James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

[euphgeek]

I don't know. That just doesn't seem very impressive when compared with the amount of time and money that was spent in the 20th century to prove this stuff. I don't think scientists are sufficiently biased that they wouldn't be able to see evidence if parapsychology was real. It seems like there are better explanations than parapsychology for what you have experienced. Einstein was able to predict light bending around the gravitational well of the Sun, something that would have been impossible in Newtonian physics. What has parapsychology produced? Anything of that scale would have been undeniable and you wouldn't be in a minority position on the matter.

 

So a subjective term like "impressive" is what we should use to determine whether something exists? Likewise what a certain thing has produced? Whatever happened to, "This phenomenon occurred, I can't completely explain it with conventional methods, therefore let's research it further" type of thinking? And it's not really a question of scientists being biased against it. But since parapsychology produces few (if any) things of material value, not many people are willing to put the time and effort into it. And it's admittedly hard to pin down, since it rarely leaves behind physical evidence. If it does exist, there would likely have to be a new paradigm in science to research it more effectively.

Seriously, is that the best you can do to defend it? Millions of dollars and thousands or more was spent researching this stuff, especially around the 60's and 70's. It came up empty. When I weigh that against your experience, then yes, your experience doesn't strike me as being very "impressive". As for unexplained phenomena, what unexplained phenomena? It's only unexplained because you don't like the psychological/biological/physical explanation for it. Have one of these parapsychologists perform some replicable demonstration in a controlled environment with professional scientists and have the results published in a peer reviewed publication. I'll be "impressed" if it comes out positive for the reality of parapsychological claims. That's pretty fair and unbiased of me since I have similar expectations for any other scientific discovery.

How do you know what explanations I like or don't like? Perhaps it's you who chooses not to believe controlled scientific experiments that have come back positive for the possible existence of psychic phenomena. I remember hearing about a controlled experiment where the psychic got 80% of the hits for a person on the other side of a wall. Randi looked around until he found a small hole in the wall that he claimed the psychic could have looked through to see the person on the other side and then discounted the entire experiment. Never mind that seeing the person wouldn't necessarily give the psychic an 80% hit rate. Nor did he prove that the psychic actually used the hole. Randi would be a lot more believable to me, at least, if he actually volunteered to be a "psychic" in the experiment and produced an 80% hit rate with his cold reading techniques in the same way the other psychics did.

[Mike D]

Omg I know James Van Praagh - how funny.

 

I never even heard of this before today..... I honestly didn't know JVP was this high profile - he's a friend of another friend of mine and he did a reading (or seance or whatever it's called) at another friend's house a couple of years ago. Of course being the skeptic I am I didn't take it as anything other than for entertainment value. But JVP is a great guy and it was fun.

 

Wow... small world.

[euphgeek]

I think pink unicorns exist- I saw one once. And ya'll are a bunch of closed-minded zealots if you refuse to consider the possibility.

And here comes the ridicule. So you don't think that science should investigate a phenomena that has happened to many credible people? Or are you just unwilling to challenge your own beliefs? Either way, that's not very scientific.

Why do you assume actual phenomena has occured? Christians think their God is causing phenomena as well. I'm really struggling to believe your professed open skepticism regarding this matter.

OK, a phenomena that has allegedly happened to many credible people. Is that better? Just because I'm a skeptic doesn't mean I don't have beliefs. However, I'm willing to be proved wrong and change them if I see evidence that I'm wrong.

[thesadclown]

OK, a phenomena that has allegedly happened to many credible people. Is that better? Just because I'm a skeptic doesn't mean I don't have beliefs. However, I'm willing to be proved wrong and change them if I see evidence that I'm wrong.

I think you have that backwards. You shouldn't be looking for evidence that you are wrong, but rather evidence that you are correct in your claims. The disagreement is over whether there is sufficient evidence to support your claims of parapsychic phenomena. The lack of acceptance in the scientific community, despite the ample opportunity for proving their claims, is the most serious blow against parapsychology and its supporters to my mind. Something like telekinesis, telepathy, or other parapsychic phenomena should have been fairly easy to demonstrate, "looks at paperclip behind glass in another room - paperclip moves", researcher says, "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000" - psychic says, "273" and is right.

