Why has no one claimed the one million dollars?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JHL

That aside, the point remains: no person with claimed psychic or paranormal ability has stood up to the test of scientific rigour. If indeed such ability does exist, and reliably so, then this is an astonishing statistic, is it not?

Sigh. Extracts from the previous link again:

"Scientists began to take an interest in Matthew’s abilities and in the summer of 1974 he was invited to The New Horizons research Foundation, Toronto, as the main subject of a three-day seminar on psychokinesis, involving twenty-one scientists from various countries. In front of these scientists Matthew was able to demonstrate some of his abilities, but their main interest was in his metal bending and he bent an endless number of keys, spoons and forks until he was tired of the whole thing."

"One of the experiments Matthew took part in was with Professor Brian Josephson, Regius Professor of Physics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a 1973 Nobel prizewinner at the age of 31 ...... It began with the compass needle completely still, then Matthew moved his hands above the compass and the needle moved around; when he took his hands away the needle, unnaturally, stopped completely dead. Throughout the experiment Professor Josephson experienced a strange sensation,‘as though I was seeing it through a heat haze,’as he told a journalist."

Experiment with handcuffs:

"Matthew tried wearing them for some time but nothing seemed to be happening, so Peter decided to unlock them and take them off. But when he tried he found that the key didn’t fit anymore - one of the bars of the indestructible handcuffs had been bent; it subsequently took Matthew a long time to extricate himself from the misshapen handcuffs. Extensive tests at Brunel University showed no change in the molecular structure of the metal, and X-ray photos proved that no physical force had been used to bend the handcuffs. This was scientifically inexplicable."

"Consequently, for around five years he took part in a comprehensive series of tests at the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, at the University of California, and at London University. These tests produced a large number of scientific reports on his psychic healing ability, and Matthew was able to demonstrate under laboratory conditions his capacity to influence the rate of degradation of human blood cells and enzymes, the death rate of cancer cells, and the remote influencing of a person’s brainwave pattern. In one test of his healing powers with US scientist Dr John Kmetz, Matthew managed to kill cancer cells in a glass flask by concentration and laying on of hands."

"He has been tested and examined by reputable scientists and often, though not often enough, their results have been published and are available for anyone to examine."

[munish]

An essay, Skeptical about the skeptics -

These extreme skeptics are truly impressive in the depth of their knowledge: There is nothing true in the universe that they don't already know. I've also learned from these omniscient rationalists that there is no such thing as mysterious.More importantly, I've also learned from these skeptics that the universe operates in pure Newtonian fashion like a giant pinball machine, and that free will, creativity, love, intuition and faith are merely illusory notions invoked by chemical balances in the brain.
This has me pondering an important question: Who does a skeptic think is offering the opinions of skepticism if that same skeptic does not believe in the existence of his own consciousness?
By definition, then, the opinions of all such skeptics are of no greater consequence than two billiard balls bouncing off each other because even they do not believe they exist as conscious beings capable of creating inspired thought. Thus, if you take their word for it, extreme skeptics have the same level of consciousness as, say, your average armadillo. They self-admittedly have none, in fact, making such skeptics about as intelligent as a brass doorknob, but far less useful. A doorknob, at least, can open something. But extreme skeptics remain forever closed to new ideas.

I once asked a skeptic how he could be sure there was nothing else in the universe besides the physical, and he gave me an answer that basically translates into, "I intuitively felt so." Normally, I would call such a person a complete idiot, but most skeptics are actually well educated. They are clearly not idiots. Rather, they are purveyors of self-aggrandizing reductionism who suffer under the cult-like illusion that hyper-rational, compartmentalized, Descartian logic is the one and only way to arrive at any sort of truth.

Their belief in the superiority of selective logic bounded by preordained conceptual blinders is as zealotistic and pompous as any fanatical religion, but far less believable because to become a member of the Church of Logic, you have to pledge exclusive faith to a system of philosophy that disavows the concept of faith altogether. What the members of this church are missing is the idea that metaphor, or meditation, or storytelling, or dreaming is often far truer and a whole lot more interesting than mere logic.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's a good thing, then, that extreme skeptics don't believe in the mind at all -- only in the brain, a physical organ they say merely creates the illusion of consciousness and has no ethereal existence whatsoever: No spirit, no soul, no mind.

By their own definition, then, extreme skeptics are mindless, soulless walking water bags that are no more "alive" than the DNA sequence of a virus. Unfortunately, they still manage to spout words from time to time, probably due to some sort of linguistic reflex action, and annoy the rest of us who actually do have consciousness.

A chicken can still run with its head cut off, but that doesn't mean it knows where it's going. It's only a reflex that appears to resemble conscious intention. Don't mind it.
source-Mike Adams(newstarget)
Independent news on natural health, nutrition and more

[Liara Covert]

This posting is quite thought-provoking. I think its useful to point out that all psychic or clairvoyant activity/ abilities does not appear to be the same or even comparable. So, trying to test the validity of paranormal abilities based on a standardized, scientific test strikes me as being as logical as giving the same multiple choice test to everyone and basing their level of intelligence on the results that distinguish them. (I would question the accuracy of sweeping generalizations)

People may forget there exist different kinds of intelligence, different ways of seeing and perceiving. Ask yourself why you may already be sceptical of psychics before you see or hear one or learn about a crime case that was solved by a psychic consultant. That kind of judgment would be as unfounded as saying you don't like a particular food when you haven't yet tried it.

If you had a bad experience, or know someone who has, that wouldn't negate the good many psychics do. Why all the interest in a million dollar test anyway? Whether or not people choose to take the test doesn't indicate a clear level of authenticity or fraud. You can choose to have faith in something like God and heaven or life after death without scientific proof. The choice to believe in deeper consciousness and the unexplained is yours.

[Reality Handbook]

I like Randi's challenge in one sense: it points out that the paranormal (pretty much by definition) is a protoscience. Those expecting reliable and measurable results should stay away...and I myself refuse to pay money for psychic "services" because I consider it an area to be pursued because of mutual curiosity and experimentation.

But let's look at why would anyone subject themselves to being a lab rat in order to prove an aspect of the paranormal. For me the motivation would be to try and get scientists to stop mistreating people who are often less educated, but who are having a different set of experiences and thus need broader theories to explain it.

But that's not what would happen.

Imagine a child who has a slight sense of hearing, born to deaf parents in an all-deaf world, who somehow manages to demonstrate their ability has value. They'd get prodded and poked and have brain scans and get electrodes stuck on them. Science would quickly start crowing about the real accomplishment—the discovery of sound waves. The idea of "being able to see when your back is turned" would be dismissed as a category error; no one ever *saw* with their back turned. Therefore, science was right all along! All the hearing people in the past—who may have been suffering from a din of noises they couldn't interpret—would be given no reparations. The process for evaluating the next claim would not be done in any more humane a way.

When science doesn't judge it's own constant revisions of immature theories with the same harshness it judges non-scientists who are working with similarly immature theories, I'm reminded of this deep thought (which could have been written by Randi instead of Handey):

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

[Angela]

Originally Posted by munish

By their own definition, then, extreme skeptics are mindless, soulless walking water bags that are no more "alive" than the DNA sequence of a virus. Unfortunately, they still manage to spout words from time to time, probably due to some sort of linguistic reflex action, and annoy the rest of us who actually do have consciousness.

Good heavens, Munish! Who are these extreme skeptics? Am I one, because I have a naturalistic worldview, and believe there is no supernatural force at work? I and ALL of the people I know who also have a naturalistic worldview fully incorporate free will, love, creativity, and intuition into our lives that works for the highest good of all.

It's not an "intuitive" feeling I have that there is no supernatural, personal interventionist god; rather, it's the lack of compelling evidence, scientific or otherwise. But that doesn't mean we disavow consciousness itself; that would be silly, because after all, apparently we're conscious. Apparently armadillos are, too; some rationalists even consider the possibility of consciousness of a sort within a doorknob. I think the more rational a person, the less likely they are to consider themselves (or anyone or anything) "omniscient".

You're welcome (by me, by my cohorts) to your supernatural beliefs; so why the venom?

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"He has been tested and examined by reputable scientists and often, though not often enough, their results have been published and are available for anyone to examine."

I could find no evidence of Matthew Manning’s experiments at the Cambridge Psychical Research Society having been reported in any non-parapsychology peer-reviewed scientific journal. (To some, this may be merely evidence of a giant conspiracy within the mainstream scientific community, or possibly my poor searching skills.) I know how the compass-moving and object-bending tricks might be done using deception, and that does not prove that Manning is faking. Manning’s abilities might be genuine, but they have not yet been independently verified under sound scientific protocols. If they ever are, it will be one of the most exciting discoveries in the history of mankind.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"One of the experiments Matthew took part in was with Professor Brian Josephson, Regius Professor of Physics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a 1973 Nobel prizewinner at the age of 31 ...... It began with the compass needle completely still, then Matthew moved his hands above the compass and the needle moved around; when he took his hands away the needle, unnaturally, stopped completely dead. Throughout the experiment Professor Josephson experienced a strange sensation,‘as though I was seeing it through a heat haze,’ as he told a journalist."

If I developed, say, the ability to move a compass needle with my mind, I would apply for the One Million Dollar Challenge, and easily demonstrate my powers during the test, and waltz away with one million dollars. If Randi reneged on the wager, or held up my application for a phony reason, I would hold a press conference, easily demonstrate my powers, cheerfully expose Randi’s scam to the world, and destroy the integrity (and possibly the existence) of JREF forever. If the Challenge is indeed bogus, why hasn’t at least one psychic tried that approach in the over forty-two years that the Challenge has been in existence? S/he would be world famous. The resulting publicity could be leveraged in such a way as to increase his or her cash flow, thereby compensating the psychic for any “wasted time.” A strictly win-win situation for any psychic, not just Manning. That is before even getting into the tremendous benefit to mankind. Or, if you refuse to deal with Randi in any capacity, simply call the press conference, or contact the nearest university physics department with your claim.

[Erin Pavlina]

Sylvia Browne stated on Larry King that she did take part in some challenge of Randi's but that he changed the rules on her once she arrived for the challenge. She refused to take the challenge at that time. She accused him of fraud. if someone as famous as Sylvia couldn't bring national attention to that, who could?

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Sylvia Browne stated on Larry King that she did take part in some challenge of Randi's but that he changed the rules on her once she arrived for the challenge. She refused to take the challenge at that time. She accused him of fraud…

I’m sorry Erin, but I don’t believe that the evidence supports that version of events.

Paraphrased from the JREF site:
On March 6, 2001, Sylvia agreed to accept the JREF Million Dollar Challenge on Larry King. On September 3rd 2001, Sylvia and Randi appeared on Larry King, and Randi suggested the following protocol. They advertise for ten people who believe in Sylvia’s psychic powers. Sylvia would be given the gender, name, and age of the chosen subject and would perform a reading via telephone without getting any feedback from the subject. The subject would score the reading on a scale from 0 to 10. Each of the other 9 volunteers would then be given a transcript of the reading and would score it from 0 to 10. A positive result would be that the subject who received the reading should score from 5 to 10, and the volunteers who did not receive the reading should score from 0 to 4.

Sylvia agreed to the protocol, and Larry King asked if he might be part of the control procedure.

On the May 16th 2003 edition of Larry King, Sylvia stated that she would not take the challenge because “…[Randi] doesn’t have the money.” She then requested that the million dollars be placed into escrow.

On May 19th, 2003, Randi sent a certified letter to Sylvia and enclosed a notarized copy of the account status showing the balance in a special "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" in excess of one million dollars. Also enclosed was a formal statement from the agency holding these assets, verifying that the funds were in place. The letter also stated, “Now that this issue of the prize money has been resolved, and there can no longer be any impediment to your involvement, we anticipate hearing from you with a renewed acceptance of our challenge.”

In November 2003, Randi asked Larry King via certified letter to act as the “escrow agent” for the million dollars to comply with Sylvia’s request.

On February 19th, 2004, Sylvia appeared on a “Coast to Coast” radio show with host George Noory and stated, "… when they called me on Larry King,. And I said, have him contact me, with the money in escrow … and that was the end. I never heard from him again."

To my knowledge, Sylvia has avoided all contact with Randi since she publicly agreed to the protocol in September 2001. If Sylvia’s assertion were that “Randi changed the protocol when I showed up for the test,” I think that Randi would have tried to refute that accusation on his site. He does attempt to refute the charge that “he doesn’t have the money,” as well as several other accusations made by Sylvia against him.

I think that Randi is convinced that Sylvia does not have psychic powers. He is driven, in part, by what he sees as the “cruel hoaxes” that she perpetuates.

The following is paraphrased from the Stop Sylvia Brown site: In March of 1999, six-year-old Opal Jo Jennings was abducted from her grandparents’ front yard in Tarrant County, Texas. Opal’s grandmother, Audrey Sanderford appeared on the Montel Williams Show on April 29th, 1999 and was told by Sylvia that Opal was “taken into white slavery” and was currently living in Japan. Opal’s remains were recovered in December of 2003, near Fort Worth, TX. “It was determined that Opal was killed by trauma to the head with(in) several hours of her abduction.”

If Sylvia does not possess psychic abilities, then her actions in Opal’s case, in the Shawn Hornbeck case, and in so many others just seem reprehensible to me. I try to keep an open mind though, and Sylvia could easily prove to me that she has at least some psychic ability, by performing well using the protocols that she agreed to in 2001.

I’m not attacking you personally Erin, I consider myself a fan of yours (and Steve!). I’m trying to clarify some misperceptions the best that I can.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by KellyM

I could find no evidence of Matthew Manning’s experiments at the Cambridge Psychical Research Society having been reported in any non-parapsychology peer-reviewed scientific journal. (To some, this may be merely evidence of a giant conspiracy within the mainstream scientific community, or possibly my poor searching skills.) I know how the compass-moving and object-bending tricks might be done using deception, and that does not prove that Manning is faking. Manning’s abilities might be genuine, but they have not yet been independently verified under sound scientific protocols. If they ever are, it will be one of the most exciting discoveries in the history of mankind.



If I developed, say, the ability to move a compass needle with my mind, I would apply for the One Million Dollar Challenge, and easily demonstrate my powers during the test, and waltz away with one million dollars. If Randi reneged on the wager, or held up my application for a phony reason, I would hold a press conference, easily demonstrate my powers, cheerfully expose Randi’s scam to the world, and destroy the integrity (and possibly the existence) of JREF forever. If the Challenge is indeed bogus, why hasn’t at least one psychic tried that approach in the over forty-two years that the Challenge has been in existence? S/he would be world famous. The resulting publicity could be leveraged in such a way as to increase his or her cash flow, thereby compensating the psychic for any “wasted time.” A strictly win-win situation for any psychic, not just Manning. That is before even getting into the tremendous benefit to mankind. Or, if you refuse to deal with Randi in any capacity, simply call the press conference, or contact the nearest university physics department with your claim.

Essentially what history suggests is that your psychic powers would fail to work when they are being observed by a nonbeliever who is not open to those abilities being true.

If you want more info on this issue I suggest reading Secret of the UFO by Don Elkins. You can get the online version for free. Do a google search. It looks into this reoccurring issue where believers can see physical proof before their eyes, yet nonbelievers can't because they are metaphysically "closed" to it in a certain way causing the phenomenon to fail when they are watching.

The fact of the matter is that if psychic abilities were a "typical" kind of phenomenon they would be have been scientifically proven by now in many independent venues, however with psychic abilities you never get a consistent result because the presence of a nonbeliever, or the presence of an objective form of transmitting proof, essentially nullifies the psychic ability.

Therefore, from the skeptic's perspective, history suggests 3 options:

1) The paranormal is real, but hasn't been scientifically proven because of the "skeptic effect"
2) The paranormal is false
3) The paranormal is real but hasn't been scientifically proven due to incompetence. I find this unlikely.

If you believe the #1 explanation, then it's also worth noting that many sources think that the skeptic effect is not going to last forever. ie. Scientific proof may be on the horizon, even if it is currently & historically unavailable.

[Erin Pavlina]

KellyM, I appreciate the length you went to to get that all written down. I'm aware of all that. The one I heard Sylvia talk about on Larry King had something to do with her going to Germany or she said everyone Randi selected spoke only German or something like that and so with the language barrier she couldn't do her "thing" and left in disgust at his devious switch.

Now, I don't go researching all this because I don't really care about what Sylvia and Randi are doing. But I just thought I'd jump in with what I read in a transcript. It was something about Germany or german speaking people.

[KellyM]

Oh, the German thing! Sorry about that. Please forgive my tracking this one down, too. (You don't have to read it!) Here is what Randi has to say:

In 1989 Sylvia demonstrated her abilities by reading an audience assembled for the taping of a TV special. She failed miserably. In March 2001 on Larry King, Sylvia offered the following excuse:

“They [the studio audience] were all Germans! And they couldn't understand a word I said! That was a setup, as you well know.... because they couldn't speak English. I found that out after, they were all Germanic!”

Randi claims, “…Only one member of that audience of 140 persons was German, though he spoke English, and you spent a full one minute and seven seconds rattling off wrong guesses for him, then found out he was German, only after he told you that — in English! Didn't you know that already, Sylvia? You conversed with the other four audience members you "read" there, in fluent English, didn't you? And yet you told Larry King that they were "all Germans"!...”

I haven't found a transcript of the reading in question.

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Therefore, from the skeptic's perspective, history suggests 3 options:

1) The paranormal is real, but hasn't been scientifically proven because of the "skeptic effect"
2) The paranormal is false
3) The paranormal is real but hasn't been scientifically proven due to incompetence. I find this unlikely.

This theory might have merit. What seems to me to be more common though among the psychic community is an attack on the integrity of the skeptic who is performing or proposing the test.

In addition, I think that there is a category of psychic phenomena that can’t be easily tested. A friend of mine woke up at 2:17 one morning and knew that her grandfather had just died. She was pretty much right. I don’t see how such events could ever be verified to be psychic.

Another example would be Steve’s Million Dollar Experiment. Asking for proof seems a little extreme to me. It’s like asking for proof of the effectiveness of prayer. Both are extremely difficult to test, and how would any test results change your behavior anyway? As Steve has described, the Experiment is more of an Experience, rather than something you would verify in a lab. Speaking from personal experience, trying to manifest money is an absolute blast.

I’m NOT asking about proof of non-testable psychic phenomena.

[dor]

Originally Posted by yossarian

1) The paranormal is real, but hasn't been scientifically proven because of the "skeptic effect"
2) The paranormal is false
3) The paranormal is real but hasn't been scientifically proven due to incompetence. I find this unlikely.
.

why do you find #3 unlikely? How many times has modern science gone back and forth about nutrition - just a few years ago, lowfat and eliminating fat was recommened by nearly all 'experts'

How long did it take science to catch up with the simple truth every christian learns on ash wednesday ""Dust thou art, and to dust thou wilt return."" (well Anglicans and Catholics anyway )

I agree somewhat with the skeptics that there is a lot of fraud out there- but I think their attitude that is just doesn't exist means they will never find it.
as i stated on other threads- ball lightening was brushed off by scientists as hallucination until it was recreated in the labatory

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by KellyM

This theory might have merit. What seems to me to be more common though among the psychic community is an attack on the integrity of the skeptic who is performing or proposing the test.

that's human beings for ya :P

Originally Posted by dor

why do you find #3 unlikely? How many times has modern science gone back and forth about nutrition - just a few years ago, lowfat and eliminating fat was recommened by nearly all 'experts'

IMO several of the psychic abilities are significantly simpler than something like nutrition - which is incredibly complex due to all the various variables and our total ignorance of how they interact with each other in the body.

For instance, how hard is it to test Uri Geller spoon bending? It's an incredibly simple test. Amazingly simple. Some scientific tests show he could do it, some show he couldn't. For instance, Don Elkin & Puharich showed Geller to be legit, but Uri couldn't do it around Feynman & Johnny Carson. And it's NOT that he TRIED and was caught faking.. it's that he claimed he was simply unable to do it and couldn't specify exactly why. In all cases where Uri DID bend spoons, no magician/scientist ever proved he was cheating. He did it many times on camera - no one proved he cheated. Sometimes he couldn't do it, but he was never caught faking a spoon bending as far as I know.

