February, 2004  
PSYCHIC FRONTIERS  
Loyd Auerbach

 

 

After my last two columns about precognition and ideas of Time (see the columns on the FATE page of this website here), I thought it important to zero in on one more point:  the Skeptics constantly refer to psychics making predictions as if this is the only psychic claim made by practitioners, and the only way people can be psychic.  How often have you heard “If (fill-in the blank with the name of any psychic) is so psychic, why can’t he/she/you predict the outcome of horse races, the lottery, world events” and so on. 

Part of the problem here is of course that a) people who see psychics for readings mainly want to know about their futures, thereby pushing psychics to focus their readings in this direction and b) too many psychics make statements that they can predict the Future accurately.  Both factors tie in to make an easy target for Skeptics (debunkers and disbelievers, actually).   As I discussed in my October and December columns, there are many temporally related reasons why precognition is often “off,” and psychics need to be careful how (and how much) they claim any ability to predict the Future.

Of course, these same Skeptics rarely have ever read a Parapsychological journal article (most have probably never seen one of the field’s peer-reviewed journals), though naturally there are those few skeptics and debunkers who are better informed.  How people who label themselves skeptical (which indicates doubt, not disbelief) without any knowledge of the research on psi – other than what they get through the skeptical publications – is somewhat of a frustrating mystery.  Of course, most people making anti-psychic statements come at this from a belief-involved stance, whether that is from a self-proclaimed scientific perspective or a religious one. 

To the disbelievers, psi simply does not – can not – exist.  Forget any evidence.  For so many people who call themselves skeptical, there’s no consideration of evidence; they simply do not believe psi can exist, and therefore any evidence or research saying it could is flawed.  In fact, at a recent college lecture, one of the students made the statement that Parapsychology and its research have been “discredited” – though he could not explain how or where he got that information from, or even how the “discredited” label is applied.

Then, there’s always the Holy Grail of skeptical arguments:  What about the Amazing Randi’s “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge?”

 

I might actually title this part of my column “Why I no longer care about Randi’s  Challenge,” but honestly, “So What!” sums up my feelings these days.

Over the last several years, I’ve been somewhat outspoken about the specific details of the rules of Randi’s Challenge, often in FATE [Note: You can read all about his rules on his website at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html].  But recently, when being harassed by yet another disbelieving type about the test, some kind of light – an epiphany of sorts – went on in my head.  The individual made a statement, with a question, that I often hear in variations from self-described Skeptics (actually disbelievers):  “The Amazing Randi offers one million dollars for anyone who can demonstrate something paranormal.  If psychic abilities are real, why has no one won the prize?”

Rather than responding as I have in the past with a discourse as to why I don’t believe anyone will win that money, or why it may be foolish for anyone to take the test, I spontaneously switched gears. 

The following is just an approximation of the conversation, with (yes, I admit it) some dramatic license thrown in.

 

“What would that prove?”  I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Why is Randi offering the money?” I asked.

“For anyone who can prove something paranormal,” said the Skeptic.

“If someone did win the million, what would that actually prove?”  I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“I mean, if a psychic won the million dollars, other than the psychic walking away one million dollars richer, or garnering good will by donating it to charity, what would that prove to the skeptical community or to Science?” I asked.

“That someone could do something psychic,” said the Skeptic with some confusion in his voice.

“Would it?  If someone won Randi’s million dollars, would YOU accept that psychic abilities are real?  Or even possible?” I asked.

“Huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Would mainstream Science accept the probability of psi, if not the reality, if some psychic won Randi’s million?” I asked.

“Uh … uh … huh?” said the Skeptic.

“Would the organized Skeptics accept that psi is real, or would they be more likely to believe that Randi was simply fooled, scammed out of his million?  Would you?”  I asked.

I received a blank stare from the Skeptic, then saw confusion appearing on his face.

I continued to push at him.  “The fact is that people who do not accept the laboratory and other evidence for psi that already exists are unlikely to change their minds or their beliefs simply because someone beats Randi’s challenge and wins Randi’s money. 

