Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[Zelos]

This is metaphysics, not physics.

thats why it has nothing to do with reallity

near death experiences, mystical experiences and alleged contacts with dead people. All suggest consciousness is not dependent on brains.

no, near death experience is the brains work, acctualy all that is the work of the braining playing some tricks on itself

 

[SGT]

Yubz, materialism is a metaphysical position.

Some examples of evidence are: near death experiences, mystical experiences and alleged contacts with dead people. All suggest consciousness is not dependent on brains.

If you think those are valid evidences, look at this video as evidence that not only consciousness but the head of a person can survive separated from the body.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Consciousness exists. Consciousness arising from matter is a speculative idea, I am sure u are well aware of this. Nothing in the laws of physics says anything at all about consciousness and no law predicts it should exist.

This is specious. Consciousness is not formally studied in physics. It comes under the heading of neurology. Nothing in the laws of physics predicts that plants or amoebas should exist. This doesn't mean they're mystical.

What do souls have to do with this?

It's the same ghost-in-the-machine concept you are espousing: the notion that there is some thing separate from the body that inhabits the body.

The idea that mind-matter interaction is well understood, is simply false.

I haven't discovered any questions about it that I haven't found the answers to in the basic literature.

Are u in a bad day, because this sounds like a joke, no one knows what happens to mind after the body dies. There are plenty of reports that directly challenge ur assumption.

So, you're saying I may remove your frontal lobes?

 

[zoobyshoe]

hmm.. so could I say this, as well?

There is no software-hardware interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "software" that exists in and of itself separate from hardware. What we call "software" arises from hardware.

Sort of. Maybe. What I'd rather say is that Pit2's concept of mind is rather like suggesting that even if you were to smash a computer, it is still computing; all the programs are still running.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you suggesting that there is a “mechanism” out there waiting to be discovered for every unexplained phenomenon?

Absolutely

To draw a conclusion like that (and I may be misunderstanding you), takes on an enormous risk. If you take two sets of phenomenon, one set containing the scientifically explained, and the other set containing the unexplained - you will find yourself with a far greater heap of the unexplained.

A thing is "explained" when someone's question about it has been answered to their satisfaction. In other words, each person asks about something aiming for a particular level of understanding about it. The "unexplained" shrinks or grows in volume according to how many questions are asked by humans. So, it doesn't mean much to say there are more unexplained than explained things.

If a person believes from the time they are very young, right up to the time they die, that they have a soul… is it possible that the mind creates a soul, just as it does when it triggers the immune system in healing itself with the placebo effect? 85 years of believing you have one, and the body makes it so? Or, conversely, 85 years of not believing and your body makes it not so? Of course I don’t have that answer, and you don’t either.

This is where you should have abided by Occam's Razor:

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, meaning there's no point in asking if belief in a soul creates a soul unless we have some strong indication that such is the case. You can sit and think up such needless questions all day long the rest of your life. I can wonder if you don't have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head controlling your thoughts. I can't prove you don't, and neither can you.

What I’m getting at is the mind body connection. When the mind can cause the body to react, whether it is an immune response or a psychic ’feeling’, it doesn’t matter if it can be explained scientifically or not. THAT it is happening is quite interesting - either way.

Yeah...the human brain is astonishing, but I still get the feeling you don't grasp how physical and material it is. Change the chemistry, and the mind changes. I learned this solidly and undeniably back when I used to drink alot.

 

[SGT]

I don't agree with zoobieshoe that science can eventually explain every phenomenon.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If a theory predicts that some phenomenon will occur under controlable conditions and it does not, the theory is falsified. A refinement of the theory or a new one is necessary.
The existence of consciousness independent of the body or the existence of the invisible purple jellyfish controlling the brain of Illbe cannot be falsified, so no scientific theory can be envisioned for such phenomena.