Other easy examples would be any kind of telekinesis like those psi-wheels. Remote viewing. Astral projection. Auras. Psychic readings (ie. do the Sylvia Brown test.. this includes astrology, tarot, palm, tea leaves, etc)

There is the whole Chi thing where people can heat up towels with their hands and melt metal and all that.

Historically, some scientists have claimed to have proven these things, but when their colleagues try to reproduce the experiments they often don't work. Why?

The only reasonable explanations are that there is a lot of fraud going on or there is some unaccounted for effect.

Or maybe the really overt types of paranormal (telekinesis, auras, astral projection) are false while more subtle stuff (uncontrollable telepathy) is true. (Again I find this unlikely since it seems most people who develop psi abilities get them as a package deal, more or less. Once you've reached a state where you can do telekinesis, astral proj and telepathy are not far behind. This was apparently true with many of the "greats" like Cayce and Gellar) If you have telepathy and you know it's true, why bother to lie about telekinesis?

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by yossarian

that's human beings for ya :P

And doesn't necessarily imply anything about the truth or falsehood of either side's claims. Go to the health & fitness forum and you'll find vegetarians complaining about attacks from omnivorous "pet-chasers" and omnivores complaining about attacks from overly-vigilant vegans. Neither side is lying or fraudulent, they're just both feeling overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by yossarian

IMO several of the psychic abilities are significantly simpler than something like nutrition - which is incredibly complex due to all the various variables and our total ignorance of how they interact with each other in the body.

Or maybe the really overt types of paranormal (telekinesis, auras, astral projection) are false while more subtle stuff (uncontrollable telepathy) is true. (Again I find this unlikely since it seems most people who develop psi abilities get them as a package deal, more or less. Once you've reached a state where you can do telekinesis, astral proj and telepathy are not far behind. This was apparently true with many of the "greats" like Cayce and Gellar) If you have telepathy and you know it's true, why bother to lie about telekinesis?

I think it's more likely that all psychic phenomena are more subtle and complex than folklore would have it. I've experienced plenty of "Make dinner! Make dinner!" and "Telepathic Pursuit" sorts of things. None of the

Originally Posted by Buffy the Vampire Slayer

"When I walked in a few minutes ago," Buffy tells him, "you thought 'Look at her shoes. If a fashion magazine told her to she'd wear cats strapped to her feet.'"

type things. To quote Rowling, "Only Muggles talk of 'mind reading.' The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing, Potter... or at least, most minds are..." I suspect that as far as getting information from people, most psychic phenomena are more closely related to nutrition than physics.

I have no explanation for the spoon thing, though.

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by yossarian

In all cases where Uri DID bend spoons, no magician/scientist ever proved he was cheating. He did it many times on camera - no one proved he cheated. Sometimes he couldn't do it, but he was never caught faking a spoon bending as far as I know.

He’s been caught faking spoon bending a few times. Here is one.

When Geller took one of my two spoons, he initially held it in plain view, the bowl facing down. "So look what I do," he said, "Basically, I stroke it very gently." For the next 30 seconds, nothing happened.

Then came the diversion.

"What I need is to sit on metal," he said, "Do you have a bunch of keys on you that I could sit on?" Instead, he had me take another spoon, reach down, and put it underneath his sneaker. "it's not going to work, that's my feeling," Geller said as I sat back up and refocused the camera.

But I could tell right away something was different. First, I could no longer see the whole spoon; Geller was covering the handle with his left hand. Second, he was no longer holding it flat. The bowl, instead of facing down, was tilted toward his lap.

Even with the bad angle, I could catch glimpses of a bend in the handle. At that point, I took a photograph that shows the spoon with its bent handle.

In short, the spoon had been bent while Geller was getting me to put another spoon under his foot.

Also, there is a recently-filmed video on YouTube that shows Geller placing “something” on his finger in order to get the compass-moving trick to work.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Historically, some scientists have claimed to have proven these things, but when their colleagues try to reproduce the experiments they often don't work. Why?

Yeah! Let’s assume that a “skeptic effect” exists, that it is the reason for this phenomenon, and try to test for it. Non-skeptics and skeptics agree to a set of test protocols for a particular psychic ability. We should see non-skeptics consistently generate a positive result while the skeptics always show a test failure under the same protocol. Would this work? Why or why not?