Why has no one claimed the one million dollars?

[Rob S]

Why has no one ever won the one million dollar prize from James Randi for successfully demonstrating a psychic ability? Apparently, this offer has been there for many years and not only has no one won, but very few make it past the preliminary test.

I am not attacking anyone, so please don't take this as criticism. I am posting this question here because the description for this forum category is the following:
"Psychic & Paranormal" :Psi skills, psychic energy, dreams, lucid dreaming, astral projection, paranormal phenomena, non-physical entities, extraterrestrials, channeling, mediumship, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, claircognizance.

So obviously people who post here are believers and perhaps posses these skills. In Deepak Chopra's books he claims people in India can plant a seed, and through the power and concentration of their mind, make the plant grow instantly (within a few minutes). Can't these people use a million dollars?

Steve had a blog entry once on Telepathy http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/06/telepathy/ Can't Steve and Erin use the one million dollars?

This is not an attack on anyone. Especially Steve and Erin.

There has to be an explanation as to why no one is able to collect the money. I know some may say the tests to prove your abilities to win the money may be to difficult, but I believe if you have the skill you should be able to prove it regardless of the conditions (within limits). I have not seen anything on James Randi's site to indicate they make the tests impossible to pass.

So? Any ideas? Randi started this offer in 1964 and no one has taken a dime from him since.


See James Randi's website: James Randi Educational Foundation — Home Page

[The David]

In order to be considered 'scientifically proven', something has to be repeatable, and observable by multiple participants. I have had some paranormal experiences that you probably could not make me doubt (I have witnesses), but if I tried to explain them to you, it would sound really stupid. You don't know me, so to you I may just be a schizophrenic.

As far as psychic abilities: I'm not sure if they are real or not, but if they are, they aren't necessarily predictable, and cannot necessarily be performed under laboratory conditions.

I think Erin wrote an article on this, which would likely be better than this explanation.

[ahimel]

I'm also not certain they'd actually care about the million dollars.

[AndyMartin]

My opinion? Most people perform intuitive practices based on faith rather than a post-rational formalized approach. (That is, an evolved analog to the scientific method, but predicated on different epistemological and phenomenological models.) Lacking a reliable understanding of their abilities outside their practice and whatever metaphysical (is religious) explanation they espouse, they are unable to create a sound methodology for reliably testing them. Just because someone is intuitively gifted does not mean they have an evolved/-ing consciousness. Erin is really a gem in that sense.

Personally, I look forward to a time when we develop trans-rational epistemological frameworks that account for both exterior (eg scientific) as well as interior (eg intuitive, spiritual) phenomena, though there are probably going to be a lot of bruised egos on both sides of the fence when that happens.

[moviestar]

Exactly, paranormal things can't be proven by 'scientifically proven'. That's why they are called paranormal! But just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Rob S

Why has no one ever won the one million dollar prize from James Randi for successfully demonstrating a psychic ability? Apparently, this offer has been there for many years and not only has no one won, but very few make it past the preliminary test.

I am not attacking anyone, so please don't take this as criticism. I am posting this question here because the description for this forum category is the following:
"Psychic & Paranormal" :Psi skills, psychic energy, dreams, lucid dreaming, astral projection, paranormal phenomena, non-physical entities, extraterrestrials, channeling, mediumship, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, claircognizance.

So obviously people who post here are believers and perhaps posses these skills. In Deepak Chopra's books he claims people in India can plant a seed, and through the power and concentration of their mind, make the plant grow instantly (within a few minutes). Can't these people use a million dollars?

Steve had a blog entry once on Telepathy http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/06/telepathy/ Can't Steve and Erin use the one million dollars?

This is not an attack on anyone. Especially Steve and Erin.

There has to be an explanation as to why no one is able to collect the money. I know some may say the tests to prove your abilities to win the money may be to difficult, but I believe if you have the skill you should be able to prove it regardless of the conditions (within limits). I have not seen anything on James Randi's site to indicate they make the tests impossible to pass.

So? Any ideas? Randi started this offer in 1964 and no one has taken a dime from him since.


See James Randi's website: James Randi Educational Foundation — Home Page

Hi Rob

What a great question! Treading carefully in answering this, I also dont want to offend anyone, but the reason why no one has claimed the $1m is because it is impossible to, because it is all hocus pocus.

The great late Alfred Wallace, co-founder of the theory of evolution, destroyed not only his career but his reputation by being taken in by bogus so-called supernatural communicatyors in 'seances', and left his scientific principle behind in favour of moving glasses on table tops and flickering lights in shady back room parlours of the deluded or plain criminal.