 

[Illbe]

Gosh, I almost feel like you're perfoming mini-autopsies on everything I suggest. Are you a Coroner? Just kidding. Here's something else, and then I'll go away:

Definition of ‘evidence’ revisited.
Since this tread is about evidence, I thought I’d add an additional note to the earlier dictionary definition of the word:

“Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing.”
[Wikpedia]

Indirect evidence - or circumstantial evidence - implies that something occurred, but doesn’t directly prove it. Plenty of incarcerated men and women are sitting behind bars because circumstantial evidence PROVED guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
[paraphrasing from Lectric Law Library]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

Absolutely

A thing is "explained" when someone's question about it has been answered to their satisfaction. In other words, each person asks about something aiming for a particular level of understanding about it. The "unexplained" shrinks or grows in volume according to how many questions are asked by humans. So, it doesn't mean much to say there are more unexplained than explained things.

This is where you should have abided by Occam's Razor:


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, meaning there's no point in asking if belief in a soul creates a soul unless we have some strong indication that such is the case. You can sit and think up such needless questions all day long the rest of your life. I can wonder if you don't have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head controlling your thoughts. I can't prove you don't, and neither can you.

Yeah...the human brain is astonishing, but I still get the feeling you don't grasp how physical and material it is. Change the chemistry, and the mind changes. I learned this solidly and undeniably back when I used to drink alot.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't agree with zoobieshoe that science can eventually explain every phenomenon.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If a theory predicts that some phenomenon will occur under controlable conditions and it does not, the theory is falsified. A refinement of the theory or a new one is necessary.
The existence of consciousness independent of the body or the existence of the invisible purple jellyfish controlling the brain of Illbe cannot be falsified, so no scientific theory can be envisioned for such phenomena.

I didn't actually say we would eventually explain every phenomenon. Asking the question as asked, I simply asserted that there is a mechanism out there waiting to be discovered. Things aren't senseless and random. Unfortunately we are such curious creatures that we torment ourselves with questions about phenomena about which we'll probably never be able to collect enough of the right kind of data to answer satisfactorily.

 

[SGT]

Gosh, I almost feel like you've perfoming mini-autopsies on everything I suggest. Are you a Coroner? Just kidding. Here's something else, and then I'll go away:

Definition of ‘evidence’ revisited.
Since this tread is about evidence, I thought I’d add an additional note to the earlier dictionary definition of the word:

“Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing.”
[Wikpedia]

Indirect evidence - or circumstantial evidence - implies that something occurred, but doesn’t directly prove it. Plenty of incarcerated men and women are sitting behind bars because circumstantial evidence PROVED guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
[paraphrasing from Lectric Law Library]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

There is a difference between juridical and scientific evidence. Testimonies are not acceptable scientific evidence.
A scientific evidence must be repeatable. If a scientist claims that he/she found some evidence for a theory realizing an experiment in the lab, any other scientist must be able to repeat the experiment and find the same result.

 

[zoobyshoe]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

I'm not assuming Ivan was meaning to compile evidence to be presented in court, but which might be presented to people, more or less casually.

I, personally, believe in something like mental telepathy, and also "seeing": the ability to see, very literally, into the past, the future, and "remote viewing" in the present. This belief is built up of bits and pieces of personal experiences I can't explain by other means. In other words, it's all anecdotal evidence that I can't back up with a shred of evidence or even corroborative testimony. I, personally, can believe in these things in the privacy of my own mind without getting white-knucked and desparate over the fact that I have nothing to show anyone else to convince them of it. Other people will either have their own experiences or they won't.

Anyway, the best story I know of is the one where all the member of the choir of a particular church all made it faithfully to choir practise without fail for years. Then one night each and every one of them was separately delayed by various unusual circumstances. When they all finally arrived they found the church boiler had blown up. Had they all made it to choir practise on time they would all have been killed or seriously injured.

I'm not going to submit that as evidence, but, to me, it's a pretty convincing story to the effect they were all being watched over by something or somebody I'd have to classify as non-ordinary, at least.

 

[Illbe]

Zoobyshoe,
Interesting indeed. Yes, I was intentionally drawing a distinction between scientific evidence vs. court room evidence. There are several ways to skin the evidence cat, or even the purple jellyfish.
Well, time for me to move on. It has been a pleasure to engage in this dialog with you (and others). Best wishes, and until next time. You are quite amazing… and doing a great service on the forum from what I've observed.

