Can James Randi really prove the existence of supernatural powers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phobos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
James Randi, a magician and skeptic, offers a $1 million prize for anyone who can demonstrate supernatural abilities under controlled conditions, emphasizing the need for observable evidence. Despite the challenge's long-standing nature, no one has successfully claimed the prize, raising questions about the validity of such paranormal claims. Discussions highlight the limitations of current scientific understanding and the potential for future discoveries to explain phenomena currently deemed supernatural. Critics argue that Randi's challenge may misrepresent the complexities of unexplained phenomena and the evolving nature of science. Overall, the debate centers on the intersection of skepticism, science, and the possibility of the supernatural.
  • #31
Me bad. :blushing:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Kerrie:

I have read plenty of horoscopes which include a kind of "disclaimer" at the end, or at the start, which goes something like this:

"Remember, the stars do not determine your destiny. But they do influence your life. By understanding your horoscope, you will be able to make the most of opportunities, and to understand more about yourself and the events in your life. Your horoscope is a useful guide which you must interpret in light of your own experiences. It is not a prescription for your future."

In the skeptic "trade", these kinds of statements are known as "weasel words". Basically, they tell you that anything which "fits" you or events in your life is "in the stars". And anything which doesn't quite fit you can safely toss away. Most of the time, though, horoscopes are vague enough that most people can find some event in their life which seems to match any prediction made by the horoscope.

Astrology is eminently testable using current methods of science. Unfortunately, it has failed all such tests. It might make people happy, but it seems to have no objective predictive power, either in terms of events or personalities.
 
  • #33
James, I sent you a pm, i don't want to drag this off topic, plus i have discussed astrology in numerous threads within the forum.

my basic beef is the skeptics that make absolute claims about things being impossible, yet forget science is continuously advancing. i wish they would have more of the mindset of "X subject cannot be proven within our current science", as oppossed to "it's impossible, and cannot be proven."
 
  • #34
Kerrie said:
my basic beef is the skeptics that make absolute claims about things being impossible, yet forget science is continuously advancing. i wish they would have more of the mindset of "X subject cannot be proven within our current science", as oppossed to "it's impossible, and cannot be proven."

The problem is people who don't understand what's been more or less unquestioned (which is usually the laws of thermodynamics) and then try to make stupid claims which blatently violate such laws.

I realize that many people believe that "the laws may be proven wrong", we must not forget that almost all of our engineering achievements have been based on these laws, and actually work. It's healthy to question what's been "proven", but to ignore it is folly.

I, for one, (aged ~10) spent endless hours trying to run a dynamo off a motor, and use the energy provided by the dynamo as the source for the motor. But that's what learning's about right?
 
  • #36
Either astrology works as advertised, or it doesn't. Anybody can test it to see if it works, without knowing any details of how it might work. This has been done, and astrology has not measured up well.
 
  • #37
Considering our blind man who apparently sees emotion, if true as reported, this strikes me as one of many examples of something that genuinely qualified as ESP but was never officially recognized. Note that we never heard about the man who sees emotion, we only hear once we begin to discover an explanation - the proof is now seen only in retrospect. Wasn't this man entitled to Randi's million until a few months ago?

This example demonstrates the essence of my objection to Randi's challenge. I don't think the "challenge" qualifies as a measure of credibility, less perhaps to expose complete charlatans. I don't think Randi is doing real science any favors. I think he helps to put up mental blocks that stifle the imagination and discourage creative thought. I see him and many similar debunkers [not skeptics] as being counterproductive to the pursuit of knowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Oh yes, as already noted, Randi didn't up the ante. My take is that he was just upping the hype, as usual.
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
Considering our blind man who apparently sees emotion, if true as reported, this strikes me as one of many examples of something that genuinely qualified as ESP but was never officially recognized. Note that we never heard about the man who sees emotion, we only hear once we begin to discover an explanation - the proof is now seen only in retrospect. Wasn't this man entitled to Randi's million until a few months ago?

This example demonstrates the essence of my objection to Randi's challenge. I don't think the "challenge" qualifies as a measure of credibility, less perhaps to expose complete charlatans. I don't think Randi is doing real science any favors. I think he helps to put up mental blocks that stifle the imagination and discourage creative thought. I see him and many similar debunkers [not skeptics] as being counterproductive to the pursuit of knowledge.

Ah, but the point is he WASN'T a blind man: his eyes still worked. However, his BRAIN was damaged: most of his visual data was just lost. I guess the part that interpreted emotion wasn't lost so...

Yes, it is up to the JREF wether or not they will test a claim. If the guy had said he could see the emotions through a wall.. well then...


But yes, I agree the case is 'border line' on wether or not it would qualifiy. He should have applied.

