Randi and the Ultimate Psychic Challenge

[asthmatic camel]

By chance I caught "The Ultimate Psychic Challenge" on the UK Discovery Channel last night. One feature of the show was a repeated poll of the audience's level of belief in the paranormal after performances by both "genuine" psychics and self-confessed tricksters.

I found it astonishing that the audience's level of belief actually rose following a reading by a former policeman turned medium delivered to a man who he couldn't see. Not one hit. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. He did, however, make plenty of good hits with a lady in the audience who he could see and immediately diverted the reading towards her. All this after Mr. Randi had demonstrated just how easy it is to obtain personal information about members of a studio audience. Apparently this woman's deceased grandmother had jumped the psychic queue.

Remarkable.

Regards,

AC.

[tim]

Repeated tonight on channel 4 for those who don't get Discovery channel.

[ceptimus]

The 'Amazing' does a nice card trick at the end, with the dumb woman presenter (who can't even deal cards properly). Most of the show is just the usual rubbish. Amazingly credulous USA police detectives, who 'can tell how sincere a person is, and just know that the psychic who helps them is very sincere and extremely useful' but then admit they they still haven't even managed to locate and talk to the 'Sleepy' suspect he identified.

The blind psychic reading behind a screen was good - "I'm getting a medium sized, middle aged woman, and hospitals" (shake of the head) "I see a 'B' - Betty? Beryl? something like that" (shake of the head) "I see a scar on a left wrist?" (shake of the head). The medium then gives up and starts asking if any of his observations relate to anyone in the audience - which of course they are statistically almost certain to do (and who knows whether the woman who got the most 'hits' was known to the reader?)

[Mike D.]

Montague Keen comments:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Montague Keen comments:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

Apparently, Randi's attempt at CR was so poor that they had him taken off and wheeled him back on to do a HR.

[tim]

Whilst I don't always accept the view that Randi can do no wrong, I find myself in agreement with his statements more often than not. I watched the programme (and have it taped) and thought it interesting. The medium's attempt at "contacting the dead" for a specific member of the audience was telling. When he couldn't get any "hits" he turned it so he had the whole audience to pick from.
I noted that people really do forget the misses and remember the hits.
It was also a demonstration that it is almost impossible to change the mind of a believer - or a sceptic, for that matter!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Montague Keen comments:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends
"But to refresh his memory, and help him along, and despite the refusal of some of his colleagues like Professor Kurtz, Professor Hyman and Dr. Susan Blackmore to meet the challenge, I list the requisite references. They are based on (although not identical to) a list of twenty cases suggestive of survival prepared by Professor Archie Roy and published some years ago in the SPR's magazine, The Paranormal Review as an invitation or challenge to skeptics to demonstrate how any of these cases could be explained by "normal" i.e. non-paranormal, means. Thus far there have been no takers. It is now Mr. Randi's chance to vindicate his claims."
(from the webpage)

Nice try, Monty. It is not for skeptics to disprove your cases, but for you to prove them.

It's exactly the same as what Victor Zammit is trying to do, only here there are no criteria for success. Who gets to decide if this "challenge" is met? Nobody knows.

Try again, Monty.

[trotsky]

ceptimus : you wrote what i was going to write only better, saved me time thanks

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nice try, Monty. It is not for skeptics to disprove your cases, but for you to prove them.

It's exactly the same as what Victor Zammit is trying to do, only here there are no criteria for success. Who gets to decide if this "challenge" is met? Nobody knows.

Try again, Monty.

Claus,

While I agree with you in taking a dim view of the Zammit challenge, how is what Keen is proposing here different from what skeptics spend much time doing anyway? Is not Keen simply presenting a list of cases that he and others view as evidential for paranormal activity and inviting skeptics to point out problems with the alleged evidence? It seems to me that the various skeptic magazines, including the online Skeptic Report contain articles that do just that, and we certainly have seen here at JREF an abundance of "evidence" presented on behalf of John Edward, accompanied by an abundance of critiques of the evidence offered by skeptics.

Mike

[LillyThePink]

Luci - care to prove your claims about Randi's Cold Reading?

no? *sound of crickets*

I thought that guy from the Skeptical Inquirer teaching that actor to cold-read was really good. And the fact that the researcher could find out crap-loads of info about a person in just one day - hello! Hot Reading here we go....

[Zep]

Is not Keen simply presenting a list of cases that he and others view as evidential for paranormal activity and inviting skeptics to point out problems with the alleged evidence? I've highlighted your problem in a nutshell. You are asking the skeptics to DISPROVE some psychic claims - that is called "trying to prove a negative". That is NOT THE SAME as Randi's challenge, which is for anyone making a psychic claim to PROVE it - proving a positive.

