You rang?
Suppose some of them have real powers that operate according to principles unknown to science. Logically they would have been campaigning to form an organisation to perform tests and issuing certificates to weed out the phonies.
The absence of such an organisation is an indication of the nonexistence of such powers.
Have you ever been to a “Psychic” Fair? Dozens of tables and booths set up by people, some of whose abilities and/or theories directly contradict others within yelling distance.
No one complains of psychic “interference”, and no one says “My astrological charts are correct, and Madame Zelda’s charts are hooey!”
The reason for this is that most of them realize that it is all hooey, and that thse fairs bring in the marks like there’s no tomorrow.
If some psychics are indeed real and can see the future then they should start a professional certification scheme. As you can not be taught to be a psychic a different approach is offered. First you have to prove your ability, skill or talent by accurately freseeing an event. Nothing wishy washy and vague, a hard and fast falsifiable prediction along the lines of ‘next weeks score will be 5-1 to England’. This to be done say, 10 times, with an average score of over 7 gaining you certificate.
Once awarded the certificate the psychic can now ply their trade with everyone aware they have tried and tested skills. To be fair to all they would then have to periodically resit the test and publicly publish the average score. Then, when a potential client comes in they are aware of the success rate and can base a decision to act on advice knowing the chance of failure.
Why the elaboration? If some one claimed to be a ‘true’ psychic and massively got a prediction wrong, you should be free to sue them for loss of income or whatever. That is, if a financial consultant, trader or dealer operates a scam or misadvises they can be sued and loose the right to work. If you buy a service from any supplier you have statutory rights if the product is dangreous, mis-sold or does not perform the advertised function. The same should apply to psychics and their ilk.
Well, let’s see if I can actually quote from two messages.
Couldn’t say, my dear; however, if I accept the premise of the OP — that some psychics are real, some are not, and the debunkers are out to get them all regardless — then I have to make a distinction between the “debunking to get them all test” and the “distinguish between the real and true psychics test”. The only problem is, the impossibility of such a test completes a “reductio ad absurdum” proof — not that psychic powers as such do not exist, but that they can readily be distinguished from “false” ones. The further step is left as an exercise for the student.
I submit that any test that is not “debunking” in nature can be faked, and therefore used by fake psychics against real ones. In other words, I am identifying “debunking” and “objective” tests for psychic powers. I invite anyone to disprove me by coming up with one that is not.
Saw the interview, and saw the protocols. If “real” psychics will agree this test meets my (a) through © above, I’m happy; however, I suspect they would not. I think Browne backpeddled afterwards, but I am open to correction. If the test is going forward, I will await the results with great anticipation.
Several other posts asked similar questions; I hope this answers them all.
I think that you are utterly wrong about skeptics and “debunking” tests. If a skeptic designed a test that would disprove real as well as fake psychics, a) it’s a crappy test and b) the “real” psychic would be a fool to submit to it.
That’s why James Randi’s Million-Dollar challenge requires the participation and approval of the test subjects in designing the protocol of the test. They must agree ahead of time that they believe that they will succeed at the test. That’s the only proper way to do it.
If you can give any examples of such tests which were actually conducted, and explain why a real psychic would fail at it, and why any psychic ever agreed to it in the first place, that might be helpful. Otherwise, I think you’re just making a strawman argument, and/or leaving pschics an out for any test that wasn’t successful. “Oh, they may still be real psychics,” you can always say, “but that was a debunking test.” And what’s a debunking test? You won’t tell us ahead of time, but presumably you know one when you see one?
Podkayne, Podkayne, Podkayne. Read the OP. Read what I wrote.
I am saying to Andy that unless the existence of real psychics is proven first, there is no use trying to devise a test to distinguish between psychics.
I am saying that attempting to devise a test when you have already decided on the result (that “real” psychics exist, and despise the “false” ones) is a fool’s errand.
I am saying that if you go into things with that mindset, then you quickly trip on your own inconsistencies. I pointed out the inconsistencies. One of the main ones is the belief that the skeptics are somehow being unfair, “debunking” rather than seriously addressing the issue, and that there is a difference between a “skeptical debunking” test and a test that detects “real psychics”. I am saying that this is a distinction that does not exist, and if you try to apply it you run into trouble.
And I am saying all this without making any judgement at all whether “real” psychics exist or not.
I am agreeing with you, albeit in an indirect way to slither under mental blocks.
Got it? Good.
Well, yer slitherin’ somewhere. 
I don’t know whose mental blocks you’re trying to outmaneuver, but I think you’ve managed to avoid my entire brain. 
I’m rereading what you’ve said and realized that I’ve misconstrued about every bit of it so far–well, the bits that I feel I understand now, anyway, which ain’t much of it.
You say,
Unless you have devised a test, how can you prove that there are real psychics? The evidence isn’t going to fall into your lap–or even if it did, the evidence would be suspect unless you devise a test to show that it’s repeatable under controlled conditions. In other words, the existence of psychics can only be ascertained by testing the claims of psychics. And once such a test has been concocted, why can’t the same test (perhaps with modifications according to the claims of the subject) be applied to each subject who claims to be a psychic, thus determining which subjects are real and which are fake?