 

[PIT2]

This is specious. Consciousness is not formally studied in physics. It comes under the heading of neurology. Nothing in the laws of physics predicts that plants or amoebas should exist. This doesn't mean they're mystical.

Life is actually quite a bit of a mystery. And yes, physics doesn't study consciousness, most areas of science try to keep consciousness out of the picture because it is hard to study. Of course in the end physics will need to be involved in the explanation of consciousness (and life too). A real theory of everything should also describe the agents that created it. Perhaps the failure of science to explain consciousness and life is partly caused by looking at it in the wrong areas (biology and neurobiology) and viewing them as local events that have little to do with universal events.

It's the same ghost-in-the-machine concept you are espousing: the notion that there is some thing separate from the body that inhabits the body.

No ghost in the machine, i think mind and matter are essentially the same thing. There are other options besides materialism and dualism.

I haven't discovered any questions about it that I haven't found the answers to in the basic literature.

All kinds of literature can give all kinds of answers. The question remains which of these answers is right.

 

[PIT2]

Sort of. Maybe. What I'd rather say is that Pit2's concept of mind is rather like suggesting that even if you were to smash a computer, it is still computing; all the programs are still running.

What i was saying is that there is evidence that suggests this is the case, even though in those cases mind is transformed and enhanced upon death (so it doesn't continue as usual). This is not even a unique phenomenon in nature: when light passes through a prism it is also transformed, and smashing the prism doesn wipe out the light.

Also, going back to the computer analogy: smashing it doesn't really wipe out anything either. The computations being separate 'things' is merely an illusion of the observer, but fundamentally computing in a computer is electromagnetism at work. So if u want to compare mind with a computer: why would mind dissappear completely when the brain is smashed, while the electromagnetism(computing) doesnt?

 

[SGT]

What i was saying is that there is evidence that suggests this is the case, even though in those cases mind is transformed and enhanced upon death (so it doesn't continue as usual). This is not even a unique phenomenon in nature: when light passes through a prism it is also transformed, and smashing the prism doesn wipe out the light.

Also, going back to the computer analogy: smashing it doesn't really wipe out anything either. The computations being separate 'things' is merely an illusion of the observer, but fundamentally computing in a computer is electromagnetism at work. So if u want to compare mind with a computer: why would mind dissappear completely when the brain is smashed, while the electromagnetism(computing) doesnt?

You have a bad example. Computing is not electromagnetism. Computing is the property the machine has of following a set of instructions coded in it's memory in order to achieve a result. EM is only the physical means to perform the task.
In the same way, thinking is following a set of instructions coded in our brain (in a much more complicated way than in a machine) in order to achieve a result. Electrochemical reactions are the physical means to perform the task.
If a person dies, the brain cells are no more able to follow the instructions, but electrochemical reactions continue to exist elsewhere.

 

[PIT2]

You have a bad example. Computing is not electromagnetism. Computing is the property the machine has of following a set of instructions coded in it's memory in order to achieve a result. EM is only the physical means to perform the task.

That the property and result are different from electromagnetism is an idea that exists only in the mind of the observer. U say that "EM is only the physical means", are u implying that there is something non-physical about a computer?

 

[SGT]

That the property and result are different from electromagnetism is an idea that exists only in the mind of the observer. U say that "EM is only the physical means", are u implying that there is something non-physical about a computer?

No, I am saying that the fact that EM survives the destruction of the computer is equivalent to saying that chemistry survives the death of a human body. EM and chemistry are necessary conditions for the functioning of a computer and a human body and their corollaries: processing and mind, but neither is sufficient, so the fact that they continue to exist does not mean that processing and mind also do.

 

[PIT2]

No, I am saying that the fact that EM survives the destruction of the computer is equivalent to saying that chemistry survives the death of a human body.

But see, Zoobyshoe was giving the computing as an analogy to mind. I merely show that by really following this analogy, mind would also survive destruction of body, just like computing(which is electromagnetism) survives destruction of computer.

 

[SGT]

But see, Zoobyshoe was giving the computing as an analogy to mind. I merely show that by really following this analogy, mind would also survive destruction of body, just like computing(which is electromagnetism) survives destruction of computer.

Computing is mo more electromagnetism than mind is electrochemistry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But see, Zoobyshoe was giving the computing as an analogy to mind. I merely show that by really following this analogy, mind would also survive destruction of body, just like computing(which is electromagnetism) survives destruction of computer.

I don't have much time lately to devote to this discussion but I do want to say that Math Is Hard is the one who assumed an analogy between computer and mind, or, more specifically, between software and mind. I was simply trying to respond to her question as asked. I personally, don't think there's any useful analogy between the two, except in a very informal, "sorta, kinda" way. It's not an analogy that would have occurred to me to make.

Speaking of computers only: I am positive that if you smash a computer to pieces with a mallet, all the programs stop running. All the electrons concerned still exist, yes, but the remarkably delicate and complex organization that allowed them to participate in computing is no more.

 

[Secret33]

"After reporting her experience to police, Smith, accompanied by two of her children and a niece, found the body of Melanie L. Uribe, 31, in Lopez Canyon, then led detectives to it."

She could have found the body prior, then made up her psychic vision story, then rediscovered the body.
I do believe that psychic phenomena could exist, however.

 

[Mammo]

there is a prize to the one who can prove phsycic phenomena under controlled enviorments, none have even tried even when they have advertised it. This means that no one tries becuase they know they will fail (if someone has tried without my knowledge they did fail cause none have been reported sucesfull)

I don't agree with this at all. If there was such a thing as ESP (extra sensory perception), it suggests that the person would have a very sensitive personality. There wouldn't be many who would want the intrusive world media attention. There is also the case of the young Russian girl who has had years of being able to diagnose patients ailments by 'psychic means'. She was very poorly treated by the investgative team, lead by Randi (I forget his name) and the 'scientific testing' was very dubious in my opinion. She did have significantly above average results in some tests, if I remember correctly.

Going back to the OP, I think a distinction between information coming from the future and information emanating from a person's body needs to be made. I don't believe in prophesy, but I do believe there is a case for the Russian girl's ability, akin to the 'Aura imaging' thread in this section.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't agree with this at all. If there was such a thing as ESP (extra sensory perception), it suggests that the person would have a very sensitive personality. There wouldn't be many who would want the intrusive world media attention.

There is something to this argument. The sorts of people who are regularly claimed to have psychic abilities are adherents of very disciplined religions: buddhists, etc. These people aren't interested in "proving" such abilities exist, nor are they interested in prize money. Scientific scrutiny and media fame would just be an intrusion into the stability of their quiet way of life.

Randi's prize serves not so much to prove such things don't exist as it serves to challenge the frauds.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't agree with this at all. If there was such a thing as ESP (extra sensory perception), it suggests that the person would have a very sensitive personality. There wouldn't be many who would want the intrusive world media attention. There is also the case of the young Russian girl who has had years of being able to diagnose patients ailments by 'psychic means'. She was very poorly treated by the investgative team, lead by Randi (I forget his name) and the 'scientific testing' was very dubious in my opinion. She did have significantly above average results in some tests, if I remember correctly.

Still, this is only a speculation on your part, and it certainly isn't an "evidence" just because someone feels that way. All we can go by is that there are no scientific evidence. We certainly cannot claim that there is one just because someone refuses to be tested. That's twisted logic.

And for many psychic, being "poorly treated" means that the subject, and in many cases, it is Randy himself, refuses to make any kind of expression to give feedback as the psychic rattles off a series of random, vague statements.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Still, this is only a speculation on your part, and it certainly isn't an "evidence" just because someone feels that way. All we can go by is that there are no scientific evidence. We certainly cannot claim that there is one just because someone refuses to be tested. That's twisted logic.

