I'm sure at least some of you have heard of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.. Basically it is a challenge put out to the whole world for any paranorlam investigators to produce hard evidence of the paranormal (not just ghosts but ANY paranormal phenomenon, psychics, auras, astrology etc etc) and if they can, obviously win $1,000,000

Since it was started (i think in 2005) there have been many many applicants (a lot of psychics and mystics) but not a single one has been able to produce any evidence of paranormal or as yet unexplained phenomenon....

Doesn't that make some people a little dubious? And if not... why not?

If i got all of the applicants who said that they could read minds... and then ran them through correctly conducted scientific tests and every single one of them failed (which they did) why arn't believers thinking... Hmm.. maybe I'm wrong?

Conversely, if for example, a scientist had the theory that a certain chemical could increase the bodies ability to heal cuts. Hundreds of people were are tested through correct double blind studies but then the results show that the chemical doesn't have any increased healing ability... would he walk away thinking "you know every single one of those tests proved me wrong, but i just KNOW it in my gut that i'm right" NO of course not.. it's called weight of evidence!


Now psychics and mystics claim they can read minds and this is a very simple thing to test with simple scientific method. "if you read minds then you should be able to perform these tests & consistently pass"

I know exactly what evidence would be required from these tests for me to instantly believe in mind reading (or ghosts etc)

Now to all the believers.. what evidence would you need to be shown for you to say "hey, i guess i was wrong, there really IS no such thing as mind reading" or is the fact that there is nothing in this world which could convince you otherwise?

My mind tells me that you are obsessed with the paranormal vs science. Look, I am a sensitive and I can hear from dead people at times and give messages, and I have been this way since I was 5, however now blocked for awhile. Psychics, meduims and sensitives dont read minds, at least not where I come from. I can see orbs with the naked eye, I can sense a presence in many places, but I am no mind reader none of us are. Lastly, this is a very difficult experiment to do, on demand, as it happens randomly not when someone else expects it to. When I used to read people I didnt read their mind, I somehow tapped into them, and loved ones passed on. I can see why no one has made that kind of money for such a ridiculous experiment. NOW ask me to find a dead body somewhere, and I can find it. Ask me what my man is thinking, I have no clue half the time. Good Luck..JN

you snuck that one in!

How does that work, do you get a vision?

GREAT!! sign up to the $1,000,000 challenge!! easy 1mil! you would never have to worry about providing for your child/children for the rest of your life!

If finding a dead body or where someone had die it would be easy to test!


Yes i am a little obsessed with science vs paranormal because one is the search for truth and the other is un-provable.. My main gripe is that all the things we have in our lives were made through critical thinking, experimentation and scientific inquiry. The veil of the "previously unexplained" is being drawn further & further back as science reveals many more wonderful and previously mis-understood aspects of our world. The paranormal community is shrinking further & further back from ever widening search for truth because the answers they want to hear simply aren't there... If the paranormal was truly something waiting for us to discover, people with claims to the paranormal should be positively throwing themselves in front of investigation.. but they aren't... the only logical conclusion isn't magical, it isn't mystical.. it's a naturalistic world which we have to accept and cherish.

I know you've said that you've seen doctors, but the type of inquiry needed to uncover what is really happening isn't a talk to a professional it's an in depth and focused search for answers. If you can hear the dead talking to you at random intervals a scientific study could do intensive brain scans on you, hell you could even WEAR a brain activity monitoring device around constantly!

I'm reasoning/thinking aloud here:

Maybe, in the case of psychics and mediums, the problem is that development of these abilities is still happening and therefore difficult to control. To be able to demonstrate the ability would be very difficult if there was little control by the subject. Pressure to do so in a clinical environment might just diminish that control further. Whereas in ordinary every day situations, the pressure is not present and thus the ability is more productive...?

As for the rest of paranormal things, maybe it is the fact that they are 'para' normal, meaning 'outside' or 'beyond' normal that pre-empts study of them - if they are beyond science, how can science hope to classify and replicate them?

... you mean like weighing a fart?

I wouldn't disagree with this Loonboy. Just because it can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean it's not there, that's my two penneth.

There is no million dollars authenticly on offer. This has been discussed repeatedly in several threads here at UM. Anyone who applies instantly shows that he or she is not psychic.

Your straight question is excellent: You believe proposition P, what evidence would cause you to disbelieve P?

Alas, P in this case is both an existence assertion and ill-posed (in the end, "paranormal" means something the speaker does not currently understand, which could be anything, could be nothing, and on its face varies from person to person, and within the same person varies from one time to another).

The everyday expression for this situation is "you can't prove a negative." While that is not literally true, the sense of it is altogether sound.

So far as I know, there is nothing that I could observe here and now that would, in itself, compel me to assert that some poorly defined "thing" does not now exist, has never existed, and will never exist.

In the absence of evidence, or with evidence in equipoise, it is completely rational to believe whatever makes the most sense to you. It is a hazard of living that some other completely rational person will disagree with you.

Acutaly a fart CAN be weighed... *woo science*



Correct.. the fact that you can't prove a negative is technically true this does not mean that these things should be held with the same weight as things which CAN be proven.. I can't prove that there is no ice present on the surface of the sun... but by using all the available facts we have, we can be 99.999999999% sure that there is no ice on the sun.

If assertion A has volumes and volumes of peer reviewed, verifiable, re-producible and testable evidence and basically contradicts assertion B....

Assertion B has anecdotal evidence, can't be verified, and when it IS tested it completely fails....

Which one has the greatest chance of being true?

The overwhelming majority of paranormal claims CAN have scientific tests applied to them, which are both reasonable and would be a good indication of truth... these paranormal claims ALWAYS 100% of the time fail these tests...

<edit> oh and the million dollar challenge isn't for JUST psychic phenomenon... it's for ALL paranormal phenomenon... so your claim that the act of applying instantly voids the $1,000,000 offer is completely false...

[quote name='Im-postle-able' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:14 PM' post='1950599']
Acutaly a fart CAN be weighed... *woo science*

OK maybe not the best example, I need my second cup of coffee and anyway, who would have thought huh

somebody already guessed the content of his box, and he admitted so ...in fact the story was posted on UM main... just an FYI

I'll find the article if I feel like it....


pffft ...newbs

There's more to Randis challenge than meets the eye.....check it out

http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

Here’s my question……why do you care? So what if what you believe is different than what others or I believe. What a boring world this would be.

yeah i read that too and have read loads more about it. sorry im-postle-able i can understand where your coming from . there is nothing wrong with being a skeptic , in fact its probably the easiest option and i do believe we shoud all be skeptical to some extent . you know where im sat but james randi isnt the answer to finding the proof or not ...

Blessings SS79 x x x x

Hi Reg, it is not every death or "missing" person, just random and no I just get flashes of images, of the area the body is in, even if it is out of State, I can see certain landmarks, signs things like that. As I said its random and I cannot make it happen..JN

Hi Daisy, thats just it, he is obsessed with the paranormal but it seems to have an ego issue of having the need to "be right." In this case, there is no right or wrong, just theories and beliefs, but he cannot even understand that...JN

Great post Loon!!

LOL Gee just what I always wanted, a brain monitoring device..You fail to realize that this is a web site for the "unexplained" hence our posts, photos and stories. Everyone has a 6th sense, some stronger than others. No one has ever come on here and said "I am a psychic, I am here to read you, I know all." We are all here, have a good time and willing to listen to theories and come to our own conclusions, its our right. If you think for one minute, me or anyone on here will become a lab rat, you are sadly mistaken. We are who we are, and we all have different sensitivities and I believe we are born that way. END OF STORY..JN

I am unsure what your question has to do with my previous post.

If your A and B are logically incompatible ("contradicts"), then evidence for A is necessarily evidence against B. So, there is no absence of evidence, nor equipoise.

Instead, you posit overwhelming evidence against B. Doubtless, you and I would be equally persuaded.

On the other hand, if your "basically contradicts" is not "necessarily contradicts," then what is it?

If it is "I personally have a hard time reconciling B with A," which I suspect it just might be, then perhaps I have less difficulty with the reconciliation than you do.

That is called a difference of opinion. It happens. No justification for inquiring into anyone else's rationality attaches.


----

[The remark about being psychic was a jest... the challenge is phony, the applicant can't figure that out, a psychic should know such things... I suppose I needed a "drumroll" emoticon, or at least a ]

LOL Thats for sure SS..

That just cracked me up, Regency.

Also thinking aloud: can you ever prove something that is classified as paranormal anyway.

It is a group of subjects that are currently not understood by science.

