ability can be shown and/or shown to be any more efficacious than dumb luck. And, while looking at folks who say they hear dead people, even _if_ we had someone who could, under laboratory conditions, produce more ‘hits’ than a someone engaging in cold reading, that still wouldn’t tell us anything other than that they were doing _something_ that worked. For all we know, they could simply be better at guessing, observing subtle clues and forming intuitive leaps from tiny bits of known data. Much further testing would have to be conducted, even after a Pass result on the Challenge, to analyze the phenomena. Of course, all that isn’t very important as long as the only results are Fails, as they almost undoubtedly would be. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594/20 "2008-01-15T16:51:49Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Did they ever try influencing plants with thought while the plants were hooked up to a lie detector. Works every time. Did they ever experiment with the placebo effect. No? [/QUOTE] **lekatt** , do _not_ hijack this thread with numerous anecdotal stories. This thread is about devising a way to properly test for paranormal abilities only. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-fair-and-effective-way-to-test-for-psychic-abilities/433594.md?page=2)