Mammos isn't presenting evidence for psychic phenomena. He is countering zelos' assertion that the Randi test has disproved its existence:

This means that no one tries becuase they know they will fail (if someone has tried without my knowledge they did fail cause none have been reported sucesfull)

In any case where something is asserted as proof of a claim others are allowed to suggest other reasonable factors that might lead to the same result. Here the claim in question is: no one will take the test because they know they will fail. In fact, there are other possible logical reasons for not taking it. The Randi test should not, therefore, be held up as absolute proof there are no psychic abilities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While I applaud Randi for his debunking of charlatans, he is not a scientific resource and his challenge means nothing. As near as I can tell, Randi has complete control over the selection process and the criteria for the test. He can accept or reject any claimant that he chooses. So he is no more credible for scientific debunking than he would be for scientific claims. Also, the last time I checked, "magician" is not a valid scientific credential. He is also a man will a million dollars to lose - the motivation for bias is obvious.

To put it bluntly, claiming Randi as a scientific resource is crackpottery.

 

[ZapperZ]

Mammos isn't presenting evidence for psychic phenomena. He is countering zelos' assertion that the Randi test has disproved its existence:



In any case where something is asserted as proof of a claim others are allowed to suggest other reasonable factors that might lead to the same result. Here the claim in question is: no one will take the test because they know they will fail. In fact, there are other possible logical reasons for not taking it. The Randi test should not, therefore, be held up as absolute proof there are no psychic abilities.

But do you know of such evidence? They may be possible logically, but is there any evidence that such evidence exists? In theoretical physics, there are infinite "logical possibilities" that can predict various phenomena. However, it doesn't mean that they are all valid. That is why I said that the scenario mentioned is merely speculation, not evidence.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But do you know of such evidence?

What evidence? Evidence that psychic phenomena exists or evidence that Buddhist monks sequestered in remote monasteries don't want to be intruded upon?

 

[ZapperZ]

What evidence? Evidence that psychic phenomena exists or evidence that Buddhist monks sequestered in remote monasteries don't want to be intruded upon?

Evidence for this:

"If there was such a thing as ESP (extra sensory perception), it suggests that the person would have a very sensitive personality. There wouldn't be many who would want the intrusive world media attention."

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Evidence for this:

"If there was such a thing as ESP (extra sensory perception), it suggests that the person would have a very sensitive personality.

I don't have evidence that ESP = sensitive personality, but I do have evidence that among those who claim psychic abilities there are those who are resistant to attention for it: the above mentioned monks. Aside from that, it is a fact that there are people who shun certain kinds of attention. That being the case, the proposition that there might be authentic psychics who won't take Randi's test despite the fact they believe they would pass it, doesn't really require more evidence to consider seriously than the fact of the existence of shy and/or very careful people. Proving you have an ability like that might get you fame and a million dollars but it would also inspire a lot of fear. The question to ask is whether there might be a valid reason for someone who believed they had psychic powers to not take the test, despite conviction they would pass. I think there are good reasons, not out of left field, and that Randi's test can't be held up as disproving the existence of psychic powers, though it may have ferreted out a few frauds.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't have evidence that ESP = sensitive personality, but I do have evidence that among those who claim psychic abilities there are those who are resistant to attention for it: the above mentioned monks. Aside from that, it is a fact that there are people who shun certain kinds of attention. That being the case, the proposition that there might be authentic psychics who won't take Randi's test despite the fact they believe they would pass it, doesn't really require more evidence to consider seriously than the fact of the existence of shy and/or very careful people. Proving you have an ability like that might get you fame and a million dollars but it would also inspire a lot of fear. The question to ask is whether there might be a valid reason for someone who believed they had psychic powers to not take the test, despite conviction they would pass. I think there are good reasons, not out of left field, and that Randi's test can't be held up as disproving the existence of psychic powers, though it may have ferreted out a few frauds.

So you are claiming that these monks are authentic psychic already, and that they refused to be scientifically tested because they shun the publicity/fame, etc? How do you deduce the former without the latter?

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you are claiming that these monks are authentic psychic already...

Where did I make this claim?

 

[ZapperZ]

Where did I make this claim?

I don't have evidence that ESP = sensitive personality, but I do have evidence that among those who claim psychic abilities there are those who are resistant to attention for it: the above mentioned monks.

