For all you Skeptics ... heres a challenge?

Question

I am a psychic medium and I consider myself to be open minded and well educated. What puzzles me is if a skeptical person asks me for evidence to prove my beliefs I can give them it. Not just through proving my own abilities, I can also give solid Scientific evidence that they can go and research.

When I read posts from skeptics here, all I see is posts like "it doesn't exist" and "they are all fakes" and "check out James Randi"

Which in my opinion is very narrow minded and bordering on stupidity as it is never backed up with any real science fact.

How can you say parapsychology doesnt exist when you can study it at University?? Thats almost as silly as if I was to say Chemistry doesnt exist.

So my question is .... Can anyone give me some scientific facts including names of scientists, and what experiments and investigations where carried out and maybe even some links where I can follow up your answers.

I would like evidence that is still considered true.

Answer 1

It's so easy to fake things today, everyone HAS to be skeptical about EVERYTHING.  Think if 300 years ago you showed some people some David Blaine card tricks.  They would think you were a witch and burn you on a stake.  And even when Blaine first got popular, he really freaked a lot of people out.  Until others figured out how to do his tricks and made them public, and now everybody knows they're just tricks (which the skeptics new all along).

My point is that if you go around believing things without scrutinizing or even requiring evidence, it would be just like in the dark ages, where everyone was paranoid and superstitious.  So really, can you blame people for being skeptical?

Additionally, with the new revelations of neuropsychology (I mean real psychology, not the Freud/Jung type) people are finally starting to realize what kind of tricks their minds can play on them.  Literally, not believing your own eyes is in some cases a rational decision.  So despite the fact that you may be able to convince yourself and some people that you are psychic, that doesn't mean you can *prove* you are.

So I ask you, where is this evidence you speak of?

Answer 2

Look, here is something that you can do, and it will crush the skeptics once and for all.

Some are trying to test you here, but we will never know the result.  You need to do something big that will get the media attention.  And please don't come up with the excuses like a lot of them do.

You mentioned James Randi.   Go to the site, and register to be tested for the one million dollar challenge!   Yes do it!  

http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info...

Since you are a real psychic, you shouldn't have that much trouble getting through the test!

You will win the million bucks and then everyone will know psychics are real!

What always make me wonder, is that people claim to be psychic, but then they can do nothing to prove it!

I want to believe you, and hope that you will contact James Randi, and take his test, and make him look foolish!

Then come back and post us of your success!      

So this is a challenge to you!   You can be the one that shuts up the skeptics forever!

You have to remember how science works!   It is you who are going to have to present the scientific evidence that says it is true!   Most skeptics are just laughing now!   Here is your opportunity to stop their laughs forever!

Contact the James Randi Educational Foundation tomorrow and do it!   They give some kind of preliminary test, and once you pass that you can do the main testing!

We are all pulling for you!   Good luck!

This is the only way that you can ever quiet the skeptics, because evidently a lot of fake psychics out there.

Answer 3

Hi Jo. Be careful not to put all disbelievers in one box. I'm a skeptic and no, I don't claim that parapsychological phenomena cannot exist. Rather, I simply state that the evidence isn't sufficient to accept that they do. There's a big difference.

Regarding your question, are you asking for experiments which disprove parapsychological phenomena?  There are none. In fact, what you're asking for is a logical impossibility. You can certainly perform an experiment that will falsify a specific hypothesis, but there is no logical way to falsify the existence of that which is not described by any physical mechanism we know of. For that matter, it is scientifically impossible to disprove the existence of leprechauns (shout out to Paranermal).

That's why I don't make the claim that psychokinesis or ESP can't exist. One can't logically back up an absolute claim like that. I can, however, point out the lack of compelling evidence in light of the burden of evidence on those making the paranormal claims. I can point out the long history of failed attempts at gathering evidence of psi, the lack of any established scientific theories that would predict its existence, and the disinterest the scientific community continues to take at the statistically dubious results that are the legacy of parapsychology to date.

EDIT: Jo, I went to your website. There is nothing there that offers scientific evidence for your abilities. Neither would asking the opinions of anonymous internet users on your forums constitute scientific evidence. You (or whoever makes the paranormal claim) would have to be tested under controlled conditions and under a specific experimental protocol which allows for sound statistical analysis. Anything less just isn't very compelling from a scientific point of view.

Also, eri appears up to date on the research to me. All the paranormal researchers you mentioned have not yet been able to put together one successful psi experiment that is both statistically sound and well controlled.

Also, can you give me the journal citation where you published your sound scientific evidence? Thanks.

Answer 4

I am an avid believer in paranormal events, including psychics and mediums (which, by the way, aren't the same thing). However, my experience is that MOST people who claim to be mediums are indeed frauds who are bent on profiting financially from the beliefs of others, or using these beliefs to control others' actions. It's sad to think that the field is dominated by charlatans, but it's very true, demonstrable by the number of them who have no demonstrable results other than those explained with other (non-paranormal) means.

And, there's a US$1 million prize offered by Mr. Randi if you can prove it. So, step up, missy! Prove it! I'd love to be able to say I was the one to convinced you to be the one to do it!

Unfortunately for most, one has to be able to make contact with spirits in other ways in order to verify that someone is really a medium. The communication has to be confirmable, repeatable, and clear in order to be usable by science. Several parapsychology studies do show a trend that quantum physicists are starting to pick up on in their mathematics, about how luck can be influenced by thought, and thus psychic ability may actually be possible.

However, mediums must be able to demonstrate something that is irrefutably true, in an experiment that shows that it couldn't be anything other than spiritual communication with a specific individual. To date, nobody's been able to provide this, and even the attempts at it have been limited (and generally either flatly negative or inconclusive).

The one true medium that I know can't perform under pressure. He needs a relaxed environment where no actual demands are placed on him. If he tries to force it, it doesn't work. And therefore, he's a bad candidate for the prize, and won't even try it. But I've taken him on ghost hunts before, and he's actually been caught on tape responding to EVP's and such. Personally, I have to rewind and listen in order to respond.

Answer 5

Great.

I'll take that evidence.

The answer to project 299, or sample 2191 would be most helpful.

You are a psychic, right?  So surely you know what I'm talking about, and surely you can give me my answer, even if you don't know the specifics.

Heck, I'd be amazed if you could tell me the answer to a sample which I've already figured out.  Project 393, for instance.

Answer 6

Actually, you can't study it at any university in the US past maybe one course at a few.  You certainly can't get a degree in it in this country.  Chemistry certainly exists - you can try it for yourself.  Science works the same way for everyone, every time.  That's what makes it science - reality.  Psychic powers only seem to work for a few, under certain circumstances, and when no one is looking.  That's not science.  

Plenty of investigations have been done.  I suggest you read Martin Gardner's "Science - Good, Bad, and Bogus" for a good summary of many experiments carried out.  

And since I'm a scientist myself, I'd love to see some of this evidence you have.  Hopefully, it won't be a link to one of the studies denounced by the scientific community - those of us who actually do science and know how it works.  If someone did have evidence for psychic powers, it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science.  The fact that almost no one is working on it should tell you something.

Please, present your evidence.  How would you like to convince me - scientifically?

EDIT:  "Not just through proving my own abilities, I can also give solid Scientific evidence that they can go and research."  That's what you said.  So where is it?

We don't have to prove you wrong.  You're the one making an extraordinary claim - which would imply the laws of physics as we know them are wrong - so YOU back it up.

Did your step-mom bother filling out the application?

Answer 7

First off yes you can get a degree in parapsychology in the US. But only as a minor with a major in psychology.

Then I think you have pointed out that on yahoo answers there are really two camps - people who actually have studied the paranormal and occult and those who are just skeptical (with a few acceptions of course - you know who you are and this doesn't apply to you). Personally I find it appalling that people who ask paranormal questions in the paranormal section are met with such harsh skeptictism. Its a strange subject people are goign to ask strange things. Then anyone who offers a real answer that isn't skeptical in nature is immediately given a dozen thumbs down.

You also have those who tout the james randi foundation as proof that nothing paranormal exists. Personally I would be much more satisfied with people who say "talk to james randi" if they also mentioned that the offer isn't even open to everybody, read the rules - its true!

And to make matters worse there is evidence - just not evidence that can't be given reasonable doubt. There are skeptics out there who make a living debunking paranormal phomenon. Its often easier to disprove something than it is to prove it -especially if most people don't believe in it to begin with.

I'm not saying being skeptical at all is bad - thats good. But just because a person is skeptical doesn't mean they should immediately assume that someone else is not experiencing something super natural - even if they are not their to emperically observe it.

I will admit though I am tired of all the ouija board questions.  ;-)

Answer 8

How would you respond if every single time someone gave you purported scientific evidence for some phenomenon and every single time you checked out this evidence it was obvious that the given evidence was not scientific?

So please be forthcoming in this "evidence." One of the requirements of science is that it be transparent.

Another requirement of science is to doubt your assertion. If you are absolutely sure that you are a medium, then you aren't being scientific.

One can study religion at a university, that doesn't make it scientific.

Answer 9

Eri and the Rev TR have already given terrific answers.

I would also second reading any of Martin Gardners books. He writes on various topics on pseudoscience, parapsychology, alternative medicine...all are referenced to the original studies

Science doesn't say psi powers don't or can't exist...all science can say is that so far the evidence does not support the existence.   The onus of proof is always on the party proposing that which isn't self evident.  You could finance that study by taking James Randi's $ 1 million.

Heres a video of Randi and I bending spoons last month....uhm...you can't really see me...lol

http://www.wikio.com/video/308960

Answer 10

Well, here's what I think about people not beliveing and stuff.

If you have great awsome all-powerfull evedience and people still don't belive you, well, they might be jealous.

Ok, that sound a bit little kiddy and stuff but think about it:

You give a guy soild proof and they say "no, it ain't real, blah blah, blah blah blah."

The person just might not like it that your better at him at this stuff and therefore he trys to belive it's not real so you can't be better than him. This would make you worse in his eyes and he'll see you as a tricky fraud.

-Well, it was something like that. I read somebody saying things about this on youtube. Though I can't explian it that well.

Ah well, maybe you could use your physic abbilitys to look into my mind and understand. ;)

(sorry, I don't have anything on links and all)

Answer 11

I completely agree Eri and Rev.  The burden of evidence is on the person making a claim.  I would be interested in hearing your evidence, but you need to understand that published books aren't considered scientific evidence.  Reputable scientific research is put through the peer-review process, where the scientific community can review it, judge it's validity, evaluate the experimental design, etc.  Books, on the other hand ("The Field" that you mentioned, for example, is pure pseudoscientific technobabble) aren't held up to any sort to scrutiny or standards of research.

A true skeptic will never say that these phenomena *can't* exist, else he or she would have to have to give evidence to back it up.  Rather, skeptics evaluate individual claims and test their validity.  In other words, a skeptic will never take "because I said so" as solid evidence.

I noticed in your edits that you say that your adopted mum doesn't have to prove herself... but that she also works with police investigations.  In that case she *does* have to prove herself!  Not to us at Y!A, necessarily, but police go through intense training and work under scrutiny.  The idea of using psychics to crack cases, to me, is as irresponsible as letting a hospital receptionist assist in major surgery.  The potential for false accusation and false leads is just too great.