Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Ambiguous Results of Psychic Experimentation

Over the years, I've heard of numerous experiments set up to determine the validity of psychic phenomena and precognition, and typically, the results are ambiguous.  However, the end of most of the experiments performed is usually just a statistical analysis of the results.  The results are usually based on how often someone correctly predicted something or how accurately they described something without seeing it.

But it occurred to me that this method of experimenting may not be the best way to determine the validity of psychic phenomena.  It's unlikely that it's going to prove anything.  What got me thinking about it is what Jeane Dixon said about her inaccurate predictions; she said it wasn't necessarily that the information she received was wrong but that she interpreted it wrong.  I've heard other psychics make similar statements.  Some skeptics may think that is just a cop-out, and maybe it is, but let's assume for a moment that it's not just a cop-out.

If a psychic receives information telepathically but interprets it wrong, then the statistical analysis isn't of much value if you are trying to determine if it's possible to receive information telepathically.  Because an inaccurate interpretation of psychic information doesn't refute that they received the information telepathically.  To put it into perspective, consider a worker misunderstanding verbal instructions given to them by their boss at work.  The worker may perform the job wrong because of the misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding isn't proof that the boss didn't give the worker accurate verbal instructions.

So with that in mind, even if someone with psychic abilities was always wrong with predictions, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they weren't receiving psychic information telepathically; it would just mean they were horrible at interpreting that information.  For that matter, the information itself may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't transmitted telepathically.

So if the question is whether or not psychic phenomena really exists, then I don't think you're going to be able to prove it with statistics.  If someone were 100% right all of the time, that might make for some pretty convincing evidence, but I doubt that a legit experiment on psychic phenomena would ever succeed at getting 100% accuracy.

So how could we test the validity of psychic phenomena?  I really don't know.  Perhaps energy readings could provide better results...sort of like how ghost hunters look for ghosts, except instead of looking for ghosts, the subject could be psychic activity with living persons.  But I think even the results of an experiment like that would be ambiguous.  Perhaps there just isn't a 'scientific' way to 'prove' psychic phenomena exists.

2 comments:

  1. As someone who absolutely has the ability, I can tell you that being psychic is about 30% receiving info and about 70% interpreting it. It can bite you in the end. For example, I met a door-to-door salesman. I commented on his necklace. He said there was a funny story behind it, but I told him I'd rather touch it and tell him. He handed me the necklace and I immediately got a connection with someone close, genetically close and about 10 months difference in age. I said, "this is your brother's. You're 10 months apart." Probing into him and his brother's personalities, I surmised that he was the elder by 10 months and the more responsible one. I went on to tell him more (never letting him speak) about his brother being far away, someplace exotic and in a great deal of personal danger and that many years had set them apart, but his brother was ready to hear from him again.

    He opened his mouth then and said, "Well, my brother and I are 10 months apart. Five years ago he moved to Hawaii and got into the drug trade. I haven't talked to him since. I've had a feeling lately that I should try and find him. I am the responsible one and he is the screwup, but I'm actually the younger one."

    My interpretation when probing their relationship and their roles was an assumption--the problem with the logical brain when doing readings-that he was the elder because he was more responsible and that's usually the eldest's role.

    So, your logical mind can screw you over when doing readings and I admit I do psychic testing online nearly every day at www.gotpsi.org and I have really awesome days and really awful days but the problem is that kind of testing is not about things of a relationship/spatial realm but of a visual flat 2-dimensional without any emotions associated with it form. Not a great way to test psychics, we're more sensitive if someone held a picture of something they loved--then we could read it, not a triangle or a square that they feel nothing about.

    Hope that helps. Fantastic post! You always keep my mind going!

    ReplyDelete
  2. it is reall hard to test things that are in the metaphysic world.

    ReplyDelete