If there is no evidence of any psychic ability, then what are we discussing here? What is the issue? That there are shy people? Since when is this a big deal, and why is it in a thread about "Evidence for psychic phenomena"? So the monks "claim" to have psychic ability. So? They obviously are not THAT shy to make such a claim. And people claim to do many things every day. Why is this any different?

So can we simply close this by saying (i) there are shy people and (ii) there is no evidence for psychic phenomena?

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you are claiming that these monks are authentic psychic already...

Where did I make this claim?

I don't have evidence that ESP = sensitive personality, but I do have evidence that among those who claim psychic abilities there are those who are resistant to attention for it...

So, you are quoting me not making such a claim, saying I am making such a claim?

If there is no evidence of any psychic ability, then what are we discussing here?

We are discussing the issue of whether the fact no one has, so far, passed Randi's test, can be taken as proof there is no such thing as psychic ability.

My argument: Only those people who voluntarily come forward to take the test can be tested. The fact that none of these has passed Randi's criteria, does not automatically disprove psychic ability. That's all I am saying: Randi's test does not disprove the existence of psychic abilities. I am not presenting evidence for psychic ability, I'm simply saying that Randi's test cannot be taken as absolute disproof of it, as zelos asserts. I do not have to prove psychic ability to assert it hasn't been disproven.

Your objection seemed to be: leaving the door open that there might be people who could pass the test but who wouldn't want to is overly speculative. Therefore, you would, I assume, come to the conclusion that Randi's test has absolutely disproved the existence of psychic abilities.

However, anyone with such an ability, or with any remarkable ability, could have extremely good reasons for shunning fame and attention for it, and it is not overly speculative to take this into consideration, and arrive at the conclusion that Randi's test isn't an absolute disproof of psychic abilities.

So the monks "claim" to have psychic ability. So? They obviously are not THAT shy to make such a claim. And people claim to do many things every day. Why is this any different?

"Claims" by zen monks, Rabbis, Native American Shamen, etc. are not broadcast to the media or in peer reviewed journals. They come out in private discussions with people they feel comfortable with. There are even demonstrations sometimes, for what that's worth. These come out in second hand reports by people who've met and talked to them, as when people publish accounts of their travels. Whether or not any of them are authentic is immaterial to whether or not they would be lured into Randi's test by fame and a million dollars. They might respond to such a challenge by saying something like: "I can already turn myself into a bird and soar over the mountains, how is fame and a million dollars going to make my life any better than that?" (You can read The Teachings of Don Juan for many utterances of that sort by the Indian shamen of the title.) Such people would not take Randi's test, because of their lifestyle, despite their own belief they would pass it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We are discussing the issue of whether the fact no one has, so far, passed Randi's test, can be taken as proof there is no such thing as psychic ability.

Randi does not qualify as a scientific resource. That is a forum rule... unless of course he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal that is found in our master journal list. And by peer-reviewed, we don't mean "reviewed by magicians".

Also, we can never prove a general negative.

 

[jostpuur]

As near as I can tell, Randi has complete control over the selection process and the criteria for the test. He can accept or reject any claimant that he chooses. So he is no more credible for scientific debunking than he would be for scientific claims. Also, the last time I checked, "magician" is not a valid scientific credential. He is also a man will a million dollars to lose - the motivation for bias is obvious.

Is there something suspicious about Randi's power to accept and reject who ever he wants? Scientific journals also choose who they allow to publish, but you don't have problem with that? Have there been incidents that suggest that Randi has abused his power?

So you are claiming that these monks are authentic psychic already, and that they refused to be scientifically tested because they shun the publicity/fame, etc?

Where did I make this claim?

ZapperZ asked a question. It would have been clearer to answer "no", if that really is your answer. Is it? And what's your answer to this:

So can we simply close this by saying (i) there are shy people and (ii) there is no evidence for psychic phenomena?

Stuff like this

...Therefore, you would, I assume, come to the conclusion that Randi's test has absolutely disproved the existence of psychic abilities. ...

is not an answer at least.