# Psychic Pair Fail Scientific Test



## mosaix (Nov 2, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664

A scientific experiment has found that two mediums were unable to demonstrate that they had special psychic powers.


_"Scientists are very closed-minded," she said._


----------



## Mouse (Nov 2, 2012)

I've always thought 'psychics' read people's body language like certain magicians do, rather than actually had any powers. I've hung around with a _lot_ of psychics (I go ghost hunting a lot, I used to be part of a circle, my cousin's a medium etc.) and I frustrate them because they can't read me. I find it fascinating, I'd like to believe it but as of yet, I haven't found anything that I _can_ believe.


----------



## Dave (Nov 2, 2012)

I read about this in a freebie Newspaper a few days ago - not sure if it was the _Metro_ or the _Evening Standard_ - but what I thought was, why did the psychics take part if they were frauds? They couldn't be that short of money - they must have expected there to be a result that proved their psychicness. Or, maybe they just wanted the exposure it would give them.

NB. The test did find that they could know things about the subjects without meeting them, only that the number of things they knew was within the bounds of probability by guess work alone.

The psychics also complained that they find it easier when they can see the person. I'm split over that. I'm certain many fake psychics simply read people from their facial expressions, however since no one knows exactly how psychic powers might work, it is quite feasible that the two people need to see each other in order to make that special connection.

In reality, it is impossible to disprove _anything_ at all. You can only say that this has not been proven, again.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 2, 2012)

Our Cabal sends disruptive energy towards former brethren who seek scientific credibility.


----------



## Gary Compton (Nov 2, 2012)

HareBrain said:


> Our Cabal sends disruptive energy towards former brethren who seek scientific credibility.



The psychics should've known that and not went


----------



## Boneman (Nov 3, 2012)

How interesting that the agenda was set, and conclusions drawn, by people who already had their own agenda:



> But Michael Marshall of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, who helped to organise the test, said it showed that claims to have special abilities "aren't based in reality".


 
Actually it shows that the two they tested didn't have 'special abilities'.... not that every single medium in the world didn't. And since I saw no sign of a 'gold standard' double blind test that Skeptical always goes on about, the whole caboodle is flawed anyway. If you test two scientists (say, the ones who said Thalidomide would do no harm, or the ones who said "I know, let's grind up dead sheep and feed them to cattle - scrapie won't cross the species barrier and cause BSE and then CJD in humans) and they're wrong, then all scientists are wrong, by this logic. 

Healthy scepticism is always to be encouraged, but extrapolating mass statistics from the tiniest sample is a joke.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 3, 2012)

What I'd like to see is a similar experiment done, to see if people can originate great art within such a controlled set of circumstances. I suspect such an experiment would only be able to conclude that great art cannot exist, because it cannot be shown to happen in the lab.


----------



## Perpetual Man (Nov 3, 2012)

I have to say that when I read this I thought it was a bit one sided and not really a fair test. If the scientists do everything to make sure it proves their point then it is not a real test. 

On the other hand the psychics can't have everything stacked in their favour - they say they need to see their uhhh victim. Why not sit them in a blank room with a complete stranger opposite them and see what happens. (Of course this does not help with them reading people's body language facial ticks etc.)

It just seemed odd that the scientists discounted everything the psychics said they needed for it to work.

Basically I feel there ought to be a test that is somewhere in the middle, keeping everything balanced for both sides. A happy medium.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 3, 2012)

It seems odd to me that this pair accepted the test knowing the restrictions only to complain that the restrictions caused them to fail after the fact. If they knew they needed to see the person, why did they agree to a test that disallowed that?????


----------



## Perpetual Man (Nov 3, 2012)

Perhaps they were not given the details just invited to take part in a test under scientific conditions.

They just did not see it coming.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 3, 2012)

No, not buying it. Even if they did not know the details beforehand, they certainly had to have had them explained to them in order to run the test.

That was the time for them to object they cannot read people without being able to see them.

Think about it in any other scenario other than the psychic arena. Say one agrees to a driving test, but when they arrive they find out they have to drive blindfolded. You already know it is impossible to drive an obstacle course without sight. The test is set up to make you fail.

Would one still participate? Why on earth would they? What would be the point?


----------



## Peter Graham (Nov 29, 2012)

> Would one still participate? Why on earth would they? What would be the point?



Because before attempting to deceive others, they may well have gone to great lengths to deceive themselves.  Or, at least, they know that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

People whinge on about scientists being no different to these mountebanks and snake-oil vendors and triumphantly point to cases where science "got it wrong".  But this misses the point.  The scientific method does not preclude the possibility of being wrong.  The scientific method sets up hypotheses and will abandon them if they are proven to be unsound.  The conclusions follow the evidence.

By contrast, psychics, homeopaths, tarot readers, crystal healers, ley line hunters and their ilk decide the conclusion first, then twist the evidence to fit it.  Some of the individuals involved may just be deluding themselves, whereas others may be driven by a narcissistic desire to portray themselves as a "healer" or a "spiritual person" or somesuch cobblers.  Others still will be approaching the whole thing much more cynically.

Derren Brown debunks this stuff left, right and centre.  He can do what mediums and psychics do and he explains in his books how he does it - and there's no dead relatives, angels, earth energies or spirit guides standing behind it.  Every time this stuff is subjected to any form of testing, it fails - or, at least, produces results no different to what one might expect by chance.  Yet people persist in hoping that "_there might be something to it_."  Great.  Carlisle United _might_ win the FA Cup next year.  It's theoretically possible if squinted at in the right light and taken entirely out of context, but let's face it - it isn't going to happen.

Check out Tim Minchin's short, but inspired song "_If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out_".

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Metryq (Nov 29, 2012)

Peter Graham said:


> The scientific method sets up hypotheses and will abandon them if they are proven to be unsound.



Not always—or at least there are those who call themselves "scientists" who do not actually follow the scientific method.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 29, 2012)

But then, as your quotation marks around the word, scientists, already suggest, they aren't scientists.


----------



## Peter Graham (Nov 29, 2012)

Metryq said:


> Not always—or at least there are those who call themselves "scientists" who do not actually follow the scientific method.



In which case, they aren't proper scientists.  Or, they might be proper scientists, but they are allowing unscientific considerations to cloud their judgement.

The scientific model might be better termed as the rational model, as it is not limited to what one might term pure science.  Crystal fondlers, Young Earth Creationists et al won't go down without a fight, but ultimately they look increasingly like becoming the isolated rearguard of dying superstition.

Regards,

Peter


----------