Or do you contend that no possible test could prove the existence of psychics (if they exist)?
I’m still confused about why you say that any possible test would either prove that all psychics are fake, or would not detect fake psychics–unless you mean that there are no real psychics, and thus any test would either be faulty (and not detect any fakes) or correct (and detect only fakes, since there are no real psychics)–though you say that you’re not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of psychics. 
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list]Most discombobulated,
but yours, truly,
Pod.
dlb,
I never said I believe that real psychics exist - Hastur did. In fact, I don’t believe they exist, but I find the “thought experiment” of considering that they might exist interesting. It is exactly my point that anyone who believes psychics do exist should demand a test to distinguish the real from the fake, and that the lack of any effort to find such a test indicates that a) so-called “psychics” don’t have faith in their own “abilities” and b) even those people who claim to believe in psychic powers haven’t really thought through the implications of that belief. In that sense, James Randi is the one of the few persons willing to take the question seriously - he recognizes that if there were psychic powers it would be important and is willing to do the work (One might argue that Randi is overly credulous in even wasting the time bothering to investigate something so unlikely). At any rate, I had hoped by my OP to lead some non-skeptics to take their purported beliefs seriously; instead I have apparently confused some people - Sorry
Still no non-skeptics yet? Shame.
My brother claims he’s clairvoyant. I’ve gone back and forth with him a number of times to understand what he does and why. I fully accept that he is sincere in his belief. He does give readings for money, but it is in the nature of using his “gift” to help people. He truly thinks he’s helping people. The money is to make it a trade - he would love to quit his day job and be a full time spiritualist, but it’s not financially viable for him right now.
Anyway, RE the OP. From my discussions with him, I have some insight into the position of the psychic crowd. They feel that psychic powers tend not to be consistent. Just because he feels his powers are real that doesn’t mean they will work every time he wants them to. He argues for “other ways of knowing” besides scientific testing, and states with a straight face that there are three equivalent planes of existence - the physical, the spiritual, and the mythological. That’s right - Santa Claus is real. Trust me, getting a straight answer on that is impossible.
The thing is, having his description of what he does for his readings is not a cold reading, it’s not overtly trying to generate something that sounds good. But it is completely subjective. It is providing whatever stimulus comes to his mind, and then letting the client interpret it. That is exactly the method, it is what he advocates as the only possible method for it to be meaningful to the person - and it is them fishing for connections between what is said and their own lives. But I can’t convince him about that.
dlb, I still don’t think I understand you.
One does not have to assume real psychics exist, one just has to assume it is possible for real psychics to exist. But I still don’t see how that leads to the inconsistency you claim. Is it likely that some “psychics” will claim the tests were “debunking” tests and not fair tests? Certainly. Does that mean a fair test cannot be designed? Of course not.
It seems to me the way the JREF runs things is exactly appropriate. First, the test begins with the psychic’s claims of what he/she can do. If they don’t claim they can levitate, you don’t include as part of the test a requirement that they levitate. If they claim they can find water by dowsing, for instance, then the test must include water in some hidden manner. If they say it only works if the water is running, then the test must have the water running. The JREF does this. Every claimant has direct input on the test design, and is allowed practice runs without controls to verify they feel they can do the test under those conditions. How can the test be debunking if the psychic gets a direct say in how the test is conducted? The conditions for pass or fail are never subjective - they are clear delineations. And the determination of pass or fail is spelled out in full before testing begins. How is that a debunking test?
Second, the test requires that the claimant can only do what they say with psychic powers, and not some other way. “Proper observing conditions” is the phrase Randi uses. That means that all known magicians’ tricks like sleight of hand are eliminated in the test protocol. If strings are suspected for levitation, the test precludes strings. If magnets are suspected, the test finds a way to eliminate magnets. How is this counter to a fair test?
I don’t understand what inconsistencies you mean. Please explain further/again.
Urban Ranger wrote:
Sadly, this reminds me of a light bulb joke:
Q. How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None. If the light bulb needed changing, market forces would have already caused it to happen by now.
Let me try to reply to three people at once without triple-quoting (which is a pain). I’ll choose Andy as the quote:
And I was trying to establish that anything under the postulates of the thought experiment was self-defeating. Moreover, that any attempt to do engage in the thought experiment seriously dissolves into nonsense. Unfortunately, the nonsense came out to be (or was perceived as, which is the same thing in writing) my nonsense, which means I have failed badly as a writer. When this many people misunderstand what I meant to do, I have done a pretty piss poor job. I was trying to “show, not tell” (a writer’s dictum), and I blew it.
Sorry about that folks, to all. I tried to do a “direct demonstration” and failed. Since I am just plain failing to communicate what I hoped to do, I suggest that we just ignore what I was trying to do.
More directly: the thought experiment is doomed to failure from the start because any test to separate “real” from “fake” psychics must be based on a test that determines if “real” psychics exist, which is the assumption of the thought experiment. Thought experiments don’t work if the experiment questions their basic assumptions; they just kind of fold up and chase their own tails.
Is the direct statement clearer? (Remember to ignore what I said before.)
It’s a bit off tangent from the original post … but there is some experimental evidence to suggest that belief in the paranormal is correlated with poor probability skills. Here’s a cite:
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/fas/staff/sb/si92.html
Basically, humans are good at discerning patterns in noisy environments. Some things that seem to be patterns are actually just coincidence. People who are particularly bad at estimating probability are more likely to discount coincidence as the source of a strange pattern they have just observed, and look to supernatural causes instead.
I may be able to shed some light on why believers in the paranormal who aren’t scam artists resist scientific inquiry. Or not, but here is my two cents anyway.
My dog is psychic. She has an amazing ability to detect people approaching even before they are on my property. She will get up and lay by the door a full five minutes before they arrive. Friends who have kept her say she will do this especially before I come to retrieve her.
I could investigate further, but I won’t. I am afraid that if I set up a video camera to watch her while I am away, I will find that either she just likes to lay on the door mat or that it’s only coincidence. That’s no fun. I would much rather believe that Maya has super powers. I would much rather believe that when she runs out of the room for no reason she is chasing Agnus, the door slamming ghost. If I were to look on these phenomena with science and reason, I would probably find that Agnus is only air pressure differential and Maya just a goofy labrador with no special powers whatsoever. That would be a shame. A senile ghost and a dog that could be the mascot for the X-men are much more enjoyable than a drafty house and a labrador with attention deficit disorder.
I may be different from other believers of paranormal phenomena in that I know that I am putting blinders up. Because of this, my reasons for resisting scientific proof may be slightly different as well, but I think there are some comparisons to be made.
Though my belief in my dog’s other-worldly and my resident ghost amounts to little more than a running joke, it brings me comfort of a sort. People WANT to believe in these things. The beliefs can restore awe and wonder in a world saturated with reason and too often mired in cynicism.
-Beeblebrox
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
dlb said:
Um, okay. What thought experiment? Someone claims to have psychic powers. Do they or don’t they? Test them. How? Design a test that eliminates tricks and allows the psychic method to pass. This requires understanding what is the basis for the claim that the method is psychic. This is not a thought experiment - the JREF is doing it.
How is the experiment doomed to failure? You tailor the test based on the claim. Use statistical methods when the method is not clear but the discrepancy in the results of use method or not use method will give a clear result.
How is this any different than testing medicines or medical treatments, for example? Claim that bee stings cure Multiple Schlerosis. Does it or doesn’t it? Well, establish a controlled test. Claim that angioplasty can treat heart blockages. Does it or doesn’t it? Well, establish a controlled test. Claim insulin can treat diabeties. Ditto.
It’s been a few weeks since any reply, but I’m still really curious to hear from more non-skeptics (people who believe in phenomena like telepathy, etc.). I appreciate the replies already received from people like Beeblebrox who prefer not to investigate too closely phenomena that appear spooky but don’t seem to be too important even if true. I also appreciate DLB even though I disagree with him. But what I want is a reply from someone like Hastur, who claims to believe in significant supernatural phenomena - the question remains: If you believe these phenomena exist, why don’t you care enough to take action?
Andy
I read that the CIA did some work investigating psychic powers. There was a Nightline about it and some PR guy claimed to have favorable results (as in > 50% accuracy, can’t remember the figure).
Doesn’t really seem to fit the CIA’s modus operandi… Not investigating this, I mean… talking about it.
You want a cite? Go get your own cite.
Eternal wrote:
You want the cite? You want the cite?!
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE CITE!!
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with psychic powers.”
You will be waiting a long time for non-sceptics to respond to you. The gulf between sceptics and non-sceptics is wide. It often involves quite a different world view.
Your OP assumes that non-sceptics believe in a sharp difference between what is real and what is not, and in the importance of objective proof, as sceptics do. In my experience many non-sceptics do not believe these things. They may well place more importance upon subjective feeling, anecdote and what it suits them to believe as valuable tests of truth than you or I would.
Your question (which I am hopefully summarising correctly) is why don’t non-sceptics want to find out objectively which psychics are “real” and which are “fakes”, because that is clearly important? If you approach that question from the viewpoint that there is no such thing as objective truth and or that objective truth is unimportant, or that the type of tests that a sceptic would propose to distinguish between the real and the fake are not valid or important, then your whole question does not compute.
To illustrate further, say I am a non-sceptic and I believe (as you say Hastur does) in some psychic phenomena but also that there are fakes out there in whom I did not believe. It is very unlikely that I believe in the psychic phenomena that I do believe in because I have applied rigorous James Randi style testing. I probably believe in those psychic phenomena for a number of reasons that you or I would dismiss as illogical, contrary to the evidence, or insufficient. Against that background, what sense does it make to me to weed out using the type of tests a sceptic would apply the psychics that are fake?
In short, non-sceptics are about as likely to have much interest in your OP as a bunch of atheists would have in debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or what precisely heaven is like.