A sad loss of a great mind.

What I do not deny however, is that people can hear voices in their heads!

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by moviestar

Exactly, paranormal things can't be proven by 'scientifically proven'. That's why they are called paranormal! But just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think Mr. Randi is looking to put psychics under a test tube or finding some chemical or biological answer. This is not really science experiment. In fact one of the tests is that a psychic is asked to give 10 people (10 believers in psychic ability) a reading. The reading is done with the person hearing it. The reading is documented and then placed in to an envelope. The 10 people are then brought into a room and the 10 envelopes are placed on a table. Each person is to go through the envelopes to determine which reading is theirs. If the reading does in fact contain information specific for that person it should be obvious. If however the reading is a so called "cold reading" then the information could be completely useless and very generic (it could apply to anyone).

Also, what sort of scientific test do you need to prove telekinesis? You can either move an object or you can't. Move Mr.Randi's chair while he sitting on it and the money is yours.

Telepathy, you can either hear the other person in your head or you cannot.

Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. In fact I was shocked when I learned about this million dollar offer and that no one has stepped forward. Why?

Perhaps as part of the Pavlina community we should make it our mission to find someone to prove this to the world, because winning the million dollars will achieve more than financial gain for the individual who does it, it will be an act of enlightenment on humanity. That is greater than any financial gain in my mind.

[Erin Pavlina]

I heard John Edward say that proving his abilities to skeptics is not a high priority for him. Proving his abilities to scientists with an open mind is a priority and he has done that. He has worked with scientists at some university that escapes me now.

James Randi creates his tests not based on the claim of the psychic but based on what he and his community of skeptics claim a psychic SHOULD be able to do. He also says if he can reproduce their results with trickery than that must be how the psychic did it.

He makes his living based on not finding anyone who can claim the million dollars. It's like the soy industry having to prove to the dairy industry that soy is beneficial. Do you think the dairy industry will be particularly open to that?

[Gonzo]

There are people who stepped forward but no one was 'for real' according to Randi. He offers the price money in bonds, not real cash. They can even be completely worthless at the time they are paid out.

There is a good article about the experiences of 'Sean Connely' the webmaster of PsiPog (now archived).

Here is the article containing a lot of information about how Randi pulls it up and makes sure that he doesn't loose his money.

Good day!

~Gonzo

[Savage]

I think Randi's challenge is bogus... a publicity stunt to feed his ego and a tool to attack his perceived enemies. Since he controls the test, he can always prevent a winner.

I think Randi just needs a hug more than anything else.

So here's the Pavlina challenge:

I'll offer a $10,000 cash prize (that's cash, not bonds) for a 60-second hug between James Randi and Sylvia Browne. That's $5000 each for 60 seconds of their time. They can donate the money to charity if they wish.

Maybe over time we can build the prize even higher and encourage them to forgive each other. How much will it take to crack their mutual resentment?

As human beings we have more important things to do right now than fight amongst ourselves.

[Shaden]

If I got paid for 60-second hugs I'd be a very rich man

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I think Randi's challenge is bogus... a publicity stunt to feed his ego and a tool to attack his perceived enemies. Since he controls the test, he can always prevent a winner.

I think Randi just needs a hug more than anything else.

So here's the Pavlina challenge:

I'll offer a $10,000 cash prize (that's cash, not bonds) for a 60-second hug between James Randi and Sylvia Browne. That's $5000 each for 60 seconds of their time. They can donate the money to charity if they wish.

Maybe over time we can build the prize even higher and encourage them to forgive each other. How much will it take to crack their mutual resentment?

As human beings we have more important things to do right now than fight amongst ourselves.

Thanks for your response Steve. I think it's unfortunate that you chose to discredit James Randi rather than try to find a away to prove psychic abilities. I am sure it is very easy to misunderstand my words. I probably sound like a non-believer and that I am trying to root out a hoax. In fact I am trying to do the exact opposite. Right now a major part of the world see's all of the paranormal activity such as psychics, astral projections etc as a delusion. Without proof you stand beside each church claiming their dogma as the word of God. Accepting all of this paranormal activity is yet another belief system. Perhaps you (and many of us) have been sitting in the "new age" box far to long, and it's time to get inside another box and look through that lens to see what this new age world looks like. It's easy to critisize fwhen looking from the other side. I learned from you that you cannot appreciate a belief system unless you dive in become that belief system. James Randi is not the only person out there who doesn't believe in this. There are millions of non believers. Imagine the impact if one person, could prove without a doubt, any of the psychic abilities. You would show all of the those red lens wearing people that a blue lens exists, and they need to try it on. As of right now, they only know of the red lens.