One of the rules all parties must follow once an application is complete is that the rules should not change. (there are usually exceptions made for the one being tested [ie: the books on that case are interfering, please move them]) but no change can be made without consent of BOTH parties.
 
  • #40
Ah, but the point is he WASN'T a blind man: his eyes still worked. However, his BRAIN was damaged: most of his visual data was just lost. I guess the part that interpreted emotion wasn't lost so...

I think it is a little more clear cut than this. As I understood the story, this is a new form of vision that goes beyond the definition of being blind. He IS blind by any previous definition. Its not like he sees a little, he is blind.

The man, identified only as 'patient X', has suffered two strokes which damaged the brain areas that process visual signals, leaving him completely blind.

So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight - a quick fix which will leave debunkers claiming that nothing special ever happened. Sorry Randi but, barring any problems with peer review, this is ESP; now proven and published. You lose.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Well, I don't think I would consider it a different sense - like you said, it goes beyond the current definition of "blind." Its simply an expansion of the definition and evidence that we didn't really understand how sight works. Obviously, this phenomena has something to do with the relationship between the eyes and brain. That, to me, pretty clearly qualifies it as having to do with "sight."

I think you're really reaching for something to hang your hat on here: this isn't it.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Interesting story with the blind man - a sort of "reverse" Anton syndrome.
 
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight - a quick fix which will leave debunkers claiming that nothing special ever happened. Sorry Randi but, barring any problems with peer review, this is ESP; now proven and published. You lose.

This is NOT a new kind of sight. This is information being sent down multiple paths and being cut off everywhere but one spot.

I can't see apples but I can see oranges. Is my ability to see oranges supernatural or my inability to see apples supernatural?


If it was ESP he wouldn't need the light going into his eyes. Period.
 
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
So by definition this is a sixth sense. We can expand our defintion of sight but this is a matter of hindsight...
Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of ESP. "Sixth sense" is not descriptive enough, considering most scientists agree that there are more than 5 conscious senses and perhaps hundreds of unconscious ones.

My definition of ESP would be any sense that involves no physical connection to the object/event being sensed.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of ESP. "Sixth sense" is not descriptive enough, considering most scientists agree that there are more than 5 conscious senses and perhaps hundreds of unconscious ones.

My definition of ESP would be any sense that involves no physical connection to the object/event being sensed.

Well, usually there is a connection in the explanation. I would say no 'known' physical connection. IE one which doesn't use known physical phenomena (like, say, LIGHT)
 
  • #46
Alkatran said:
Well, usually there is a connection in the explanation. I would say no 'known' physical connection. IE one which doesn't use known physical phenomena (like, say, LIGHT)
And that's where the problem is going to come in: something like telepathy. If it turns out we can literally send radio waves to each other, does that mean its ESP or just another physical sense we didn't know we had (or didn't understand completely)? The dictionary definition (Communication or perception by means other than the physical senses) implies to me that for it to be ESP, it must be completely non-physical. However, the word "extrasensory" seems to be looser: "Being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses".

I guess I could accept the second one, with the stipulation that it not be connected to an already existing sense: ie, if it involves your eyes, its still sight even if we didn't realize our eyes were capable of it (pretty much like you said).
 
Last edited:
  • #47
russ_watters said:
And that's where the problem is going to come in: something like telepathy. If it turns out we can literally send radio waves to each other, does that mean its ESP or just another physical sense we didn't know we had (or didn't understand completely)? The dictionary definition (Communication or perception by means other than the physical senses) implies to me that for it to be ESP, it must be completely non-physical. However, the word "extrasensory" seems to be looser: "Being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses".

I guess I could accept the second one, with the stipulation that it not be connected to an already existing sense: ie, if it involves your eyes, its still sight even if we didn't realize our eyes were capable of it (pretty much like you said).

I would consider sending radio waves to each other extra-sensory at this point. However, if it were found to be true...

I believe the intent of the 1mil challenge, besides debunking claims, and besides debunking claims, is to find SOMETHING that isn't explained yet. 1 million dollars for a new branch of science! Too bad dowsers keep showing up, lol.
 
  • #48
Randi's challenge actually says anything paranormal.

Quick definitions (paranormal)

adjective: not in accordance with scientific laws (Example: "What seemed to be paranormal manifestations")

adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels

emphasis added.
 
  • #49
I think the key to Randi's challenge is that Randi controls who is elegible. Basically, the old shell game.
 
  • #50
Ivan Seeking said:
Randi's challenge actually says anything paranormal.

Quick definitions (paranormal)

adjective: not in accordance with scientific laws (Example: "What seemed to be paranormal manifestations")

adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels

emphasis added.
Same problem as before. So let me ask you this: is the second definition really useful?