FYI, there has been extraordinary lengthy and detailed discussions here and elsewhere about how proving a negative of a proposition simply cannot be done rationally - it all becomes a case of convincing people (judgement-laden) rather than disinterested proof (judgement-free).

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Zep
I've highlighted your problem in a nutshell. You are asking the skeptics to DISPROVE some psychic claims - that is called "trying to prove a negative". That is NOT THE SAME as Randi's challenge, which is for anyone making a psychic claim to PROVE it - proving a positive.

FYI, there has been extraordinary lengthy and detailed discussions here and elsewhere about how proving a negative of a proposition simply cannot be done rationally - it all becomes a case of convincing people (judgement-laden) rather than disinterested proof (judgement-free).

Zep,

First of all, *I* am not asking anyone to disprove anything. I'm simply saying that, as I read the words from Keen that Claus provided, it seems to me that Keen and others are inviting skeptics to point out problems with the alleged evidence. And to reiterate a point in my earlier post, this is something that skeptics do all the time in this forum, as well as in articles and books. Reviewing alleged evidence for problems is not trying to prove a negative. For example, as I see it, no skeptic here is trying to prove that John Edward is *not* communicating with the dead. This is a negative that cannot be proved. What they *are* doing is pointing out problems with transcripts, problems with Schwartz's protocol in testing Edward, opportunities for possible hot reading, etc.

Mike

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

There is a difference between trying to prove a negative (which is what Keen wants us to do) and investigate a claim. Keen has already made his mind up, and is presenting his data as evidence that need to be countered.

When we look at e.g. John Edward, we do not start with the end result: That he is in fact speaking with the dead. We compare his "process" with what we know con artists in the past have been known to do. We're not trying to prove he is not talking to the dead. We merely list (a lot of!) explanations why he is not.

For anyone with a rational mind, this is more than sufficient to explain what JE is doing. Unfortunately, it isn't enough for his believers.

The onus is still on John Edward and his followers.

Can we investigate Keen's material? Sure, but for what reason? I am sure that Keen cannot precisely describe what will make him change his mind. If he can, then it will be something completely unattainable, e.g. like Clancie's demand for JE to come clean.

The onus is still on Keen. He has to present his evidence and explain why it has to be paranormal phenomena. That he is convinced it is, is fairly certain. But he now needs to convince us.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

There is a difference between trying to prove a negative (which is what Keen wants us to do) and investigate a claim. Keen has already made his mind up, and is presenting his data as evidence that need to be countered.

When we look at e.g. John Edward, we do not start with the end result: That he is in fact speaking with the dead. We compare his "process" with what we know con artists in the past have been known to do. We're not trying to prove he is not talking to the dead. We merely list (a lot of!) explanations why he is not.

For anyone with a rational mind, this is more than sufficient to explain what JE is doing. Unfortunately, it isn't enough for his believers.

The onus is still on John Edward and his followers.

Can we investigate Keen's material? Sure, but for what reason? I am sure that Keen cannot precisely describe what will make him change his mind. If he can, then it will be something completely unattainable, e.g. like Clancie's demand for JE to come clean.

The onus is still on Keen. He has to present his evidence and explain why it has to be paranormal phenomena. That he is convinced it is, is fairly certain. But he now needs to convince us.

Claus,

By giving his list of reports on the cases, is Keen not thereby presenting what he apparently feels is outstanding evidence of paranormal phenomena? How is this any different from a believer coming onto this forum and presenting some transcript or other "evidence" that he or she feels shows that John Edward produces genuine paranormal phnomena, and, implicitly by the very act of posting such "evidence" on a skeptic board, inviting skeptics to show problems with the evidence? Certainly skeptics here, as you say, have been eager to point out lots of such problems. Whether any skeptic wants to investigate the claims in Keen's cases is up to the skeptic, but I don't see any reason why claims made on behalf of John Edward are intrinsically more worthy of investigation than the claims presented by Keen are. You say the onus is on Keen. Once again, I say he has presented what apparently believes is outstanding evidence by citing his list of cases. I agree that it is certainly not up to skeptics to *disprove* the claims in these cases, and if this is what Keen wants skeptics to do, I agree that it cannot be done. But it is possible for skeptics to look for problems with the alleged evidence and point them out. Whether this analysis on the part of skeptics causes an individual believer to change his mind or not seems to me to be beside the point. So far, Neo and Clancie are apparently holding to the same views of John Edward, in spite of skeptics pointing out what the skeptics perceive to be problems. And yet the skeptics who are critical of "evidence" presented on behalf of JE apparently feel that engaging in such criticism is a worthwhile endeavor, whether or not Neo and Clancie change their minds about him.

And for the record, I do NOT believe that it is possible to prove a negative, and I also believe that it is impossible for anyone to meet the Zammit challenge. However, in the case of Zammit, skeptics are certainly free to examine the claims he presents, but I agree that it is absurd to suppose that such examination could ever "prove" the claims to be false.

Mike

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

If you wanna go for it, go for it. There are only so many hours in the day, you know.

Can you find where Keen states what will convince him that he is wrong?

[RonSceptic]

Regarding the Show, one thing set my baloney meter off right away. The ex police officer medium started out by stressing that mediums can't produce results on demand, pointing out that it really is a question of which spirits happen to come through.(also of course a very handy excuse for failure)

But later we learn that this same guy gives private readings for individual sitters where apparently dead relatives of the punter turn up within a matter of seconds. Odd that.

The so called medium delivered a classic example of cold reading. What was interesting was how his readings, littered with misses, were perceived by the victims. Phases like 'spot on' and 'all of it' were used to describe the accuracy of what were pretty poor readings.

It was a pretty lame performance. His cause of deaths punts were 'heart problems' and 'cancer'. The male names he guessed at were Micheal and John, just about the most common names you can think of. He tried a 'David' on one sitter but drew a blank and so just ignored it an moved on. He bullied one woman, insisting that she had moved some bedroom furniture which she repeatdely denied.

All in all a depressing example of how selective memory works when the sitter really wants to believe. Randi mentioned that he will be posting an analysis of the readings on this site.

I think exposing these mediums should be prety easy. Why not just get an actor to visit the medium, accept the names thrown out and let the medium get in pretty deep about uncle Ray, cousin Frank etc, and then reval that no such persons exist? It would reval the whole thing for the charade it is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
Is not Keen simply presenting a list of cases that he and others view as evidential for paranormal activity and inviting skeptics to point out problems with the alleged evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've highlighted your problem in a nutshell. You are asking the skeptics to DISPROVE some psychic claims - that is called "trying to prove a negative".

No it's not. You're being asked to point out problems with the evidence. If you cannot point out any problems how can you rationally be a sceptic?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]Mike D.,

There is a difference between trying to prove a negative (which is what Keen wants us to do) and investigate a claim. Keen has already made his mind up, and is presenting his data as evidence that need to be countered.



So it doesn't need to be countered?? :eek:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So it doesn't need to be countered?? :eek:

It needs to be investigated, if it hasn't been before.

[patnray]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
I think exposing these mediums should be prety easy. Why not just get an actor to visit the medium, accept the names thrown out and let the medium get in pretty deep about uncle Ray, cousin Frank etc, and then reval that no such persons exist? It would reval the whole thing for the charade it is.

I've thought that too. One way to test if JE does hot reading would be to get a large group of skeptics to attend a taping pretending to be credulous. They could discuss non-existing relatives with unusual names, who died of rare or non-existing diseases or circumstances, while waiting around before the taping. Any hits on the names or diseases would demonstrate that he does mine the audience for info before taping...

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,
Can you find where Keen states what will convince him that he is wrong?

Claus,

I didn't locate any place where Keen stated what would convince him he is wrong. Do you feel that it is important or essential for someone presenting what he believes to be evidence for some paranormal phenomenon to state what will change his mind before skeptics investigate the evidence? I would think that examining alleged evidence for claims of the paranormal would have its own intrinsic value, whether or not the person presenting the evidence states what would change his mind, or even if he was to state that *nothing* would change his mind.

Mike

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian No it's not. You're being asked to point out problems with the evidence. If you cannot point out any problems how can you rationally be a sceptic? Sorry, Ian, but that is NOT how it works. It would be "skeptic" to point out flaws in the procedures, in the premises, etc, but in evidence already gathered by some unknown means, no.

How do we know it isn't faked? Not that I'm saying it is, but how do we KNOW?

I saw a very succinct description of how the impossibility of proving a negative works only very recently. It works like this: the demand is made of me - prove that you cannot play the violin. This is the same as someone like Zammit or Keen demanding "Prove all these psychics are wrong."

The situation is that if I say I can't play, or play badly if I try (the equivalent of pointing out flaws in their evidence), you can still claim I CAN play but I am just pretending I can't. This is the same as Zammit or Keen saying "I know these psychics do work so your testing is bad, or there was negative vibes, or you were not receptive to new ideas, or it was the wrong time of day, or..."

The problem is that, in this hypothetical, I could indeed not be able to play the violin, but trying to prove I can't is not possible. In the same way, trying to disprove Zammit's or Keen's "evidence" can always be dismissed by excuses and counter-arguments, no matter how trivial or inane.

The alternative, trying to prove I CAN play, is both logically possible and produces a non-judgemental result as well (although some screechy noise is hard to tell apart from music :) ) And this is the basis of Randi's challenge as opposed to Zammit's challenge: Do what you say you CAN DO under scientific control and win big $$$.