How about we forget the Randi experiment. I'm not interested in peace between him and Sylvie Browne as they are at two ends of magnetic pole that will never meet. I am interested in enlightment. Aren't you? Isn't Erin? You have over 1 million people that hit your site every month. Not one of them has psychic abilities to demonstrate to the world?

I believe that if one person comes forth with real psychis powers, or telekenesis, proof of astral projections, proof of clairvoyance etc, they will put that vision into the minds of millions who will then have witnessed something of enlightment. Through visualization more people will have these powers as the thought streams throw all of our connected minds.

So I ask again, doesn't anyone out there want to show people the blue lens?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Rob S

So I ask again, doesn't anyone out there want to show people the blue lens?

Heck, Erin does this nearly every day. Psychic and paranormal experiences are have become a fairly routine part of our lives.

Skepticism is the psychic equivalent of colorblindness. Skeptics don't have such experiences because they tune them out, just as my (colorblind) eyes tune out certain colors. In my opinion anyone who perceives the color purple must be a total loon.

[Liara Covert]

I think its useful to point out that individuals with psychic and paranormal abilities are routinely sought out by research scientists and by crime investigation squads to help crack unsolved cases. The point is not always to publicize who is doing what and where while its going on because this would often undermine the classified nature of investigations or negatively slant scientific test results. Talented psychics seem to focus on helping people not in making money from engaging in publicity stunts.

Alison Dubois is an interesting case. She is the focus of modern television program called Medium that has very high ratings over multiple seasons. She has chosen to use her abilities in different ways to help people both in the public eye and in private spheres. The t.v. programs are supposedly ficticitious, based on real cases she has helped solve in past with police. In reality, she has published books which apparently chronicle some of her experiences; "Don't Kiss Them Goodbye" and "We Are Their Heaven: The Dead Never Leave Us." Alison also explains how she has been part of the Veritas research program which has demonstrated her abilities in blind studies to individuals such as Deepak Chopra. He has clearly earned international credibility with his abilities and views concerning alternative medicine and life after death.

The recent Australian and New Zealand t.v. programs "Sensing Murder" were promoted as efforts to engage psychics in helping to solved unsolved crimes. Although many of the televised crimes have not yet been solved, it has been noted by participating psychics that police and other authorities have often chosen not to follow psychic leads precisely because of public scepticism about their professional credibility. A best-selling book by a participant explains. Australian Sceptics offer $110,000 for real leads they think would solve the msysteries. This hasn't yet been claimed.
Vic Skeptics: Sensing Murder

This site notes how other countries, such as India and England, also offer prizes for psychics who can 'prove their power' and these prizes have not yet been claimed. Ask yourself why real psychics would choose to do what they do. Consider why people might choose not to take the advice of a person with psychic ability. If you were scared someone could know things about you, would that hold you back? Ask yourself also what kind of proof you would need to believe people who claim to have clairvoyant ability. Ask yourself what reason you would have to be sceptic without consulting one professionally to see what they could do for you.

In any discipline, there exist charlatans and qualified individuals. Having a negative experience with a chalatan or knowing someone who has doesn't mean you should assume no one in that discipline is qualified and credible. You can find very talented physicians who save lives and help many people and we have all heard of quacks with folding tables who give doctors a bad name. Choosing to believe or disbelieve is part of what makes us who we are. I personally think if you have faith in something, you attract a positive outcome. If you are sceptical about something, you will be less likely to attract people who will provide proof to convince you otherwise.

[JHL]

In any discipline, there exist charlatans and qualified individuals. Having a negative experience with a chalatan or knowing someone who has doesn't mean you should assume no one in that discipline is qualified and credible.

Thats true, but what is also true is that the public is exhibiting an insatiable appetite for the services of "psychics" and new-age esoterica, spawning a multi-billion dollar industry which, unfortunately, includes a vast number of opportunistic charlatans - or even well-meaning people who erroneously think they have some sort of "gift". Ergo, it is prudent to be at least somewhat discerning about such things.

For me, Rob S has raised a very intriguing point, and the best responses to it thus far in this thread have not exceeded the level of being glib or dismissive. Not very convincing. The question remains: if such powers do in fact exist, how is it that not one person has been able to reliably demonstrate them?

Randi may be able to skew tests and results to prove his own case, but, honestly, how difficult would it really be for someone who possesses supernatural powers to prove it? As a result they would become an overnight sensation, not to mention likely very rich and very influential. In fact they would probably achieve God-like status as a result of the sensation they would create. Particularly in the context of todays esoterica-adoring society. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that a person capable of achieving such dizzying heights could resist such temptation. In fact I find it almost impossible to believe that every single person allegedly possessing these powers has so far resisted. Unless you equate such abilities with saintliness? On the other hand, perhaps the world could use a saint right now!

My own feeling is "pscyhic" powers do exist, but they are tenuous and unreliable. I think they rely on the channel to interpret what they (think) they see. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they dont.

Having said that, I must concede that I am hardly in a position to comment on what is possible and what isnt. I do not presume to be an expert on human potential. Why, I can barely prepare a good soft-boiled egg (now THAT'S a real trick!).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JHL

I do not presume to be an expert on human potential. Why, I can barely prepare a good soft-boiled egg (now THAT'S a real trick!).

If you'd like to read about a psychic experiment with an egg, click here. You will also read about numerous experiments done by many scientists, with the same psychic. Extract, about the egg:

"One of Kulagina’s strangest filmed experiments involved the effect of her powers on a raw egg floating in a tank of saline solution almost two metres away from her. Using intense concentration, she slowly separated the yolk from the white of the egg, and moved the two apart; if she focused her energies for long enough, she could put the egg back together again. But the most unusual experiment of all took place in the Leningrad laboratory on 10 March, 1970. Satisfied that Kulagina had the ability to move inanimate objects, scientists were curious to know whether Nina’s abilities extended to cells, tissues, and organs. Sergeyev was one of the many scientists in attendance when Kulagina attempted to use her energy to stop the beating of a frog's heart, floating in solution, and then re-activate it. She focused intently on the heart and summoned all her powers. First she made it beat faster – then slower, and, using intense will power, she stopped it."


If you really acquaint yourself with the scientific literature on the toic, you would most likely conclude that there is no doubt that "psychic powers" exist. The real questions relate to it's how's and why's, not the fact of its existence.

Psychic/faith healer Matthew Manning gave five years of his life to continuous research by university researchers at Cambridge. Surely that's enough to prove that "psychic powers" exist? At some point, he must get bored with that, and move on with his life. Nowadays he just heals people. Occasionally he gives lectures to doctors and medical associations like the Royal Society of Medicine.

[JHL]

Psychic/faith healer Matthew Manning gave five years of his life to continuous research by university researchers at Cambridge. Surely that's enough to prove that "psychic powers" exist?

Er, I'm not sure the one thing logically leads to the other, but thats besides the point. I do believe that psychic powers exist and stated as much in my post.

The million-dollar (as it were) question is: why has nobody publicly and irrefutably been able to prove it?

With regard to Nina Kulagina, a brief bout of research quickly raises sufficient reasonable doubt to challenge the integrity of these claims. To mention but two: the testing conditions were far from rigorous and Russia, at the time, had a vested propoganda interest in exaggerating and hyping her claims. Having said that, her feats could well be true! But I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to believe them simply on that basis of reading about them on the internet.

Why do I reason that way? Because if these phenomena were reliably true in this sense - one would not have to read of obscure or not-so-obscure reports and such on the internet - they would be every-day occurences, surely? One should be able to go to the local mall and see a person performing magical feats for money, or street performers who amaze and startle with their gift, much like any artist does. I do not mean to trivialise such gifts, you understand, I'm merely pointing out that if they reliably exist -why would you have to point to some obscure russian woman who do things with egg yolks that would make Jamie Oliver turn green with envy?

Why arent you telling me about the guy who lives down your street who's won the lottery 50 weeks in a row? Or the kid at the school you went to with who aced every exam he wrote because he could see the papers in advance?

I've seen many attempts of so-called psychics trying to prove their gift on TV under reasonable scientific scrutiny, and failing miserably. If I see just one attempt where they succeeded under these reasonable conditions, I would become a believer. Its as simple as that. Its just that I have yet to see it, and I cant understand why.

[jamasiel]

One aspect is that most things out there ~are~ fraud or misperception - most ghosts are a night breeze, most "telepathy" is coincidence, most telekinesis is fishing line. I'm not adamantly saying it all is, but this is why most comes up false. However, some negatives don't mean something doesn't exist - the bilking of Darwin's partner is an example of charlatanism, not a counter-example to the existence of what may be called "supernatural."

