> The fact is, as gremlinn pointed out, no test under truly controlled conditions has ever been done that has show the existence of powers such as psychokinesis. Yes, there have been ESP tests done that showed better-than-chance results. And yes, many scientists have since gone back and discredited most if not all of these studies as being invalid because of poor methodology or improperly controlled conditions. This is how science WORKS. It's not an example of scientists actively trying to sweep something under the rug that they can't explain. It's scientists scrutinizing some experiments that seem to "prove" some fairly wild claims and finding the experiments to be lacking in some way. As the saying goes, extrodinary claims demand extrodinary proof.

I certainly don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is that there are experiments out there that seem (to me) to be valid and controlled, and yet still seem to provide evidence that paranormal abilities may be genuine.

> Also, for those interested, the JREF offers a one million dollar prize to anybody who can demonstrate ANY paranormal power under controlled experimental conditions. Here's the quote from their website, http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>
> "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
>
> To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests. "
>
> I think that last sentence is the most telling one.
>
> >
> > > Over the last few days, I've been reading
> >>archived articles and message forum posts at
> >>the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation)
> >>website. It's a great resource for people who
> >>need ammunition to argue against paranormal
> >>beliefs. They also pose interesting puzzles
> >>from time to time. See the link below. Also
> >>check out:
> > >
> > > www.skepdic.com
> > >
> > > for more cool stuff.
> >
> > James Randi's "debunking" method is basically
> >to say "I can duplicate that effect by doing
> >this. Therefore you must have done it exactly
> >the same way."
>
> Bunk. Randi will tell you himself that he is only showing how a trained magician can duplicate the tricks of the trade of psychics, mediums and such. What he DOES say is if he *can* duplicate these tricks, why doesn't some psychic come forward and perform a trick, under controlled conditions, that he *can't* duplicate or explain in some way? Nobody ever has.
>
> The simple fact as I see it is, if a trained prestidigitator can duplicate even *one* of some psychic's powers, why DOESN'T that make you doubt the psychic's "powers"? It doesn't make any sense to me to cling to the belief that the psychic is doing it "differently". Occam's Razor says that the sleight-of-had method is the simplest, and most likely method of achieving these affects. I go back to the "extrodinary claims demand extrodinary proofs". If Uri says he can bend a spoon with his mind, and Randi can convincingly bend a spoon exactly as Uri does it using only sleight-of-hand, why doesn't Uri then say 'Ok, take the spoon and lock it in a safe and I'll *still* be able to bend it' and show that he can, under controlled conditions? He doesn't, because he can't.
>
> >
> > I have yet to see an example of him actually
> >demonstrating how something *was* done, rather
> >than how it *might have been* done. He ignores
> >any effect that he can't duplicate, and never
> >manages to prove what he claims to prove. He
> >also has a real hatred for Uri Geller, because
> >he can't work out how to duplicate about half of
> >Geller's tricks.
>
> Also bunk. Geller is one of the worst of the lot. He's a mediocre stage magician at best, and the fact that people still believe he has any mystical powers baffles me.

I certainly agree that Geller is one of the worst stage magicians ever to become a millionare (with the possible exception of David Copperfield), but...

There were a series of articles on their respective websites a year or so ago that revealed a degree of their emnity for each other. They appear to be missing now, but I'll see if I can track down other sources.

> Randi doesn't ignore effects he can't explain. He challenges people to perform them under controlled conditions, and if they can, he will give them one million dollars. NOBODY EVER HAS. Again, the burden of proof isn't on Randi. Extrodinary claims demand extrodinary proofs. I'd really suggest that you read some of Randi's books (I suggest "FLIM FLAM!" as a good starter) and peruse his website at http://www.randi.org He continually explains the million dollar challange, actively and enthusiastically offers the challenge to anyone who claims to have psychic powers, goes out of his way to help design an experiment that both parties can agree is an adequate test of the person's powers under controlled conditions. And yet, most often what happens is that the claimant backs out before even taking the preliminary test, offering some lame excuse as to why. It's generally obvious to me that they realize they're not going to be able to perform under the conditions Randi proposes, because hey, you can't bend a spoon if you aren't allowed to touch it, or if any record of your having touched it above a certain mark will be clearly preserved and exposed.

True. I agree that the vast majority are stage magicians.

> Now, I would like to say that I don't think all people who profess to have paranormal powers are fakes or frauds. I believe, as Randi himself does, that many of them genuinely BELIEVE in their own powers. Dowsing is eligible for the JREF prize, and according to Randi, dowsers are by FAR the largest percentage of the applicants for the prize. They genuinely believe in their powers (I have reletives who dowse--I can attest that they are not fakers or frauds and genuinely believe in their powers). And yet, when they perform under controlled conditions, in a test that they themselves agree is a valid test of their powers, they fail. Every time.
>
> -- Dave

As I say, in the vast majority of cases, you are correct. I still say that there is a small percentages of cases that are genuine. I am (personally) not impressed by the supposed impartiallity JREF prize, but it seems to be the fairest game out there.

winter""mute