“In the name of Science, many keep raising the issue of parsimony, of Occam’s Razor where psi is concerned.  In this case, wouldn’t the simpler explanation as far as the Skeptics are concerned be that Randi was scammed out of the money? 

“In the name of Science, many raise the issue of repeatability.  If someone beat Randi’s Challenge once, how does this meet the criteria of repeatability?  What does this prove?” 

The Skeptic was silent, more confusion and eventually frustration showing on his face.

I finished with “If you can honestly tell me – I mean look me in the eye and tell me honestly – that you would be open to psi’s existence if a psychic won Randi’s money, I’ll give you 20 dollars** right here and now.  It’s not a million, but to be honest, your opinion isn’t worth that much to me.”

He walked away (okay, he stormed off).

 

I’ve since used this argument on a few others, whenever Randi’s Challenge is raised like a weapon against the field of Parapsychology, and against the existence (real or just potential) of psi.

 

To recap:  If someone wins Randi’s million, he/she will be one million dollars richer.  However, as far as Science and the Skeptics are concerned, the simpler answer to this conundrum is that Randi (or his chosen panel of judges) was somehow deceived. 

In other words, So What if someone wins the money.  It won’t change the prevailing attitudes towards parapsychology, or the prevailing beliefs of most who waiver to the disbelieving side of the center where psi is concerned. 

As this is the case (go ahead…prove me wrong, somebody…please!), we waste our time even giving Randi’s Challenge the time of day (though I am somewhat in his corner where Sylvia Browne is concerned.  – see his website at www.randi.org).

I respect the position of true skeptics, and even the beliefs and opinions of debunkers if they’re honest about their beliefs and opinions. 

But holding forth Randi’s Challenge as the benchmark for proof of the paranormal is as silly as someone telling Randi to “prove it does not exist.”

 

It’s not a benchmark for Science, or even Skepticism. 

 

So, why should we care?

 

“So What!” I say.

 

Let me finish with another observation.

In the September 19, 2003 issue of SWIFT, Online Newsletter of the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) entitled “Yellow Bamboo Surprise, Fear of Technology, and Answering Montague Keen…” (http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html), Randi responds to comments by researcher Montague Keen, who (Keen) mentions me and FATE in his discussion of Randi’s Challenge.  Randi had this to say about FATE:

 

“For those unfamiliar with Fate Magazine, from their own web page we see that they publish stories on ‘alien abductions, angels, archaeological hotspots, fringe science, ghosts, hauntings, life after death, monsters, paranormal investigations, psychic pets, psychics, readers' personal mystic experiences, reports of the strange and unknown, spirit animals, spiritualists, and UFOs’ — to only begin. Not recognized as a scholarly journal, in my opinion.”

 

Randi’s correct.  In no way could FATE be labeled a “scholarly journal.”  It is a publication for the general public.  While I’m not sure where on FATE’s website Randi got the quote from (as with many websites, FATE’s changes from time to time), what Randi lists is in fact a good description for FATE’s content coverage. 

However, this could easily be a description of the contents of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER and THE SKEPTIC magazines, neither of which is recognized as a “scholarly journal.”  Of course, that’s my opinion.

 

**Note:  Okay, I didn’t really offer the 20 bucks when this first happened.  I only thought of it afterwards.  But now, I sometimes do!

 

**************

August 2004

Loyd Auerbach

 

Randi’s at it again.  Clearly what he “knows” about folks like me comes from select TV programs – which he apparently doesn’t pay close attention to – or from others reporting back on what I’ve said on radio, and not from actually reading anything I’ve written about ghosts or even listening to what I’ve said in full context.

 

In his commentary of 8/20/2004 , in response to correspondence from one of his website’s readers, he said:

Mr. Nash, though I've no notion what an "electromagnetic meter" might be, I know it's hard to believe, but this is the same sort of over-instrumentation that such "experts" as ghost-chaser Loyd Auerbach dearly love, because it gives them lots of variables in which to find significance.

Amazing that Mr. Randi claims “no notion” of what the device might be, given past commentary about technology in ghost hunting.  Maybe he’s just getting to that age where he forgets things.