For things that are "paranormal", there are valid answers already given for parts of your question: those who can feel no need to "prove" to the world, many who call themselves skeptics are out to prove them false (vs. discerning the actual validity), and also the "real" things that happen don't necessarily fit the definition demanded by skeptics*. There might not be such a thing as telekinesis as we expect it to be, but if there is some form of ESP, those demanding evidence of telekinesis are wasting time by insisting on narrow results. Now, I know you're not making telekinesis-specific demands, but the point is insisting on a narrower range of results than what ~may~ be possible.

Additionally, many things we ~call~ supernatural/paranormal are context specific - the person who "hears" a warning when their life was in danger, the connection between specific people, dream visits from dead loved ones, focused desire for a life goal producing physical and otherwise inexplicable results. I couldn't bottle these things for James Randi, even if I cared to get the cash reward for my personal experiences.

Essentially, it's like some versions of the New Testament say:
"`If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "
(Not to make this a religious thing - it's just a handy quote for the topic)
I think healthy skepticism is important as a tool for examination.
Making it the goal falls outside my definition of 'healthy skepticism'.

A more important point for me is that when we say supernatural (etc.), there seems to be an assumption that it means "magic and therefore beyond scientific understanding" - and so when a scientific explanation is produced, it makes the supernatural aspect "false." I tend to view the supernatural as "the areas where science hasn't explained things yet." It's all a part of the same system, and when something supernatural happens, I can accept it both as possible and reasonable, even with a scientific eye. I guess the point of that is that it's unfortunate that most of the words - e.g. "supernatural" "paranormal" - imply being outside of science, which is silly - it's simply what we've not been able to study scientifically...yet.

I'm not here to convince you or anyone of the existence of these things - I have questions myself and would ~love~ irrefutable evidence for quite a few things. I have plans with friends to visit supposedly "haunted" sites, for example, just to see if something will happen that will convince me with more certainty. I don't even need absolute certainty - it just needs to be enough. I've had experiences which may have currently understood scientific explanations (e.g. "just a dream", hallucinations, misperception of lights/shadows, sheer coincidence) - but evidence on hand seems to indicate something science can't currently explain, to my knowledge.
I just can't deny them simply because I can't provide citations.

[KellyM]

James Randi creates his tests not based on the claim of the psychic but based on what he and his community of skeptics claim a psychic SHOULD be able to do.

That is a common misunderstanding. For the Million Dollar Challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), both the claimant psychic and JREF agree to all of the conditions of the test, including success criteria, before the test begins. These conditions are never changed once the test has begun.

He also says if he can reproduce their results with trickery than that must be how the psychic did it.

Another misunderstanding. While Randi and other skeptics often demonstrate how an individual could falsely appear to have paranormal powers, disproving the existence of such abilities is pretty much a futile effort. I believe that if a psychic has an ability, s/he should be able to demonstrate that ability without cheating. To date, no psychic has even come close to demonstrating his or her ability in the Million Dollar Challenge. That does not mean that these abilities do not exist, simply that every single time the test has been attempted, the claimant has failed.

I think Randi's challenge is bogus... a publicity stunt to feed his ego and a tool to attack his perceived enemies.

Wow, Randi really needs better PR. I see Randi as a deeply caring man who works on behalf of the sick, the grieving, and the vulnerable, who are exploited by charlatans.

His book, The Faith Healers, is dedicated to a small boy on crutches who was victimized by Peter Popoff, “…and to the many others who have suffered because the rest of us began caring too late.”

Since he controls the test, he can always prevent a winner.

Many psychics have claimed to have an easily testable ability. As Rob S mentioned, one possible test would be to have a medium give readings to 10 believers, then to have the clients select their reading out of the group. If say, 8 out of 10 can determine which reading is theirs, the claimant passes the test. How could Randi prevent a genuine medium from passing such a simple test?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by JHL

Thats true, but what is also true is that the public is exhibiting an insatiable appetite for the services of "psychics" and new-age esoterica, spawning a multi-billion dollar industry which, unfortunately, includes a vast number of opportunistic charlatans - or even well-meaning people who erroneously think they have some sort of "gift". Ergo, it is prudent to be at least somewhat discerning about such things.

This is really no different than any other field. You'll find dishonest lawyers, doctors, politicians, CEOs, and even... gasp... gamblers.

Lawyers have a particular bad reputation externally, yet within the field you'll find people with high integrity who genuinely want to make a positive difference. Same goes for corporate CEOs.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by KellyM

Many psychics have claimed to have an easily testable ability. As Rob S mentioned, one possible test would be to have a medium give readings to 10 believers, then to have the clients select their reading out of the group. If say, 8 out of 10 can determine which reading is theirs, the claimant passes the test. How could Randi prevent a genuine medium from passing such a simple test?

All he'd have to do would be to drag out the negotiations until the other person gave up. As the judge Randi can easily make the process go on indefinitely with no verdict. Then as soon as the claimant gives up, they're pronounced a fraud. Randi has a million reasons not to make the testing process fair.

If I offered a million dollar cash prize to demonstrate the existence of gravity, and I control the application and testing process, I can guarantee you no one will ever win the prize. I can even promote the test as being mutually negotiable. All I need is right of refusal for anything the claimant suggests, and the prize will be effectively unclaimable.

To rule out the wackos, I might also require that you must have a media presence as a gravity expert to apply for the prize, since I don't want to waste my time with the obviously deluded.

The JREF prize is a clever marketing idea. In a purely Machiavellian sense, I rather like it.

[JHL]

This is really no different than any other field. You'll find dishonest lawyers, doctors, politicians, CEOs, and even... gasp... gamblers.

Lawyers have a particular bad reputation externally, yet within the field you'll find people with high integrity who genuinely want to make a positive difference. Same goes for corporate CEOs.

You are no doubt correct. It therefore follows that one should be equally cautious in one's selection of attorney, investment portfolio manager or massage therapist (I screen my massage therapists VERY carefully! )

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?

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

All he'd have to do would be to drag out the negotiations until the other person gave up.

If I’m understanding you correctly, this implies that Randi is screening the genuine psychics out, and only allowing the frauds to complete the application process. According to the JREF site, between 1997 and February 15, 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications. How is he determining the genuine psychics?

My local skeptics group has a similar $1000 challenge. What usually happens is that the claimant agrees to the terms, including the expected outcomes. The claimant takes the test and fails. The claimant then makes excuses as to why the test was failed, and remains absolutely convinced of his or her abilities. We don’t try to disprove their abilities, we ask for a demonstration of their abilities. In fact, we often joke that we want someone to claim the prize so that we can quit wasting so much of our time.

Leaving Randi out of it, how does a believer think that a gifted medium would perform in the hypothetical test originally mentioned by Rob S? Or is the test not “fair” for some reason that I’m missing? Or am I sliding too far off topic? (I’m not used to posting.) Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by JHL

For me, Rob S has raised a very intriguing point, and the best responses to it thus far in this thread have not exceeded the level of being glib or dismissive. Not very convincing. The question remains: if such powers do in fact exist, how is it that not one person has been able to reliably demonstrate them?

I am glad I am not the only one who feels the responses I have received so far are dismissive. I've also asked in subsequent posts to ignore Randi and answer the question. However, I just keep getting responses that his tests are fabricated to make people fail. Fine, then go on Oprah's show and give her a mind blowing psychic experience. Then do a special with CNN, 20/20, Primetime and 60 minutes. This is where many people want to see this, not on some obscure website. Have someone check the universities that performed tests on the psychics. See what tests they did. Perhaps the scientific proof is already there and we need not go any further.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

This is really no different than any other field. You'll find dishonest lawyers, doctors, politicians, CEOs, and even... gasp... gamblers.

Lawyers have a particular bad reputation externally, yet within the field you'll find people with high integrity who genuinely want to make a positive difference. Same goes for corporate CEOs.

Steve, you are 100% right. Here is the difference. I can take a few doctors and give them a test. The real good doctors will pass the test because they have the skills to do so. The real doctors are not afraid to have you talk to his/her patients and ask them what they think of him/her. The real doctor has nothing to hide and will share his/her skills and knowledge. The dishonest doctor may or may not pass the test, the dishonest doctor will not come with good references. So I agree, this is similar to doctors, lawyers and politicians. The only difference is there are ways of proving fraudulants doctors from real ones.

People of have posted that some psychics are not interested in the money (Randi's $1M). If so, why do they charge hundreds of dollars an hour for a reading? Does the amount they charge corralate to the amount of good information you receive? Shouldn't the best psychic, who is not interested in the money, be the cheapest or free? If in fact a psychic is helping someone with good solid information, then I agree that as with any other professional service, you have to pay for the service. However, don't tell me that if there was an award of 1 million dollars presented to anyone who could prove their skills as a heart surgeon, that no one would jump in and claim the prize because they are not in their profession for the money. Or that no one in 40 years could win the prize.

