Does anyone know a real psychic name and is james randi right about paranormal not real I NEED ANSWERS NOW!!!!

Question

Does anyone know a real psychic name and is james randi right about paranormal not real I NEED ANSWERS NOW!!!!

Answer 1

no answers NOW!!!

Answer 2

paranormal itself is not scientifically explainable; so when you ask about real I presume you are asking about being scientifically known. The answer is clearly "no" it's not real. However, if you are asking about the possibility of something beyond what is "known" to science, sure. (And reindeer's fly too...)

Answer 3

Allison DuBois is considered to be pretty real...

Answer 4

Randi does not say that psychics to not exist.  He says that in the hundreds (if not thousands) of tests he has conducted he has not found one shred of evidence to support the idea that psychics do exist.

You can say that absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.  It's true that having no evidence to support the idea that something exists doesn't definitively prove that something isn't there, but it sure makes it easy to operate under the assumption that it isn't.  Given that the more extraordinary the claim to more extraordinary is the need for evidence of that claim, I'd say the burden of proof is on the true believers.  As of yet they have not provided any evidence in support of that which they claim to be.

Answer 5

No one knows real psychic as there are none in existance.  

And James Randi is 100% right: there is NO paranormal phenomena; only frauds or delusional people.

Answer 6

I don't know a real psyschic, and yes, James Randi is right about the paranormal. It's a wishful fantasy that many people indulge in for various personal reasons, but it's nothing more than that.

BTW, there's some amazing disinformation about Randi being parroted above. Much like stories of the paranormal, they get passed around by woo-woos without any critical thought given to them.

Answer 7

James Randi is correct. There is no paranormal phenomena that has withstood a well conducted scientific experiment. All have fail. There is always a reasonable explanation to things. Just because a person can explain what happened at the moment does not mean that the only possible explanation is the paranormal.

    When you encounter a paranormal situation ask yourself the following question. Which is more likely? That some other worldly phenomena from the spirit world or other dimension is making (put in the  paranormal event name here) happen, or that there is a reasonable physical explanation that with diligent disipline study and experimentation we can find an answer to?

100% of the time the answer is the later. but, don't take my word for it. Try some test and do a bit of research and find out for yourself.

Answer 8

Doubt, as any psychologist or spiritual seeker knows, can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even quantum physics tells us that the mind of the observer has an effect on what is observed. Sometimes, therefore, we are in a position whereby "seeing is not believing", but "believing is seeing". We have to believe in something before we can experience it. This is especially true for those areas which involve greater participation from our minds — such as health, spirituality, psychic phenomena, psychology and sociology. Scepticism, therefore, is not a complete tool (and may well be counter-productive) in these highly subjective areas and so should be used with caution. In healing, for example, the placebo effect is very different for different remedies, in different situations and for different people (sometimes the effect is enormous… much larger than orthodox medicine would like to admit) and so, rather than trying to eliminate it using standard double blind trials, researchers should concern themselves with methods to maximise it (after all, proven medications don't always work for everybody, every time, either).What is ironic, however, is that the very science  is a product, many times over, of such major paradigm shifts. Science has undergone several enormous changes in the past in which it has had to reevaluate everything, and no doubt this will happen again in the future. That change is not continuous but, as is the case with evolution, happens in sudden spurts followed by large periods of relative calm. These revolutions were instigated by great scientists and true skeptics who had the courage to open-mindedly examine anomalous data and then trust their gut instinct in reformulating the foundation of science. This change is generally painful for most other scientists because they have not gone through the same creative processes, and cannot mitigate the blow to their egos of realizing that they have been wrong by at least being the person who invented the new theory. Whilst true scepticism is important — there are a lot of kooky things going on out there that are easy to spot if you are vigilant — it can also presents a serious impediment to experience and scientific observation.

Answer 9

The Amazing Randi, as he is known, allegedly has a running offer for anyone  who can prove that there is paranormal activity:  He will pay them 1 million dollars.  However, he supposedly has recieved countless pieces of evidence proving it exists.  To date, he has not made good on the offer.  Also, he adamantely refuses to appear as a guest on any TV or Radio talk show that does not agree with him 100%.   You decide on his credability.

Answer 10

You have actually asked two separate questions:  1)  are there psychic phenomena; and 2)  is James Randi correct?

The answer to #2 is yes, Randi is correct.  As far as I know he has never been disproven and he has, indeed, uncovered hundreds of fakes.  As far as the first one--I do not believe that an instance of a true psychic phenomenon has yet been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific method.  However, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Answer 11

Randi is correct.  There are no psychics.  And when people talk about quantum mechanics without any math, you know they are talking bullshit.

Answer 12

Please read Randi's conditions for awarding the one million. He requires *statistical certainty*, not *statistical probability*

That is a very harsh condition. If we take a 100 meter sprinter who achieved times of under 10 seconds in his career (well documented and not subject to question) what do you think would happen if he was aked to produce times of under ten seconds in 10 out of 10 time trials? (That would constitute statistical certainty). His requirement for *proof*. It is true he exposed many hoaxes. Also, his is a pretty old trick. It is well known in logic that you can NEVER prove a negative statement, i.e. *psychics do not exist* that is what he is trying to do... you can only prove positive statements.

Do they indeed exist ? I do not know, but Randi's method of proving they do not is definitely flawed.

To believers no proof is necessary, no nonbelievers no proof is sufficient.

Last night I set out to prove lobsters do not exist, I dressed for dinner, put on my evening suit, left the front door wide opened, set the table and boiled a pot of water. I wanted to have lobster for dinner. I waited hours but no lobster showed up. I concluded that lobsters do not exist, for if they did one would have surely showed up. I went to bed convinced there are no such things as lobsters. Q.E.D.

Answer 13

If you choose to believe you will join the ranks of the perpetually silly.

Answer 14

Paranormal is a contradiction.  If any of the perceived/supposed abilities exist, they are part of nature and physics.  Randi is correct in exposing fakes, but the intention of his challenge, as with the challenge Houdini made before, was to find a real one.

Answer 15

What does the first part of your question mean? "Does anyone know a real psychic name " It makes no sense to me.

James Randi is right -- the paranormal is not real. All the psychics in the world are either self-deluding or are con men. The argument that Randi's conditions are too harsh is just people trying to justify the failure of anyone to come near to meeting the challenge. Randi is not the only person investigating paranormal phenomena. There have been many scientists and psychologists who have done tests -- nothing shows up (unless the psychics cheat).

Answer 16

How about remote viewer Joe McMoneagle? Isn't remote viewing a psychic ability? I suppose there are those who can predict future events and make them happen as well. Such as 9/11 and the eventual breach of the levies in New Orleans. Even the eventual tsunami could have been scientifically predicted.There does seem to be some uncanny results with remote viewing techniques though.Supposedly Joe has a 50% success rate. I wonder why our government quit funding the project?

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedit...

Answer 17

James Randi disproved HUNDREDS of fake psychics!!!

Answer 18

Kokopelli explained it PERFECTLY. Kokopelli, that one thumbs-up you have is from me.

Answer 19

I am psychic and I have experienced the

paranormal.  James Randi just ran around spouting his agenda in order to make a name for himself.  Just like the Amazing Kreskin.  Either you choose to believe or you don't.

Answer 20

What James Randi did was offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could prove to him that they had actual psychic powers.  To date, no one has managed to do so.