As for my own use of such devices, he either has no knowledge of what I think about technology in ghost investigations, or prefers to ignore what he already knows.  If the former, shame on him for not reading anything I’ve written about the limited use of technology in investigations.  If the latter, well, that’s a whole different kind of spin.

I do not “dearly love” instruments such as an EMF meter.  I do not use them because they give me “lots of variables in which to find significance.”  I use them to help identify factors in the environment which can correlate to experiences of apparitions and hauntings.  I use them to also identify potential non-paranormal explanations.  For the most part, I find non-paranormal sources for measurements with these devices.  In all situations, the technology in and of itself can only identify an anomalous source of whatever we’re trying to measure (magnetic fields, for example), but as they are not designed to detect ghosts (nothing is), the “significance” is in how (and when) the readings correlate to the experiences of the individuals.

Loyd says he has been personally informed by an actual ghost that these wraiths are "balls of energy," so masses of meters and detectors would seem essential to such investigations.

I don’t know where Randi got the idea I’ve spoken with ghosts directly, but this is not the case.  I have had my own experiences which have been either kinesthetic or olfactory, but I can honestly say I’ve never seen or heard a ghost (though I wish I could say differently).

What I’m assuming he is referring to is a case I worked on in the mid-80s, and one of my favorites.  In that particular case, a 12 year old boy had been reportedly communicating with a “ghost” on a daily basis.  Our investigation included a session with the boy acting as go-between for questions posed to the apparition.  In response to a question as to how the apparition could be perceived wearing different clothing or even at different ages on a given day, the boy gave her response that “as best as she can figure it out, she’s just a ball of energy” and that any perceptions of her were a result of her essentially projecting her self image to the witnesses by thought.

Magnetometers only measure one form of energy.  I have no idea where Randi got the idea that because one uses that term, “ball of energy,” there’s an assumption that the energy is magnetic or electrical or anything else.  I certainly never made that leap.  In fact, I’ve made it clear that when we do measure any anomalous magnetic fields in apparition cases, IF they can be correlated to the ghost’s movements (based on the witnesses experiences), it’s more likely that whatever that apparition is composed of is interacting with the environment and the magnetic readings could be the result of that interaction.  This is only a hypothesis, and was in fact suggested to me by a very skeptical physicist.

Oh, and by the way…human beings do give off “energy” – infra-red, for example, is one
type of energy we emit.

 Any draft, odor, bit of suspended dust, a thump, or creaking, tips off these sensitive scientists that a spirit is obviously in residence.

By this statement, Randi makes it clear that he has a) never paid any attention to what I’ve written or said about experiences and investigations of apparitions, hauntings and poltergeists, b) would likely never acknowledge that he could have been wrong about my position regarding technology and even looking for normal explanations, c) doesn’t care enough to learn my actual position, and d) doesn’t really care that he’s mouthing off without knowing what he’s talking about (or – he does know and that’s even worse!)

Well you know what? 

Randi’s statements have pushed him further and further away from a position of “debunker who knows the field of parapsychology” to one of “debunker with faith that he’s right and doesn’t want to learn any different.”

Once upon a time (only a few years ago), Randi had called me to ask help in a legal situation – to see if I’d be willing to test someone who was suing him, and/or to testify to the lack of ability of this individual.  Because it was a situation in which I believed Randi was being wronged, I agreed.

It never got to the point where I needed to get involved, as it happens. But I was willing to help.

Now that it’s clear that Randi could care less about anything resembling alternative perspectives – he’s only interested in his own “truth” -- I can say that my willingness to agree to help was a big mistake, and one I’d never make again.

******

Randi’s made yet another “dig” at Loyd Auerbach in his website Commentary of September 24, 2004 .  This time, by resurrecting a column of his from 10 years ago (1994) --- a column flawed by a number of inaccuracies and assumptions.  The most inaccurate statements relate to how much Loyd Auerbach witnessed in his work with the late Martin Caidin (a focus of Auerbach’s 1996 book MIND OVER MATTER) and a statement that Caidin refused to be tested by Randi.  Watch this space for a rebuttal.