What would it take to convince you of psychic phenomena?

[Kosh3]

Lets say you set up a test between yourself and a psychic who is rather reputed for their psychic abilities, and you have it such that electronic equipment is accounted for, and that you don't give anything away, and that she hasnt had a chance to research you or something.

You sit down, and lets say that you have a brother who died when he was 12. And the psychic says they start getting someone through....

Ok, so gender probably comes first... 50/50 chance of getting it right. (im no maths wizz, btw)

Then lets say the name comes next. Some names are more common than others. There are plenty of 'Johns' out there for instance. However, lets say... im gonna use 1000 western male names simply for the purposes of this post (google didnt reveal a more accurate number to me). And lets also say the brothers name was a normal, but not especially common or uncommon, name.

so thats a .001 chance of randomly getting that right. 0.001 x 0.5 = 0.0005 chance of getting both questions right.

Now lets say they go for the age of the brother at the time of death. Now im guessing, and this website seems to support it, that the majority of of deaths occur in old age. (http://www.mindspring.com/~hlthdata/dxdef.html). So dying at age 12 is very uncommon relative to other ages. However, one might not unreasonably suppose that a brother dying at 12 is more traumatic, and thus, increase the chances of someone seeking out a medium/psychic. However I dont think it would offset it that much.

So lets say (I cant read the graph well enough) that theres a 1% chance of dying at age 12. Thats a 1 in 100 chance.

So 0.01 x 0.0005 = 0.000005, or alternatively, a 1 in 200,000 chance of them getting three questions right.

One might respond: its an incredibly small sample set. 3 questions off 1 person. But that does not disparage the shere fact that even on that small basis, its still only a 1 in 200,000 chance getting it right by chance alone, other things being equal.

So the question to ask is: what would be your reaction to having three elementary facts about your 12 year old dead brother answered be?

[Loren Pechtel]

That the guy was a detective or had hired one.

[Clutch]

So the question to ask is: what would be your reaction to having three elementary facts about your 12 year old dead brother answered be?

My reaction would be that the probability of her being able to directly read my thoughts or somesuch is vastly lower than the known propensity of people like me to be mistaken about at least one of at least the following:

you have it such that electronic equipment is accounted for, and that you don't give anything away, and that she hasnt had a chance to research you or something

[BioBeing]

If I randomly sat down across the table from a psychic say at a fair, and before I said anything at all, she came right out and said "your brother Fred died when he was 12", I'd be pretty amazed (assuming of course, for the sake of your example, that it was true ;) )

If, on the other hand, she was doing a "I see someone, maybe a relative? Maybe a brother or a sister? Name starts with an M or an F, or maybe a J?" routine, and finally, after half an hour came out and said brother Fred died at age 12, I would strongly suspect cold reading.

[IanC]

That the guy could do cold reading. Add in perhaps a detective, and a crowd.

There will be someone in the crowd with a traumatic event relating to someone called John, so there we go, number one and two are simply highly likely.

That brings it to 1 in 100, if they havent done cold reading and simply guessed.

Finally, this is selective evidence, theres a lot of times when they get it wrong.

Ian

[Hyndis]

I would set up a test where there's no person to be read. A good "psychic" is very good at reading faces and the art of cold reading. You actually tell them most of what they claim to detect, and they just repeat it back to you, and everyone proclaims it to be a miracle or something.

By forcing the psychic to detect information on a single narrowly defined topic, and by remaining completely silence and motionless (or better yet, not even in the same room), and if they can consistantly do significantly better than what random chance would dictate, then they've probably got something.

There's even prizes to be awarded if a psychic can prove their abilities under laboratory conditions. But amazingly, not a single one of them has stepped forward to try to claim the prize.

They all say that they don't need the money, but what about the disaster and subsequent fiasco in the deep south from the hurricane? The people there need money. If I was a genuine psychic, I'd take that test right now, claim my winnings, and donate it right to the relief effort.

[Clutch]

Finally, this is selective evidence, theres a lot of times when they get it wrong.

Excellent point; it's so easy to overlook the importance of the big picture, statistically speaking.

How many such readings are done? How many are correct to the standards described? There might be a million psychic readings annually in the USA alone. If only four or five, including my case, are "right", then my (quite legitimate) surprise is no argument for the abilities of my reader.

[David B]

Lets say you set up a test between yourself and a psychic who is rather reputed for their psychic abilities, and you have it such that electronic equipment is accounted for, and that you don't give anything away, and that she hasnt had a chance to research you or something.

You sit down, and lets say that you have a brother who died when he was 12. And the psychic says they start getting someone through....

Ok, so gender probably comes first... 50/50 chance of getting it right. (im no maths wizz, btw)

Then lets say the name comes next. Some names are more common than others. There are plenty of 'Johns' out there for instance. However, lets say... im gonna use 1000 western male names simply for the purposes of this post (google didnt reveal a more accurate number to me). And lets also say the brothers name was a normal, but not especially common or uncommon, name.

so thats a .001 chance of randomly getting that right. 0.001 x 0.5 = 0.0005 chance of getting both questions right.