I mean, its trivially obvious that the extension of the existing parameters of sight in this example is "seemingly outside normal sensory channels." Its also obvious that it is "still in accordance with scientific laws." But if you use that first definition and call this "ESP," doesn't that trivialize the concept of ESP? This isn't in the same league as telepathy, clarvoyance, telekenisis, touch therapy, etc. It wouldn't advance the ESP cause at all. Its too weak.

Imo, for it to be ESP, it needs to fit both of those definitions.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
But his eyes and optic nerves are intact and brain scans show that he appears to somehow use a part of the brain not usually used for sight to process visual signals linked to some emotions.
His eyes still work and so they are the tool being used but he's not using them normally at all. He's not even using the visual center of the brain. You could make a case that this is extra-sensory I think.
And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner?
I'm finding it hard to word this properly but I think that may be what Ivan is getting at.
 
  • #52
TheStatutoryApe said:
His eyes still work and so they are the tool being used but he's not using them normally at all. He's not even using the visual center of the brain. You could make a case that this is extra-sensory I think.
And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner?
I'm finding it hard to word this properly but I think that may be what Ivan is getting at.

No no, he isn't doing anything extra, he's just doing LESS. I can recognize emotions and object and people and ..., he can recognize emotions. The part of his brain that handes the OTHER stuff is damaged.

This is not extra sensory because it uses the eyes in exactly the way they are supposed to be used: to sense incoming light and recognize patterns (IE emotions).

The fact is: this has an explanation within current science that most people would realize once they heard "brain damage".
 
  • #53
TheStatutoryApe said:
And if you state that it has to not be in accordance with scientific laws to pass then by putting it to the test to scientifically prove the phenomena wouldn't it then be added to what fits with in scientific law if proven real? That is if it can be tested in a scientific manner then it fits with scientific laws, if it really doesn't fall with in scientific laws then how do you test it in a scientific manner?
Being testable scientifically and fitting within the laws of science are two entirely different things. Every unexpected new observed phenomena fits that description. The Michelson Morley experiment was conducted scientifically, but didn't match the predictions of existing science (at the time).

Touch therapy is a recently tested skill: supposedly, touch therapiss can feel and manipulate the "aura" of a person - something that has no scientific basis. Testing it scientifically was easily done by putting a tester's hand in close proximity to a touch therapists (blind) and seeing if the touch therapist could sense which hand it was. If a touch therapist could detect the presence of the hand consistently and significantly better than 50% of the time, that would constitute scientific evidence of the validity of touch therapy, while still not providing an explanation of how it is possible.
 
  • #54
So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.

The second definition, "seemingly outside normal sensory channels" is the only realistic interpretation of paranormal to be found. Likewise, ESP says exactly that: extra sensory, not magical sensory. The first definition, the one preferred by Randi fans, of course, demands that any genuine claim be magic in order to qualify. Nonsense! I don't believe in magic but I know that mysteries exist nonetheless.

I just noticed in the another thread here that "if was real they would have won Randi's million". Clearly this is not the case. First, Randi must accept the challenge. Then we get to argue about defintions. See how this works? It is a bottomless pit no better than the worst fringe claims, and paraded in the press by a master illusionist. Where would Randi be without his challenge? Has anyone considered why this thread was even started? To announce that Randi had a challenge? I thought we all knew. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Ivan Seeking said:
So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.

another thing to note regarding this is, science is limited to our own ability to measure and test. if there is natural phenomenon that we are unable to measure and test due to our own lack of understanding/knowledge, how can we rely on science to provide any sort of proof of the phenomenon in question? science is not what it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and science will not remain as it is today 25, 50, 100 years from now. i think there is a sliver of the scientific community that gets caught up in a sort of arrogance that science has the absolute answers, and it does-within our own limitations of understanding. now before you climb all over me, please remember i said "a sliver". :-p

i also understand the need for constraint on not getting "carried away" on phenomenom that is considered magical. i think the key is, to remember that there is likely a scientific explanation, but it might be that we haven't progressed to that point of understanding nor has our current version of science progressed there either. o:)
 
  • #56
Ivan Seeking said:
So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.

The second definition, "seemingly outside normal sensory channels" is the only realistic interpretation of paranormal to be found. Likewise, ESP says exactly that: extra sensory, not magical sensory. The first definition, the one preferred by Randi fans, of course, demands that any genuine claim be magic in order to qualify. Nonsense! I don't believe in magic but I know that mysteries exist nonetheless.

I just noticed in the another thread here that "if was real they would have won Randi's million". Clearly this is not the case. First, Randi must accept the challenge. Then we get to argue about defintions. See how this works? It is a bottomless pit no better than the worst fringe claims, and paraded in the press by a master illusionist. Where would Randi be without his challenge? Has anyone considered why this thread was even started? To announce that Randi had a challenge? I thought we all knew. :wink:

Here's the wording:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.

So the claim would be testable if we didn't have a non-paranormal explanation.
 
  • #57
Then you'd say that it can be tested by showing the effect will or will not occur "better than chance" as in the case of the touch therapy? There is a problem with that though. Every test I have heard of that was run in that fashion (i.e. healing with prayer, sensing someone looking at you, ect.) that showed positive results the skeptics always claimed that there was a flaw in the randomization process. The only time I have ever heard of such a phenomena being accepted as real is when there is testing done that supplies a scientific explination.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Ivan Seeking said:
So it becomes clear that the only test that Randi would ever honor is one that defies the laws of science. In other words, its a sham. There is no reason to believe that any genuine mystery of nature exists outside of the laws of science. In fact, by definition, its impossible. That laws of science follow nature, not the other way around.
I don't think that makes it a sham at all. Two reasons: first, it doesn't necessarily preclude finding a scientific explanation (based on new science) later - and I have given examples of this possibility, ie telepathy. Second, and most importantly, a significant fraction of people claiming to have such powers (I won't speculate how many), would readily admit - brag even - that these powers are completely outside science.
TheStatutoryApe said:
Then you'd say that it can be tested by showing the effect will or will not occur "better than chance" as in the case of the touch therapy? There is a problem with that though. Every test I have heard of that was run in that fashion (i.e. healing with prayer, sensing someone looking at you, ect.) that showed positive results the skeptics always claimed that there was a flaw in the randomization process. The only time I have ever heard of such a phenomena being accepted as real is when there is testing done that supplies a scientific explination.
Well, I'm sorry, but scientific integrity is important and skeptics are going to be demanding in that regard. That said, the healing power of prayer is quite well documented - but it doesn't qualify as paranormal.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
russ_watters said:
Well, I'm sorry, but scientific integrity is important and skeptics are going to be demanding in that regard.
I understand that and I don't neccisarily believe it to be uncalled for. My point was that an acceptable demonstration of something "paranormal" without a scientific explination will be hard met. Randi and/or JREF can easily say "Sorry but there's a problem with your randomization process" and be done with it.
russ_watters said:
That said, the healing power of prayer is quite well documented - but it doesn't qualify as paranormal.
If you mean personal prayer of the individual who is sick or the individual knowing that he is being prayed for then you're right, that can easily be chalked up to a psychological phenomenon. There are tests though trying to show that people praying for someone else or just sending "healing energy" without that persons knowledge still works. You weren't referring to these as being well documented and not paranormal right? If you don't believe that it is paranormal than I would like your explination as to why it isn't.

At any rate I just don't trust Randi. Not that long ago he claimed that he was going to make a UFO appear in the desert at a predetermined location and time. When it didn't happen he changed his story and stated that it was an experiement in mass halucination and people seeing what they want or expect to see. The part that makes me not trust him is that he stated if the UFO didn't show he was going to give a large sum of money to a charity for orphans which he didn't do even though there wasn't so much as a halucination of a UFO. Art Bell brought him on the show to talk to him about it and when he still insisted that he was not going to give the money to the charity because there had been a couple people that stated they had seen a light moving in the sky Art told him off and now refuses to ever have him back on his show.
 
  • #60
TheStatutoryApe said:
I understand that and I don't neccisarily believe it to be uncalled for. My point was that an acceptable demonstration of something "paranormal" without a scientific explination will be hard met. Randi and/or JREF can easily say "Sorry but there's a problem with your randomization process" and be done with it.
That is not consistent with published descriptions by JREF for the rules of engagement. I am not an apologist for Randi, nor have any particular leaning for or against the challenge. But, I think any critique [or endorsement] should stick to the facts. The JREF explicitly states that explanations are irrelevant, only demonstrations of the alleged 'ability' will be considered:
JREF said:
We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded... PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.
JREF further asserts the rules and criteria for evaluation will be agreed upon before testing:
JREF said:
Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.
Randi's enemies have often complained his rules are unfair. And that is the essence of their 'explanation' why they will not submit to them. Do you really think Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are more credible, or even remotely as credible as James Randi? If their 'mystical powers' were as genuine and formidable as they claim, would they not have simply taken the prize and pasted it on their resume's? Calling the JREF rule of agreeing what constitutes passing or failing the test in advance as being 'unfair' is stupendously disengenous. I mean really, if you have a 'special' ability, can you not routinely defy the laws of probability at the 4 sigma level? I sense Randi is not the one making excuses here.

Please give links to the UFO stunt. I am always open to new information. Frankly, I don't believe it. It would be totally out of character for Randi to pull such a stunt and not explain the trick.