 

[euphgeek]

I think pink unicorns exist- I saw one once. And ya'll are a bunch of closed-minded zealots if you refuse to consider the possibility.

And here comes the ridicule. So you don't think that science should investigate a phenomena that has happened to many credible people? Or are you just unwilling to challenge your own beliefs? Either way, that's not very scientific.

 

Neither.

 

I think it's silly of you to expect people to be open-minded about something like psychic powers. Sillier still to take it personally.

I don't take it personally. I just find it funny that Randi is so religiously devoted to his way of thinking that he will never change his mind and that he calls himself a skeptic when all he does is dismiss everything outside his own worldview.

Lots of people- myself included- will never take that sort of thing seriously unless/until we experience it ourselves. I don't think it's unreasonable to dismiss it as hocus-pocus bullshit (not saying I dismiss it entirely- just that it's not unreasonable to do so).

Absolutely not unreasonable at all. I agree with you 100% there.

Now personally I'd love to have a paranormal experience. I'm a bit jealous of you 'cause shit like that NEVER happens to me. You could say that 'I want to believe' in an x-files sense... but if I'm honest with myself, I can't see any reason to 'believe' in most paranormal phenomena any more than I'd believe in a god.

The paranormal experiences I had were simply with psychics who do readings. If you have a spiritualist church in your area, you might be able to get a short reading for free or low cost (offering) if they do demonstrations at their services. Just don't go in with the expectation that you'll get to speak with a friend or relative who has died or that you'll get a specific message.

James Randi may be a pompus twit- I wouldn't know 'cause I've never heard of him before. But surely you can understand why people would dismiss something like psychic abilities- it's something that never enters most peoples' reality.

Sure. I'm not saying anyone has to believe in anything. Just to recognize that the belief that psychic ability doesn't exist is just that--a belief. And just like the belief that there is such thing as psychic ability, it's possible for it to be wrong.

[euphgeek]

OK, a phenomena that has allegedly happened to many credible people. Is that better? Just because I'm a skeptic doesn't mean I don't have beliefs. However, I'm willing to be proved wrong and change them if I see evidence that I'm wrong.

I think you have that backwards. You shouldn't be looking for evidence that you are wrong, but rather evidence that you are correct in your claims. The disagreement is over whether there is sufficient evidence to support your claims of parapsychic phenomena.

Ah, but the thing is, I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe in anything other than science and true skepticism. I've already found evidence for my beliefs and I'll hold onto them until I find evidence that I'm wrong, which is always possible.

[thesadclown]

Ah, but the thing is, I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe in anything other than science and true skepticism. I've already found evidence for my beliefs and I'll hold onto them until I find evidence that I'm wrong, which is always possible.

Your evidence seems comparatively lacking when placed next to the radical nature of the claim. Your belief isn't that Burger King tastes better than McDonalds, it's that people can move things with thoughts or can know (not guess) the contents of another humans thoughts even when they are not expressed in any discernable manner. You need something more impressive than anecdotal evidence, something like what I was requesting earlier, replicable experiments in a controlled environment which results are published in a respected peer review scientific journal.

 

[euphgeek]

Ah, but the thing is, I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe in anything other than science and true skepticism. I've already found evidence for my beliefs and I'll hold onto them until I find evidence that I'm wrong, which is always possible.

Your evidence seems comparatively lacking when placed next to the radical nature of the claim. Your belief isn't that Burger King tastes better than McDonalds, it's that people can move things with thoughts or can know (not guess) the contents of another humans thoughts even when they are not expressed in any discernable manner. You need something more impressive than anecdotal evidence, something like what I was requesting earlier, replicable experiments in a controlled environment which results are published in a respected peer review scientific journal.

Just because something isn't replicable in a controlled environment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, if someone claims to have been taken aboard a UFO, how are they supposed to prove it? It's unlikely that they can make the UFO appear on command, so all you have is their word, their experience. Regardless, there have been experiments like the ganzfeld experiments and others where psychics have scored hits far above chance guesses. It's not proof of psychic powers, of course, but it is evidence that some phenomena is happening that can't be explained away with current scientific knowledge.

[Dhampir]

What does "credible people" mean here? Does it mean someone that "wouldn't lie"? If so, how do you know? And even if these people were, say, pathologically incapable of knowingly lying about something, does that mean they are correct? Just because you think you know something doesn't make you right.

 

What does "phenomena" mean in this instance, particularly in light of the previous question? If one person saw a ghost, and another person saw that first person convulsing on the floor, foaming at the mouth, and muttering jibberish, which one are we to investigate?

 

Perhaps someone already put this out there better than I can, but really, the question of the so-called "supernatural" is probably the oldest unanswered question we as humans have. Not only that, but in the thousands (tens of thousands?) of years we've been asking this question, we aren't one step closer to any definitive answers. Not one step.

 

So, James Randi is a Pompahblahblah etc. etc.? At least he's doing something. He's out there calling attention to the many Many frauds out there that would take advantage of the gullible, the ones with such an emotional investment in the idea that they'd accept the cheapest card trick as validation. What are your people doing? Are they out there meeting with scient--erm-- trained, educated people across numerous relevant fields, to conduct VALID studies, structuring experiments designed not to feed confirmation bias, but to rule out any and all possibility of other suspects, as well as to marginalize said bias?

 

Or are they running around spooky rooms, in the dark (why do they always need to be in the dark?) waving around EMP meters and audio feedback devices like divining rods and invoking the spirits of their imagination to make them feel like something other than dumbasses? Trusting individual anectdotes, and stories from friends of friends to give them that feel-good "a-ha" sensation, without verifying anything that may cast doubt? Excusing the lack of actual evidence with statements like "You can't prove there's nothing out there" even though they wouldn't need such statements if they themselves could prove or even fitly demonstrate any of their claims.

[euphgeek]

What does "credible people" mean here? Does it mean someone that "wouldn't lie"? If so, how do you know? And even if these people were, say, pathologically incapable of knowingly lying about something, does that mean they are correct? Just because you think you know something doesn't make you right.

 

What does "phenomena" mean in this instance, particularly in light of the previous question? If one person saw a ghost, and another person saw that first person convulsing on the floor, foaming at the mouth, and muttering jibberish, which one are we to investigate?

Good questions. I consider someone credible if, for example, they do not have any reason to make up a story (like monetary gain) and that they do not have a history of mental illness or drug abuse. But just because they're credible doesn't mean that I instantly believe them. There's also the possibility that they're simply mistaken or misinterpreting some natural phenomena (I use the word "phenomena" to mean simply "something that happened"). I draw no hard and fast conclusions on anything I hear from a third party other than to think that it's a possibility that they experienced what they claimed to experience.

Perhaps someone already put this out there better than I can, but really, the question of the so-called "supernatural" is probably the oldest unanswered question we as humans have. Not only that, but in the thousands (tens of thousands?) of years we've been asking this question, we aren't one step closer to any definitive answers. Not one step.

We also spent tens of thousands of years not knowing what germs were or about atoms. Did they exist before we knew about them? Certainly.

So, James Randi is a Pompahblahblah etc. etc.? At least he's doing something. He's out there calling attention to the many Many frauds out there that would take advantage of the gullible, the ones with such an emotional investment in the idea that they'd accept the cheapest card trick as validation. What are your people doing? Are they out there meeting with scient--erm-- trained, educated people across numerous relevant fields, to conduct VALID studies, structuring experiments designed not to feed confirmation bias, but to rule out any and all possibility of other suspects, as well as to marginalize said bias?

 

Or are they running around spooky rooms, in the dark (why do they always need to be in the dark?) waving around EMP meters and audio feedback devices like divining rods and invoking the spirits of their imagination to make them feel like something other than dumbasses? Trusting individual anectdotes, and stories from friends of friends to give them that feel-good "a-ha" sensation, without verifying anything that may cast doubt? Excusing the lack of actual evidence with statements like "You can't prove there's nothing out there" even though they wouldn't need such statements if they themselves could prove or even fitly demonstrate any of their claims.

As I've said before in this thread, I applaud Randi for attempting to call attention to frauds. His intentions are good (at least in his mind, anyway), but the way he goes about it is extremely unscientific. If he really wanted proof of psychic phenomena, he'd drop the challenge gimmick and use the million dollars to fund his own research into the issue. But it doesn't seem like he's interested in being proved wrong, just in proving to everybody how right he is. The only people he's likely to convince are people who already don't believe in psychics.

[MagickMonkey]

When I was a kid, I remember a TV special with James Randi. The tests he used seemed very well thought out and scientific. And the end of the TV special, as best as I can remember, he made a point to mention that just because he hasn't found anyone with supernatural powers, doesn't mean that such people do not exist. He made some comparison that if someone were to claim that their were no red-headed Irishmen, that you could show countless examples of non-red-headed Irishmen without proving that red-headed Irishmen do not exist. He said you cannot prove a negative. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say before that he'd love to meet someone with powers that would generally be considered to be supernatural, though I'm to lazy to look up any quotes right now.

 

He's seen countless frauds with no one successfully proving anything. These frauds often shamlessly exploit people. It's no wonder his attitude towards those claiming to have psychic powers is negative. Overall, I think he's fairly reasonable. Characterizing him as religious is really not appropriate. I've never got the idea that he's pompous, and, right or wrong, he's damn sure no twit.

[MagickMonkey]

Magicians regularly fool scientists with their trickery, but self proclaimed psychics don't fool magicians. ...

 

Let's accept your premise that since scientists have been fooled by magicians, that makes them unqualified to investigate psychic phenomena. ....

 

Hehehehe, be careful. I don't think he made that claim at all. He simply seemed to imply that magicians are better at investigating psychic phenomena. This makes sense. Magicians trick people all the time. They have a better idea of how those claiming to have psychic powers might go about their trickery. That's not the same as saying scientists are unqualified, just less qualified. Beware of boolean thinking.

[SillyString]

Are you a psychic OP? Then prove it! Accept Randi's million dollar offer and make some cash, it's that simple. There's a reason no "psychic" will "prove" their abilities under a REAL scientific experiment, because they know it's bullshit. These psychics are either completely delusional who just happen to be right sometimes (ever heard of coincidence?), or are out to take advantage of people and make money off of those who believe it. Please.

[euphgeek]

When I was a kid, I remember a TV special with James Randi. The tests he used seemed very well thought out and scientific. And the end of the TV special, as best as I can remember, he made a point to mention that just because he hasn't found anyone with supernatural powers, doesn't mean that such people do not exist. He made some comparison that if someone were to claim that their were no red-headed Irishmen, that you could show countless examples of non-red-headed Irishmen without proving that red-headed Irishmen do not exist. He said you cannot prove a negative. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say before that he'd love to meet someone with powers that would generally be considered to be supernatural, though I'm to lazy to look up any quotes right now.

 

He's seen countless frauds with no one successfully proving anything. These frauds often shamlessly exploit people. It's no wonder his attitude towards those claiming to have psychic powers is negative. Overall, I think he's fairly reasonable. Characterizing him as religious is really not appropriate. I've never got the idea that he's pompous, and, right or wrong, he's damn sure no twit.

The James Randi you saw seems vastly different and much more reasonable than how he presents himself today. And I'm not impugning his intelligence by calling him a twit. Even very intelligent people can be twits if they profess complete knowledge of something they refuse to objectively learn about.

Magicians regularly fool scientists with their trickery, but self proclaimed psychics don't fool magicians. ...

 

Let's accept your premise that since scientists have been fooled by magicians, that makes them unqualified to investigate psychic phenomena. ....

 

Hehehehe, be careful. I don't think he made that claim at all. He simply seemed to imply that magicians are better at investigating psychic phenomena. This makes sense. Magicians trick people all the time. They have a better idea of how those claiming to have psychic powers might go about their trickery. That's not the same as saying scientists are unqualified, just less qualified. Beware of boolean thinking.

OK, but beware of it yourself. You appear to be falling into the trap of assuming that all people claiming to have psychic powers are engaging in trickery. It would be nice if Randi would work objectively with the scientists on improving their controls for these types of things, rather than declaring an entire experiment invalid because of some tiny flaw that may or may not have been exploited.

[euphgeek]

Are you a psychic OP? Then prove it! Accept Randi's million dollar offer and make some cash, it's that simple. There's a reason no "psychic" will "prove" their abilities under a REAL scientific experiment, because they know it's bullshit. These psychics are either completely delusional who just happen to be right sometimes (ever heard of coincidence?), or are out to take advantage of people and make money off of those who believe it. Please.

It's like you haven't even read a word I've said. And I suppose you think that only Randi can conduct a "REAL scientific experiment?" Because legitimate scientists have conducted controlled experiments on psychics who have performed better than chance. Again, I'm not saying this is absolute proof of psychic abilities, but it does mean that there's something there to investigate.

 

And be careful of declaring outright that you know for certain a thing does not exist that you have no way of knowing whether it does or not. Such absolute certainty is in the realm of religion, not science.

[SillyString]

Because legitimate scientists have conducted controlled experiments on psychics who have performed better than chance. Again, I'm not saying this is absolute proof of psychic abilities, but it does mean that there's something there to investigate.

 

And be careful of declaring outright that you know for certain a thing does not exist that you have no way of knowing whether it does or not. Such absolute certainty is in the realm of religion, not science.

 

Where are these experiments you speak of, when were they done?

[euphgeek]

Because legitimate scientists have conducted controlled experiments on psychics who have performed better than chance. Again, I'm not saying this is absolute proof of psychic abilities, but it does mean that there's something there to investigate.

 

And be careful of declaring outright that you know for certain a thing does not exist that you have no way of knowing whether it does or not. Such absolute certainty is in the realm of religion, not science.

 

Where are these experiments you speak of, when were they done?

The Ganzfeld experiments, for one, done in the early 70s. Also other scientists such as Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs and Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Lab of the University of Arizona have conducted experiments on psychic powers with above chance results.

[Dhampir]

We also spent tens of thousands of years not knowing what germs were or about atoms. Did they exist before we knew about them? Certainly.

My point exactly. We spent millenia "knowing...Just...KNOWING" there were ghosts, and knowing nothing about them. How do you speculate something that long and learn nothing about it? Only one way... it's nonsense.

 

All history indicates that within decades of proposing any currently known phenomena, SOMETHING conclusive was learned about it. People have been asking the same questions about ghosts and the supernatural for MUCH longer, and getting completely different answers, or no answers.

[MagickMonkey]

When I was a kid, I remember a TV special with James Randi. The tests he used seemed very well thought out and scientific. And the end of the TV special, as best as I can remember, he made a point to mention that just because he hasn't found anyone with supernatural powers, doesn't mean that such people do not exist. He made some comparison that if someone were to claim that their were no red-headed Irishmen, that you could show countless examples of non-red-headed Irishmen without proving that red-headed Irishmen do not exist. He said you cannot prove a negative. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say before that he'd love to meet someone with powers that would generally be considered to be supernatural, though I'm to lazy to look up any quotes right now.

 

He's seen countless frauds with no one successfully proving anything. These frauds often shamlessly exploit people. It's no wonder his attitude towards those claiming to have psychic powers is negative. Overall, I think he's fairly reasonable. Characterizing him as religious is really not appropriate. I've never got the idea that he's pompous, and, right or wrong, he's damn sure no twit.

The James Randi you saw seems vastly different and much more reasonable than how he presents himself today. And I'm not impugning his intelligence by calling him a twit. Even very intelligent people can be twits if they profess complete knowledge of something they refuse to objectively learn about.

Magicians regularly fool scientists with their trickery, but self proclaimed psychics don't fool magicians. ...

 

Let's accept your premise that since scientists have been fooled by magicians, that makes them unqualified to investigate psychic phenomena. ....

 

Hehehehe, be careful. I don't think he made that claim at all. He simply seemed to imply that magicians are better at investigating psychic phenomena. This makes sense. Magicians trick people all the time. They have a better idea of how those claiming to have psychic powers might go about their trickery. That's not the same as saying scientists are unqualified, just less qualified. Beware of boolean thinking.

OK, but beware of it yourself. You appear to be falling into the trap of assuming that all people claiming to have psychic powers are engaging in trickery. It would be nice if Randi would work objectively with the scientists on improving their controls for these types of things, rather than declaring an entire experiment invalid because of some tiny flaw that may or may not have been exploited.

 

I'm not absolutely close-minded to the possibility. It just seems damned unlikely that anyone has any psychic powers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence would have to be pretty convincing. But who knows, maybe via some means we've never considered, there are those with such powers. I doubt it, but...

 

Criticism of the scientists is helping them. By pointing out their flaws, he's helping them to come up with better means of testing. Unless experiments are fundamentally flawed, there's no reason researchers can't modify their experiments and try again if Randi or others point out flaws in their work. In science, criticism is a good thing.

[euphgeek]

We also spent tens of thousands of years not knowing what germs were or about atoms. Did they exist before we knew about them? Certainly.

My point exactly. We spent millenia "knowing...Just...KNOWING" there were ghosts, and knowing nothing about them. How do you speculate something that long and learn nothing about it? Only one way... it's nonsense.

 

All history indicates that within decades of proposing any currently known phenomena, SOMETHING conclusive was learned about it. People have been asking the same questions about ghosts and the supernatural for MUCH longer, and getting completely different answers, or no answers.

I would agree with you, except for the experiences many people have had with the paranormal. Psychics who get details of a person's life correct that can't be explained away by cold reading (like the date of a birthday). People who have had out-of-body experiences reporting details of a conversation their physical body would have had no way of hearing. Things like that make me unable to just write it off as a bunch of nonsense or fraud.

[euphgeek]

I'm not absolutely close-minded to the possibility. It just seems damned unlikely that anyone has any psychic powers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence would have to be pretty convincing. But who knows, maybe via some means we've never considered, there are those with such powers. I doubt it, but...

 

Criticism of the scientists is helping them. By pointing out their flaws, he's helping them to come up with better means of testing. Unless experiments are fundamentally flawed, there's no reason researchers can't modify their experiments and try again if Randi or others point out flaws in their work. In science, criticism is a good thing.

Yes, if the criticism is constructive, that's a big help. But Randi has been known to mock scientists who conduct these experiments and then complain when (surprise, surprise) they don't want his "help" anymore. As I've said before, Randi would be much more credible if he'd drop the challenge gimmick and use the million dollars for his own research, or at least volunteer to be a control in these experiments by demonstrating his cold reading techniques to see if he can match or do better than the psychics.

[florduh]

I think maybe the subject of psychic phenomena should be divided into two categories.

 

First, is it possible for people to have a flash of insight or intuition on occasion? Maybe, and I know there are those who swear it happened to them. Spooky, unexplained things do happen. Eventually many such incidents do get explained, but perhaps some will never be explained.

 

Second, there are people who claim to have paranormal powers and they read minds, tell fortunes, and bust ghosts for a living. If they can only perform these miracles in their own controlled environment, that should be a red flag. A real psychic should be able to ply his trade under test conditions, but so far, none have.

 

In the field of paranormal phenomena, scientists don't know what to look for when it comes to trickery; magicians do. As I've stated, I know for a fact that every well known psychic you can name has attended the same seminars and read the same books as I. Psychic entertainment is a business, and unfortunately it is sometimes presented as genuine because of the easy money to be had. This is wrong, and magicians and mentalists with a conscience feel obliged to debunk the charlatans. True Believers don't like having their beliefs challenged any more than anyone else does, but ask yourself why supposed psychics don't know when they're about to be busted by the bunko squad. Why don't they make their living by playing the lotto or stock market? Why don't they freely share their gifts with mankind? Why don't they take Randi's prize money?

[ShackledNoMore]

Needless to say, I share the skepticism of most of the posters on this thread. I did, however, find the Wikipedia article on the Ganzfeld experiments to be interesting, and I spawned another thread (The Ganzfeld Experiments) to provide for a narrower focus specifically the Ganzfeld experiments.

[Dhampir]

We also spent tens of thousands of years not knowing what germs were or about atoms. Did they exist before we knew about them? Certainly.

My point exactly. We spent millenia "knowing...Just...KNOWING" there were ghosts, and knowing nothing about them. How do you speculate something that long and learn nothing about it? Only one way... it's nonsense.

 

All history indicates that within decades of proposing any currently known phenomena, SOMETHING conclusive was learned about it. People have been asking the same questions about ghosts and the supernatural for MUCH longer, and getting completely different answers, or no answers.

I would agree with you, except for the experiences many people have had with the paranormal. Psychics who get details of a person's life correct that can't be explained away by cold reading (like the date of a birthday). People who have had out-of-body experiences reporting details of a conversation their physical body would have had no way of hearing. Things like that make me unable to just write it off as a bunch of nonsense or fraud.

As much as I prefer the term paranormal to supernatural, it's really just a catch-all that explains nothing. And just like many people I know that "can't explain thus-and-such with this explanation", your argument from ignorance really goes to point. All these paranormal experiences that people had have taught us nothing about the nature and actions of the paranormal. People have been seeing ghosts for thousands of years, communicating with them, masturbating to psychics, and yet there is not a shred of definitive understanding about what any of it is, or how it works.

 

Here's an idea: everyone knows about ghosts. But no 2 people have any clue what makes one, which gives rise to the thousands of different interpretations thereof. Sometimes a ghost is a shapeless white mass flitting across the ceiling. Other times it's a transparent visage of an actual person. Yet other times it's just sounds that can only be heard by playing back some sort of feedback device. Still other times, it's a feeling, or the sudden movement of an object, or a possessed item, or a dream or a freaking exhaustion/drug-induced hallucination. I just noticed that EVERY such manifestation could, and usually is, literally anything else, and I could do this with psychics too, but I digress. That the expression of paranormal activity is so wildly variant, inconsistent, and devoid of common thread is evidence that one group of people creates it, and another group, not being privy to the delusion, hallucination, or outright lies of the first group, sustain it.

 

Samuel L. Jackson didn't get it completely right: Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

[euphgeek]

but ask yourself why supposed psychics don't know when they're about to be busted by the bunko squad. Why don't they make their living by playing the lotto or stock market? Why don't they freely share their gifts with mankind? Why don't they take Randi's prize money?

I've already addressed much of what you've said in other replies, so I'll just answer this last part. I've taken psychic development classes as a curiosity and can tell you that one of the things they teach you is that in order for a psychic reading to work, you have to get your ego out of the way and just speak whatever random thought pops into your head. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to get your ego out of the way when you're reading for yourself or doing something for monetary gain. I know you're probably thinking "how convenient," but it's for much the same reason that attorneys don't represent themselves in court or why psychiatrists and psychologists don't work on themselves.

 

As for why they don't share their gift freely, I could ask the same of any profession. Psychics need money to live on, too. Although those that have a "day job" may choose to give readings for little or no cost.

 

Finally, if Randi was really interested in proof, someone would have taken the million dollars by now. But he's already been quoted as saying, "I always have an out," so like I said in the beginning, the money is just a gimmick so he can walk around smugly proclaiming how right he is.