The following article was written by Steve Grenard...

The current issue of the New Scientist contains three articles on science, the paranormal and psi controversies. The last article, entitled "When Opposites Detract", illustrates the absolute and utter futility of attempting to prove the reality of ESP and PSI to hardcore skeptics. Even strong scientific results which, according to Robert Matthews causes opponents to "dig in their heels." (Matthews is Chief Science Correspondent for the UK Daily Telegraph).

"Baye's theorem shows that both camps are right. But it also shows another disturbing fact: wrangling over alternative explanations can never be ended objectively."

"The worst suspicions of parapsychologists are thus entirely justified. It is impossible to find evidence for ESP that will win round the sceptics. But those who see this as final proof of the futility of parapsychology should ponder this: exactly the same holds true for all scientific research. There are always auxilliary hypotheses, and deciding whether the evidence backs them or the theory being tested is a matter of judgement."

The full text of this article can be purchased for US$11.99 (which includes the current and next 11 issues of the journal) by visiting the New Scientist website at www.newscientist.com. In order to read it you need to download a reader program called Newstand and have both Flash and Shockwave available (also free downloads) within Newstand. The entire magazine can be purchased for $5.00. at most large newsstands or ordered through your library.

This set of articles puts the entire JREF experience in perspective. You will read it and finding yourselves nodding in agreement ... and be reminded of much that occurs or has occurred there.

The second article, "On the Edge of the Known World - Are Psychic Phenomena Fact or Fantasy?" deals with the replication of ESP and psi experimental proofs and why skeptics do not accept them.

"The Power of Belief" deals mostly with the experimenter effect and contains an excellent review of the Schlitz-Wiseman dichotomy as well as an update on these two researchers' current attempts to repeat and determine once and for all the reason/s why Wiseman gets nothing and Schlitz gets results. Could it be because Wiseman is a hard-lined skeptic and Schlitz believes in the existence of psi? The results should be available later this year or early next.

For more information, see http://www.newscientist.com/inprint/

In the words of an old friend of mine , "One cannot prove color to the blind"

It is, to a certain extent true. The times that a scientific discovery has been proposed and automatically accepted as a breakthrough can be counted on one hand. The vast majority of discoveries are greeted with skepticism and review, till, over the course of years and continued validation of results, they are proven and accepted.

Paranatural science suffers from this in that the majority of the experiments are so similar to each other, with little in the way of new explanatory data, that the majority of scientists and skeptics are apt to consider it with the same information that has been debunked so many times before. The continual influx of hoaxes and shoddy research don't help either.

I agree with your post. Mindset is so important... and the fact that several minds are experimenting, influence the outcome, too.

I just thought of something...why waste time trying to prove something to people who wont believe it even if there is proof? I mean why spend all your time trying to prove it to them when you could spend the time using it and heightening your skills so you can use them better...I mean is it really gonna make it any better just by having people believe in the stuff?

dragonflamer...I have thought that about Ufology, too. Ufologists spend so much time trying to prove UFO's to the mainstream.

Well.. if a phenomenon is proven to exist, more people are going to get involved openly, more $$$ is going to be put into the research, and overall we are going to have better understanding on the phenomenon.

I have to say though, as a believer that there's something to most paranormal areas I sometimes wonder if there isn't a kind of inbuilt mechanism within the phenomona that means it always manages to elude outright proof, remaining just suggestive enough for the open minded but still too unproven for most skeptics. Some kind of trickster element to it maybe.

What do you mean: 2why can't it be easily proven?"

We're not talking about something abstract here, we're talking about the actual physical manipulation of objects and/or people I'd imagine it would be very easy to prove in laboratory conditions, conducted by an impartial scientific study.

Is that $1 million still on offer? Nobody claimed it yet? Yup, thought it would be

No it's not that easy to prove these things. First difficulty arise in the fact that only a view people can master TK. Also the intense concentration required to perform TK can be easily disturbed by the urge to prove their skill (and $1 million??). Also with skeptics al arround him thinking "it is impossible" they can unconsciously make the psi-wheel / pencil / whatever cannot be moved. And the most difficult part to prove it is the fact that the claim is so fabulous, yet there is no explanation about the mechanism. This alone makes people do not want to believe.

There has been a lot of documented experiment with psychic phenomena, yet skeptics debunk (or ignore?) all of them. Here is an excerpt from the Skeptic's Dictionary about the Stanford experiment featured in Discovery channel:

OK, so let me get this straight:

There is no tangible evidence to even remotely support its existance ,
no explanation has ever been devised explaining what may cause it,
proving it would be difficult and people who claim to have the gift cannot perform for skeptics.

not a great deal to go on is there? I think I am quite happily in the 'debunker' camp.


de·bunk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

They are not proven to be frauds.. just the debunkers say that they are, despite the fact that a lot of them are well respected scientists. Just take a look at the latest case of The Afterlife Experiment and see how "objective" the debunkers are.

If it was hard, irrefutable evidence the media would gobble it up as soon as the ink dried. So there must be problems with it.

Dismissed by attention seeking debunkers desperate to sublimate their own feelings of low self esteem and impotence.

Is that generalisation blanket enough for you.

Some people are confused between the idea of skepticism and closed-mindedness

This thread already mentioned three experiments: Stanford experiment, Schwartz, and Archie Roys.

Go read about the latest Schwartz experiment here

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=13105

Thanks for the link. Some further reading has revealed though that Schwartz, surprise surprise, also claims to be 'clairvoyant'.

(Just do a google search on his name and theres more dirt besides)

I havent got time to check up on the other two experiments yet. But I will have a look at them tomorrow.

I don't know how my ESP could be easily proven except by witnesses and I have witnesses to some of my experiences. Since my ESP comes and goes, it would be hard to experiment with....I can't control it. My PK experience is spontaneous, so I can't prove that either, except for witnesses and I have had two witnesses to these incidents.

I can't control my PK, so it would be hard to put it in a lab setting. I'm sure other people with ESP and spontaneous PK have the same problem.

Err.... is the TK occurs only near an opened window in windy days?

maybe someday one of us will be able to prove psi...im trying to convince my friends. One of them is mad i like disabled his dominant hand on accident and i feel bad(he has to use his other hand to write now) but I think im getting better.