Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Randi’s Prize

Robert McLuhan of the Paranormalia blog has announced that his book Randi’s Prize will be released on November 1. The book will discuss the evidence for psychic functioning, and the part that skeptics have played in shaping scientific opinion about such things as telepathy, psychics, ghosts and near-death experiences:

Scepticism is a natural and healthy response to paranormal claims. We can’t take at face value the notion that some ‘psychics’, or people with so-called psychic ability, can read minds, tell the future, or converse with the spirits of the dead, or for that matter that there is such a thing as the spirit world. These claims are antithetical to the materialist paradigm, and at the very least need to be thoroughly investigated.

So sceptics like Randi – along with others whose views I discuss in the book: Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, James Alcock, David Marks, C.E.M. Hansel, etc – have a role to play. But it’s wrong for sceptical scientists to imagine that these are the experts. They aren’t; they’re the fleas on the back of the elephant. The real experts are the parapsychologists who carry out experiments and field research.

Actually some sceptics do carry out investigations and even offer some original thinking – Susan Blackmore on out-of-body and near-death experiences, for instance. But their main concern, Blackmore included, is to dissuade their audience from taking psychic claims seriously. Polemicists like Randi consider abuse to be an appropriate response. I happen to think that empirical investigation, patient and painstaking, is a better way to understand these things than laughing and pointing and calling it ‘woo-woo’.

Looked at from a historical perspective there is something really interesting going on here. To me it’s as though the sceptics are patrolling the frontiers of the materialist paradigm, beating back the superstitious hordes. There’s only a handful of them, the so-called ‘specialists’ who understand enough about parapsychology to sound knowledgeable to their audience, and create a plausible case against it. But if scientific materialism is to survive, these people have to be right.

…I should mention, though, that it’s not primarily about James Randi – I just thought the prize thing would make a cool title. I’m sure there is a book to be written about him, but it would be a different sort of book, and would probably only interest those people who already understand the issues. Mine, by contrast, is mainly concerned to try to explain the challenges posed by psychic research to those who know little about it, and its implications.

By the way, if you’re looking for something a little more targeted towards Randi’s actual prize, make sure you read my article “The Myth of James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge“.

Editor
  1. The so-called experts
    Great point here. The experts are the ones doing the experiments, not the ones saying they can’t be done. Especially the ones who base their identity or profession around what “can’t” be done. Certainly sounds self-defeating to me. And from the coverage I’ve seen from this site on the so-called “skeptics,” that self-defeat certainly seems to prove true. It’s like saying human beings can’t swim without even sticking your toe in the water.

    If that article on the Million Dollar challenge is what I recall it to be, I think I’ll go give that a re-read in a new light.

    1. Status quo
      Scientists aren’t any less Human than the rest of the general population, they’ve got the same personal strengths and weaknesses as anyone else, including paranormal researchers. When a scientist is invested in a particular status quo he isn’t likely to be overly receptive to change, not if he sees his tenure or grant money or reputation at stake. He may get shaken out of his happy place but it’ll likely take something pretty profound to make it happen.

      As a case in point it wasn’t long ago that basic experiments in string theory “couldn’t be done”…now we have the LHC and all of a sudden there’s a chance of finding the Higgs Boson, the so-called “god particle”, and that’s frankly amazing.

      A lot of the ‘it can’t be done’ attitude comes from the fact that science has already picked most of the low-hanging fruit; the easy stuff has largely been done. It is still possible for some theoretician to dream with a paper and pencil but the actual experiments have a way of getting more complicated and expensive and scientists generally aren’t very good at the nuts-and-bolts stuff. In a number of ways science is now more dependent than it has ever been on engineering.

      Anyway, my point was just this…science tends to accept new ideas…eventually…if they seem valid…and there’s some funding. If some paranormal researcher devised some replicable experiment that clearly demonstrated some woo result, I think there would be scientists all over it like barf on a baby blanket. In the meantime I think it’s counter-productive to expect scientists to stop behaving like scientists.

  2. Stuck in Flatland
    I had a class at University of Oregon with Ray Hyman and he was nothing special, just an arrogant old man. His later critique of the work of Dr. Gary Schwartz was knee-jerk and laughable.

    In general, the gatekeepers will keep trying to cling to their 19th-century ‘science’ and reject stuff that doesn’t fit their story.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world will embrace the new/old multi-dimensional consciousness, just like our older brothers from the stars did long ago, same guys that gave us a boost about ~10k years back.

  3. A lie is most convincingly hidden between two truths…

    “So sceptics like Randi – along with others whose views I discuss in the book: Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, James Alcock, David Marks, C.E.M. Hansel, etc – have a role to play. But it’s wrong for sceptical scientists to imagine that these are the experts. They aren’t; they’re the fleas on the back of the elephant. The real experts are the parapsychologists who carry out experiments and field research.”

    A couple of notes…

    On Richard Wiseman, he has a couple of websites that are formatted to offer the appearance of someone with a genuine interest in the paranormal; ghosts in particular – (http://scienceofghosts.wordpress.com).
    But after 12 months of observing the same, I suspect that his visitors/guests are part of some designer experiment that will eventually play to their embarrassment.

    As for ‘real experts’ in the paranormal, I have a hard time attaching this title to anyone when it comes to a field of study that is still so very much a mystery. To wit: How can someone claim to be an expert when it comes to UFOs or ghosts? There is practically no scientific bedrock from which to build a platform, much less a college.

    Even those who do devote their time and efforts in a sincere effort to get to the bottom of it all, are groping in the same darkness as the next guy.

    Ahem. Now, please let me qualify all the above with the asterisk that this is just one man’s opinion – my own. Let me also add that I hold a deep interest in a number of paranormal subjects/fields… so much so that I do probably rate as a believer of a few of them.

    The only experts will be the ones who uncover the truth. We don’t know who they are yet… and neither do they.

    “Dear Diary, today my heart leapt when Agent Scully suggested spontaneous human combustion.”

  4. Science and the Paranormal
    You wrote:
    “As for ‘real experts’ in the paranormal, I have a hard time attaching this title to anyone when it comes to a field of study that is still so very much a mystery. To wit: How can someone claim to be an expert when it comes to UFOs or ghosts? There is practically no scientific bedrock from which to build a platform, much less a college.”

    Understood. But the fact that something is mysterious doesn’t preclude us approaching it in a scientific manner (i.e., methodically, carefully, experimentally) versus an unscientific manner (i.e., relying chiefly on preconceived opinions/bias). And on that count, the author makes a very valid point.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal