talkmagic.co.uk

pcwells wrote:But back to the point, these experiments test the explanation rather than the effect.

If a medium fails one of these tests under the conditions listed in this article, it simply proves to me that their explanation for the phenomena she claims to observe so regularly might be incorrect. It doesn't, however, prove that the phenomenon itself is non-existant - only that the controls that have been put in place prevent the real cause from taking effect.

Speaking as a scientist (man, I love it when I get to say that), I'd have to point out that testing explanation rather than effect is exactly what scientists set out to do. WHAT happens isn't particularly important a lot of the time, WHY it happens is what is being investigated.

A test like this shows that Ms Putt doesn't give accurate readings the way she says. If it really is psychic powers based on the spirits resonating in their voice or whatever, then the way to test that is through removing every other variable that it could be. If she fails, as she did, that proves that she cannot "read" people using their voices/auras alone. True, this is not conclusive proof she has no psychic powers. However, it IS strong evidence that hearing the persons voice doesn't do anything.

It would be impossible to test someone's "generic psychic ability" because there are just way too many variables. The onus of proof is not on the tester, but the testee. She said she could read people using their voice alone, and when this was tested, she couldn't.

If I say that I sing a little song every morning which makes the sun rise, to prove me wrong you don't have to prove the sun goes round the earth and has no relation to me, you only have to stop me singing.

Tomo wrote:

pcwells wrote:the current crops of tests are geared more to an assessment of the subject's belief system than their actual claimed abilities.

How do you mean?

I thought I'd made this perfectly clear. Seems not.

It's simply that the experiments are designed to test the psychic's explanation for their supposed powers. While I'm not convinced that they actually have any, it's my view that if any did, they may not fully understand why or how things behave as they do.

Somebody who is naturally intuitive when it comes to reading people may delude themselves into believing that their abilities are given to them by spirits or derived from some external reading system.

If the experiment concentrates on the faulty explanation and excludes other influences - as all controlled experiments must, it may find that the spirits, angels, tarot, crystals or aliens aren't giving this person their insight.

It doesn't then follow that the person has no insight. Simply that their explanation for any observed ability isn't the one they themselves adhere to.

So in the interests of scientific method, I'd like to see a series of tests on particular subjects that isolate several possible causes - natural and supernatural...

I could have sworn I'd made that clear...

Serendipity wrote:

pcwells wrote:But back to the point, these experiments test the explanation rather than the effect.

If a medium fails one of these tests under the conditions listed in this article, it simply proves to me that their explanation for the phenomena she claims to observe so regularly might be incorrect. It doesn't, however, prove that the phenomenon itself is non-existant - only that the controls that have been put in place prevent the real cause from taking effect.

Speaking as a scientist (man, I love it when I get to say that), I'd have to point out that testing explanation rather than effect is exactly what scientists set out to do. WHAT happens isn't particularly important a lot of the time, WHY it happens is what is being investigated.

A test like this shows that Ms Putt doesn't give accurate readings the way she says. If it really is psychic powers based on the spirits resonating in their voice or whatever, then the way to test that is through removing every other variable that it could be. If she fails, as she did, that proves that she cannot "read" people using their voices/auras alone. True, this is not conclusive proof she has no psychic powers. However, it IS strong evidence that hearing the persons voice doesn't do anything.

It would be impossible to test someone's "generic psychic ability" because there are just way too many variables. The onus of proof is not on the tester, but the testee. She said she could read people using their voice alone, and when this was tested, she couldn't.

If I say that I sing a little song every morning which makes the sun rise, to prove me wrong you don't have to prove the sun goes round the earth and has no relation to me, you only have to stop me singing.

True. It just bugs me that once the subject's explanation for their supposed 'gift' has been rejected, there's no further examination of WHY they believe to have the abilities they have. No alternative causal factors are sought.

pcwells wrote:True. It just bugs me that once the subject's explanation for their supposed 'gift' has been rejected, there's no further examination of WHY they believe to have the abilities they have. No alternative causal factors are sought.

I agree, though I feel the JREF challenge is more of a gameshow than a scientific endeavour. I'm fascinated by the ability for people to develop realworld talents and never suspect it; the way in which the belief in the paranormal explanation for those beliefs get increasingly entrenched over time.

Would one possible test of the IMR hypothesis be to film, measure and record muscle responses? It seems to my untutored eye that even if the technology does not exist today, there is still a workable experiment that can be thought of.

Unlike the experiments that one would pose for the hypothesis of, say, a spirit moving a glass. I can't think of a testable experiment that would prove that hypothesis (notwithstanding _why_ a spirit would want to move a glass).

And could I ask that in the spirit of not revealing secrets to the laity we stop talking about Father Christmas as though he can't hear us.