Basically, James Randi offers $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove paranormal activity under controlled conditions. So far nobody has won.
[Randi] said that he disliked being called a debunker. He prefers to describe himself as a scientific investigator. He elaborated: “Because if I were to start out saying, ‘This is not true, and I’m going to prove it’s not true,’ that means I’ve made up my mind in advance. So every project that comes to my attention, I say, ‘I just don’t know what I’m going to find out.’ That may end up — and usually it does end up — as a complete debunking. But I don’t set out to debunk it.”
I think this quote is relevant:
any scientist investigating the paranormal should seek the advice of a conjurer before conducting serious research.
I’d reword it like this:
Any scientist investigating extraordinary memory should seek the advice of a trained mnemonist before conducting serious research.
He is an interesting guy. There are many videos of him on YouTube.
I’ve at one point been highly fascinated by that challenge and related topics. It’s a beautiful thing.
There are only a couple conditions, which are not unreasonable; one must have been on tv or radio(not difficult), and be an author or something similar(if I remember correctly). Both reasonable and reduce the amount of submissions to a manageable level. It’s not even so much that no one has won, but so far no one has made it past the first stage of testing.
Of course, the big gurus of psychic powers, such as silvia browne(died 2013) accept the challenge, but then make up an excuse has something come up at the last minute and doesn’t respond to further offers.
I feel the videos of James Randi investigating claims of psychic powers should be mandatory viewing. They really expose the frauds for what they are. His video on homeopathy is excellent as well.
I agree - if a scientist is going to make a meaningful study of extraordinary memory, it is essential that they consult and study people with trained memories.
I don’t think it’s a problem limited to the study of memory - it applies in other areas too, like mathematics and music. So, for example, we discussed on the forum the case of Jason Padgett, who scientists have claimed has “savant” abilities in mathematics, even though his claims have not been accepted by any actual trained mathematicians. And Daniel Tammet has had scientists saying that being able to do division of two digit numbers to 100 decimal places shows special talent, when properly trained mathematicians would be able to recognise that there are a number of easy calculation shortcuts to do this.
I think there are deep problems with the science of psychology and neuroscience. Crazy, far out ideas, like those of Jason Padgett, are accepted into scientific journals without raising any controversy. There’s a problem with psychologists understanding of memory, but I think that’s just part of a bigger problem - that the psychology and neuroscience community as a whole is nowhere near skeptical enough, so they are easily fooled.
One reason for the excess in positive results for psychology is an emphasis on "slightly freak-show-ish" results, says Chris Chambers, an experimental psychologist at Cardiff University, UK. "High-impact journals often regard psychology as a sort of parlour-trick area," he says. Results need to be exciting, eye-catching, even implausible. Simmons says that the blame lies partly in the review process. "When we review papers, we're often making authors prove that their findings are novel or interesting,” he says. "We're not often making them prove that their findings are true."