Now lets say they go for the age of the brother at the time of death. Now im guessing, and this website seems to support it, that the majority of of deaths occur in old age. (http://www.mindspring.com/~hlthdata/dxdef.html). So dying at age 12 is very uncommon relative to other ages. However, one might not unreasonably suppose that a brother dying at 12 is more traumatic, and thus, increase the chances of someone seeking out a medium/psychic. However I dont think it would offset it that much.

So lets say (I cant read the graph well enough) that theres a 1% chance of dying at age 12. Thats a 1 in 100 chance.

So 0.01 x 0.0005 = 0.000005, or alternatively, a 1 in 200,000 chance of them getting three questions right.

One might respond: its an incredibly small sample set. 3 questions off 1 person. But that does not disparage the shere fact that even on that small basis, its still only a 1 in 200,000 chance getting it right by chance alone, other things being equal.

So the question to ask is: what would be your reaction to having three elementary facts about your 12 year old dead brother answered be?

If you look at transcripts between alleged psychics and their marks, you will often find cases of the mark swearing blind that the psychic had told them all sorts of astonishing facts, while in fact they have told the psychic the facts.

Sometimes overtly, sometimes by allowing the psychic to guess a few times, and then confirming verbally or by non verbl communication that they have made a hit.

Techniques like this are called cold reading. People don't always realise what they are giving away.

Another technique is hot reading. This can be done by knowing who you are going to read in advance, and comparing notes with other 'psychics', doing a google search, looking up census records or having shills in a crowd, if it's a public reading.

One fairly well known psychic technique is to examine an object owned by someone, alive or dead, talk to whoever brings the object, and cold read facts. There was a case where a sceptic brought in an object which he had got someone else to give him, so that he knew nothing about the owner. This came out in the conversation, when the sceptic said that he had someone he could get at the end of a phone line, who could confirm or deny what the psychic said. The psychic said words to the effect of 'well if you don't know who owned the object, how do expect me to tell you', which I submit is something of a give away.

There are also highly skilled mentalists who do stage shows, like Derren Brown, who have really refined these non supernatural techniques of getting information out of people, without them knowing, and are careful to make no supernatural claims.

So, to answer your question as to what would be a convincing experiment, I'd like to see a genuine double blind procedure, observed by an expert - by which I mean a skilled mentalist - in order to eliminate non psychic causes from any hits. One of the great unmaskers of psychic phoneys was Harry Houdini - the sort of person who could himself persuade people of paranormal powers should he have so wished.

It is not an extraordinary claim to say that sometimes people lie, and even lie convincingly.

Psychic powers are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary proof. Unless an experiment is done in which all opportunity for the psychic to gain information through natural means is eliminated, then it is safer to hold as a working hypothesis that there is no such effect.

A genuine psychic could easily win the JREF's million bucks - which they could then give to charity if they don't want t o be tainted by filthy lucre.

They don't try. Because, I suggest, failure would be bad for business.

It is very hard to prevent a clever fraud from getting you to give something away, or doing previous research on you. Many clever people have been fooled - look at the case of Conan Doyle and the Cottingly Fairies.

If this happened to you, I'm sure you don't think you have been fooled. But if David Blaine did that with you, and said it was a trick, you'd probably be impressed by a good trick. Others are not so scrupulous about owning up to trickery.

There is not one case whare a psychic event has been confirmed under the sort of conditions I describe.

David B (finds this telling)

[ecco]

Kosh3:
So the question to ask is: what would be your reaction to having three elementary facts about your 12 year old dead brother answered be?

(Barring the aforementioned detective, shill, etc. problems) I would be shocked, amazed, blown away. I would instantly offer the psychic $100,000 to become their legal partner. Then I would contact J. Randi and my psychic partner and I would collect the $1,000,000 prize for proof of the paranormal. I would take my $400,000 profit and head for Tahiti.

Now, Kosh3, what exactly is the point of your question? To me it sounds like “I you died and went to heaven, would you believe in god?� With about an equal probability of either occurring.

[Schneibster]

To answer the question asked in the title, rather than the scenario propounded in the IP, a double-blind test utilizing a methodology that prevents "cold-reading."

[IanC]

One of many problems is so many people want to believe its true. They will bend the facts in their own mind until they see a miracle. Same with all the oil spills that look like Jesus (and the sandwiches, and anything else goldenpalace have bought).

To answer the question at the end of the OP, I would be impressed (if the situation was true, gladly it isnt) and would think they were highly adept at cold reading.

Derren Brown did it ages ago, was interesting to watch someone who flat out says they are going to use trickery.

Ian

[Majestyk]

"What would it take to convince you of psychic phenomena? "

Not much. Just evidence, testable and repeatable. Along with, an explanation of the biological and physical elements involved in the process.

[Plognark]

"What would it take to convince you of psychic phenomena? "

Not much. Just evidence, testable and repeatable. Along with, an explanation of the biological and physical elements involved in the process.

Same here.

[V-Bird]

Nothing.

[PJPSYCO]

Experiments would do it. Good ones of course.
Currently all of the experiments show its a bunk. Statistically, you can guess at most things very easily and if the people are telling you the answer it makes you spot on. Add the crowd and the ability to cut out mistakes(filmwise) and presto looks real good.

Heck, I'm an amazing psychic. I can read people I haven't met like a book. Empathy is a great ability. It is however not magical. I read peoples faces and let them talk. I listen to them and then know obsene amounts of personal information about them. I say obsene because few people realise how much they will tell you if your willing to listen to them.
Messageboards and chatrooms are perfect examples of how much people like to talk about themselves.
Heck, more on me, I also have a 100% prophecy record. Make them self fufilling, obscenely vauge, or highly probable and presto always right. I'll make another one right now. There will be a tornado in Missouri between the months of February and August. Look at me, spot on.
Peris

[Loren Pechtel]

If I randomly sat down across the table from a psychic say at a fair, and before I said anything at all, she came right out and said "your brother Fred died when he was 12", I'd be pretty amazed (assuming of course, for the sake of your example, that it was true ;) )

There probably was a bit of a delay before you could sit down.

In that time a pickpocket might have lifted your wallet and found out who you are. You never realized it because after they got your ID the pickpocket put it back.

[BioBeing]

Ha! I said I'd be amazed, not that I would believe ;)

[Santas little helper]

"What would it take to convince you of psychic phenomena? "

Not much. Just evidence, testable and repeatable. Along with, an explanation of the biological and physical elements involved in the process.
Asking for an explanation is a bit too much imo.After all when X rays were first
observed no one had any idea about what caused them or what they were.

[David B]

Asking for an explanation is a bit too much imo.After all when X rays were first
observed no one had any idea about what caused them or what they were.

That's true! YUp - demonstrate to the standards of sceptical enquiry that a phenomenon exists, then find out the why's and wherefores.

The point is, though, that all such tests to date have failed, and all the scam artists like Sylvia Browne avoid them like the plague, because they know they would fail.

David B (would like to see the writer of the OP making a contribution to the discussion now)

[Majestyk]

Asking for an explanation is a bit too much imo.After all when X rays were first
observed no one had any idea about what caused them or what they were. I don't think so. We didn't classify X rays as supernatural for lack of an explanation.

If, you can't explain the phenomena then, you can't claim it to be a "psychic" phenomena. Before I accept the term "psychic" being applied to an observable event, I'll need real world mechanics ascribed to the term.

[Hyndis]

It was known how x-rays work before it was known exactly what they were. This is the same thing with gravity even today. We know how it works to an amazing degree of accuracy, and yet we've still to discover an actual Higgs Bosun, if such a particle even exists at all. Its still not well known how the very simple property of "mass" is produced. But we know how it interacts with other stuff quite well.

[Santas little helper]

I don't think so. We didn't classify X rays as supernatural for lack of an expla
nation.
We don't classify psychic phenomena as supernatural either.Some people
may do but I don't believe it is part of their description.

If, you can't explain the phenomena then, you can't claim it to be a "psychic" phenomena.

Of course you can.Telepathy if ever exhibited would be considered a
psychic phenomenon.Its explanation might be that human brains can
communicate through electromagnetic waves.Or there might be some other
more exotic explanation.But if someone could exhibit communication
without use of the known human senses and without use of auxiliary equipment
then that would be telepathy hence a psychic phenomenon.Explanation or no
explanation.

It was known how x-rays work before it was known exactly what they were.
If someone could reproduce a psychic phenomenon at will then to some
extent we would also know how it worked.

Take something like thunderbolt.For millennia humans didn't have an
explanation but no one could doubt that it existed.

[Majestyk]

Merriam-Webster disagrees, Little Helper.

[Santas little helper]

Does Merriam-Webster not consider telepathy a psychic phenomenon then ?

[Killer Mike]

What would it take to convince me? Valid scientific research. If psychic phenomenon was being taught in the physics department at Harvard then Id be more likely to take it seriously.

If psychic phenomenon was real there should be no problem proving its validity thru some sort of experiments that are peer reviewed and reproducable by other research scientists.

[Kosh3]

Now, Kosh3, what exactly is the point of your question? To me it sounds like “I you died and went to heaven, would you believe in god?� With about an equal probability of either occurring.

the purpose was to see if you lot would recognize the improbability of 3 correct answers, and to examine how individual ideologies would account for it, accept it or deny it, or even write it off. In other words, out of curiosity.