When I started this thread I was not skeptical about this. I simple wanted to know why no one has won the one million dollars. However, the more dismissive responses I get the more skeptical I become. I feel like I am being told I have to have faith and leave it at that since no reliable proof will ever be provided. Sad.

Steve/Erin, you've done so much for so many of us. Why are you dismissing these questions?

[Erin Pavlina]

Rob, I'm not trying to be dismissive. I get at least one email a week asking me why I don't go for the $1 million. I get tired of explaining my reasons.

I don't think Randi's test would work for me. When I read for someone I need to know who I'm reading for, and have either a photo, a voice, or be in-person. Also, I'm not the kind of psychic who gives readings like, "When you were 10 you fell off a bike and got 5 stitches in your head. You're thinking of moving to Canada. You have 3 kids with 3 different women. Etc." Sometimes I do get that kind of information, but only when it's relevant to their spiritual contract, choices they are facing at the moment of the reading, or if a deceased person gives it to me.

I also feel that James Randi is antagonistic towards psychics since he has stated he believes all of them to be frauds. I respect his right to believe what he wants, but why should I go out of my way to satisfy him? LIke I said in my other post, it's like the dairy industry challenging the soy industry to prove to them that soy is beneficial. Did you read the post Sean Connelley made at Psipog about his attempts to get information from Randi? It sounds like there is some deception going on over there, which makes me wonder if Randi is trustworthy.

I would say, however, that I would love being tested by scientists with open minds who are truly interested in finding the truth. If you do some research (or if someone else will do some) I think you'll find that many of the more famous psychics have spent time working with scientists to prove their abilities. I am not personally familiar with those studies so I can't really comment on them.

I love the fact that Randi is helping to keep psychics honest. That I do appreciate. But I really think he takes it too far and his mind is closed to the possibility that the paranormal does exist.

No one can prove God exists, but millions if not billions of people believe He does. If you did not believe in God, could anyone convince you? Even if you offered them a million dollars?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Rob S

Steve/Erin, you've done so much for so many of us. Why are you dismissing these questions?

My honest answer is that these questions simply aren't valid for me because they're rooted in a paradigm which I do not share.

Requests for objective proof of psychic phenomena begin with the assumption that we live in an objective reality. As I've stated previously in my blog, I don't believe reality is in fact objective. So I'm being asked to prove something within a framework that I consider erroneous. My response to that must be, "Get used to disappointment."

Within a subjective belief system, the notion of trying to prove or disprove anything to "someone else" doesn't make sense because there's only one consciousness.

My interest in the psychic and paranormal involves exploring them personally. I especially love sharing these experiences with Erin and others who are on similar exploratory paths. For me it's a fascinating journey.

From my viewpoint a skeptic is someone whose awareness is too constricted to have such experiences, just as my color-deficient eyes are too limited to detect purple. In general I think skeptics are too fearful of what would become of their lives if they started having psychic experiences, so they tune them out like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

If I'm having a conversation with an interesting non-physical entity, I want to know what it has to say. If I find myself astral projecting, I'm going to explore that realm. If I put out an intention to manifest a million dollars and observe it arriving in the most amazing ways, I'm going to enjoy it and allow it to spawn new experimental ideas. The notion of stopping to prove my own experiences to someone else seems rather silly.

From a subjective standpoint, skepticism towards the world is the manifestation of self-doubt. Since that isn't an experience I desire to have, I believe it's best to turn my back on skepticism... maybe poke some fun at it for good measure. In one sense I'm the ultimate skeptic because I'm skeptical of skepticism. I'm suspicious of doubt itself.

[The David]

Even in an objective world, skepticism may block you from the paranormal, for any number of reasons.

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I get at least one email a week asking me why I don't go for the $1 million. I get tired of explaining my reasons.

You could put it in a FAQ. (I figure you have already written a macro by now, if you were going to do one.)

[nara]

The issue here is not really about Randi. Anyone can perform a scientific experiment even if they’re not “scientifically trained”. If you have a psychic ability and you don’t trust Randi then do it yourself or find another scientist to do the testing. Just make sure the experiment is very well controlled.