Once a subject becomes understood, it moves from the paranormal group into the more conventional scientific group.

Therefore by definition, anyting paranormal cannot be proved, as in doing so it ceases to be paranormal at all.

That's intriguing.

To respond to some points you made (And they are valid points) :

1. You ask if, after a certain chemical is shown to not have any healing properties, people would continue to believe that it does. The simple answer is "Yes they would. That is why home remedies are still passed down from one generation to the next, even though they have been proven false." On the other hand, if you used the chemical and suddenly achieved the best health that you ever had, what would you think - that science is right and the chemical did nothing or that science is wrong?

2. Technically, it is impossible to prove the existence of the paranormal. The second somethign is proven to exist, it becomes simply another aspect of the normal world and is no longer "Para"-normal.

3. What, exactly are they trying to prove? It's simple to set up a test for clairvoyance, telepathy or out of body experiences. How do you prove more esoteric experiences - entering anothers dreams, Neard death experiences, ghosts and UFO's? There is no simple test for those types of paranormal experiences...

I'm glad you laid out your responses like that.. easier to answer & to make sure i havn't missed anything

1. No the kind of study to test the healing properties of any remedy is called a double blind study, and it removes the "placebo effect" as a false positive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind) The placebo effect is well documented and easily re-created, if someone has a headache and you give them an inert tablet there is a chance that the headache will go away simply because they THINK they have been given something helpful. This is the main reason why people say "alternative" medicines work. It IS a wonder why people still use alternative remedies when studies have shown that they are simply placebos.. I would say that this is because most people arn't even aware that these studies have been done & get suckered in by people selling herbs and crystals wrapped in some smooth talking.
I feel a lot more study is required in these areas and the results widely publicized. I'm sure there ARE some alternative remedies that DO have real medical benefits... a lot more research needs to be done.

2. Yes and no.. things like healing crystals, mind reading, astrology, auras, clairvoyants, etc are all examples of widely practiced and believed paranormal activities and ALL of them can have VERY VERY simple tests done to them to show that they don't work... These tests have been done over & over and not a single one has ever passed these tests (so long as the tests are performed PROPERLY so simple trickery is eliminated)

3. Yes there are some things which are hard to test, but there can still be studies performed under stringent conditions to reduce the chances of trickery (intentional or otherwise) The main thing is that tests can be performed to REDUCE the chance of their claim being true... you can test just about anything


I'm sad to hear that people who believe they have a paranormal ability refuse to have proper tests done on them. In a world of such amazing technological advancements, whats with the "don't want to be a lab rat" mentality? Fear of doctors? Fear of having the unexplained finally explained?
A study such as i was suggesting would only be mildly inconvenient to day to day life.. as grown ups it seems a bit silly to shy away from medical examination. If you started bleeding from the nose & your doctor said "you might have a brain tumor, you need to go for brain scans etc etc" would you say, "no no, i don't want to be a lab rat"

We might be on the edge of the most important scientific discovery in the whole history of science. (i'm not exadurating) Proving telepathy or the ability to sense death would be an AMAZING discovery of the human race... but people are saying "nope.. no advancement of knowledge... i'll be mildly inconvenienced while you're investigating"

It's actually quite funny - you start out by being happy that you can step through my responses, then completely misunderstand every point I made.... I'll try to be more clear :

1. The lack of evidence from tests is contradicted by anecdotal evidence from other sources. Therefore, one of the sources has to be called into doubt. If one has shown, time and again, that a chemical does nothing in the lab, but people continue to watch it have effects outside the lab, then something is wrong. Since anecdotal evidence does not seem to be decreasing, one possibility is that the scientific tests are flawed. Or perhaps the analysis of the data provided from those tests is mistaken... The possibility of that should at least be considered.

2. I was making a point about the use of language. When something is proven to exist, it would no longer be "Para"-normal. Therefore, as soon as somethign would be discovered and proven it ceases to be supernatural. Ergo, proof of Paranormal events is impossible, since they immediately become normal events when proven.

3. For instance, could you suggest a valid scientific test for ghosts? UFOs? When the test relies on something that is out of the testers control, it becomes very difficult to accept any results as valid.

It's not gonna work. They are already convinced they have experienced this in the first person. How do you prove something that just isn't provable?

I don't think it's a question of wanting everyone to be homogeneous. This is a discussion forum, and both skeptics and believers post threads in order to convince each other.