Scientists are skeptical not because they’re stubborn and don’t want to look at the “evidence”. They’re skeptical because there is so much BS out there where people skew the results in their favor or they run shoddy, uncontrolled experiments.

Erin mentioned that John Edwards participated in some studies at a university and I wanted to expand on that a bit. John Edwards participated in a study at the University of Arizona run by Gary Schwartz. I think he participated in the After-Death Communication study but I could be wrong on this. The media cited this study as proof of life after death but as Steve pointed out in his health food blog you can’t trust the media. The media likes to pick-up studies and run with them before other scientists have a chance to verify the results.

The After-Death Communication study was funded by HBO which was making a “documentary” on the survival upon death. There was also insufficient control in the experiment to rule out cold-reading among other things. After-Death Communication Studies by Gary Schwartz (Skeptical Inquirer November 2001)

I think you’ll find many cases similar to this with other famous psychics. They subject themselves to testing but only on studies that have a vested interest in or are setting out to prove a certain result. They’re much less likely to submit themselves to stringent controlled studies. They do this mainly because when you obtain negative results (as is often the case) but have a vested interest in the positive result, the results of the study often do not get published. Negative results on a controlled study that has held up to peer review could destroy their careers.

On another note in regards to one of Randi’s experiments mentioned in this thread, here is a word from ex-parapsychologist Susan Blackmore on a similar experiment she ran:

The other key to my failures seemed to be belief. I was told that I didn’t get results because I didn’t believe strongly enough in psi, because I didn’t have an open mind! But what could I do about that? I couldn’t just change my beliefs overnight or test ten subjects while believing and another ten while not! I argued that in the beginning I had believed in psi and still had got no results, but I couldn’t prove this against the counter-argument that I had never really believed at all.

However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did believe. I could test the Tarot. In my preoccupation with everything occult, I had been reading Tarot cards for about eight or nine years. They really did seem to work. People told me that I could accurately describe them using the cards, and this was, naturally, gratifying. I even thought it might have a paranormal basis. So I set about testing the cards, doing readings for ten people, keeping the procedure as close as possible to a normal Tarot reading, but isolating myself, as the reader, from the subjects. They then had to rank all ten readings to see whether they picked their own more often than chance would predict (Blackmore 1983).

It worked! The results were actually significant. You can imagine my excitement—perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption of the statistical test I was using.

This seemed so trivial. Their knowing one another could not help them pick the right reading, could it? No it couldn’t; but this meant that the estimate of probability was inaccurate—and, after all, the results were only marginally significant. So I repeated the experiment twice more with subjects who did not know one another. I expect you can predict the results I obtained—entirely nonsignificant.

You may choose to interpret these results in different ways. Some parapsychologists have claimed that the first experiment found genuine psi and that the later ones didn’t summon the same attitude, the same novelty, the same enthusiasm, that made psi possible—or even that psi itself doesn’t like being replicated. But I think I had finally reached a stage where I no longer felt it was worth pursuing such arguments. I chose this point to say: "I think that, however many more experiments I do on psi, I am probably not going to find it.”

Susan Blackmore

Despite the large body of current evidence, paranormal abilities could be legit. Erin and others on this forum could genuinely have these abilities. I just hope that once their skills have been honed, they are willing to devote some time to doing some serious experiments. You could improve the lives of many and make one scientist the happiest person in the world as his name is immortalized in all the history books. Or on the other hand you could run the risk of losing your credibility. It’s a big gamble but worth it IMO if you believe in what you’re doing.

[Rob S]

Erin,

I have to apologize to you. The intent of this thread was not to attack you personally. In fact the intent was not to attack anyone. I re-read my posts along with yours and Steve's and I can see the point you are both making. I see that my posts definetly have a skeptics standpoint. I am going to do some more research on this before posting anything else on this topic. I feel that if I continue to pursue this here it will just become a witch hunt, which is definetly not what I want. After some thought, the way I see it is no one comes to me and demands that I prove my abilities at work and forces me to enter some contest, so why I should I demand it of anyone else? I know there is a difference between what I do and what you do, but nevertheless you don't derserve to be mistreated, no one does. If in fact you are manipulating people, and I am not suggesting that, then Karma will find a way to take care of you. However, what I see is the exact oppposite. You and Steve appear to be successful and happy. That to me is an indication of good effects coming from good causes.

So I agree with the last poster, Nara. One day someone will come forward and prove to the world, with out any doubts, their skills. Until then, it's going to be a subjective experience and I am fine with that.

Thank you

All the best.

Rob