One problem with the claims made by parapsychologists is that many fail to understand the nature of the burden of proof. There are those who assert that the real burden lies with skeptics ? those who disbelieve in psychic phenomena are obligated to prove that they do not or cannot exist. This, however, is backwards.
It is the claimant who has the burden of proof ? the person who asserts that certain psychic phenomena are real is the one who should be presenting the primary evidence and arguments in support of what they allege.
If they do not, then there is no rational reason to believe them.
James Randi has offered an illuminating example which illustrates how and why it is the claimants of psychic phenomena who must make the first step with regards to evidence. He presents a thought experiment in which we imagine that we test to see if reindeer can fly, thus perhaps disproving the possible reality of Santa Claus as traditionally portrayed. We can take one thousand reindeer up atop a tall building and begin pushing them off, one by one, to see if any of them fly. They would, presumably, all fail ? does this then disprove the possibility of flying reindeer? According to Randi:
Similarly, experiments on alleged psychics, if they fail, would not disprove that the alleged psychic powers do not or cannot exist ? there are always possible or even reasonable excuses. Thus, it is up to believers to establish the reality or the liklihood of such powers by performing experiments and coming up with good results. As Harry Houdini put it in 1924:
This is important because the prevalence of cheats and frauds is simply beyond argument.
One would think that those who study parapsychology would be on the forefront of unmasking frauds ? after all, they pose a greater threat to the researchers than to outsiders. Imagine if there were a person with genuine psychic powers and they are tested in a laboratory that doesn?t take sufficient care in establishing safeguards and which has had frauds fool them before ? there seems little question but that this genuine psychic would be dismissed as well.
When faced with an alleged psychic, researchers should ask themselves and the claimant a number of serious and probing questions. They should ask, for example, under what circumstances these psychic powers are used ? does the person make a living from their claims? If so, then they have a financial interest in a seal of approval from the researchers, thus providing an incentive for cheating.
This leads to the question of why the claimant wants to be tested at all: are they looking for some sort of official approval for their powers? In many cases, participating in research can provide people with an added ability to market themselves to the public. Thus the honest researcher may unwittingly be pulled into a fraud perpetuated on unsuspecting people.
It should be clear that the only way to make a credible case for a particular person being psychic is if the controls to prevent fraud are rigorous and if those doing the testing have a reputation for not being fooled. Absent such conditions, parapsychological researchers seem doomed to be the subject of jokes and derision among those who do real science.
As stated above, the burden of poof lies with those who claim to have psychic powers; anyone involved in parapsychological research is obviously involved with helping sustain that burden, but should only do so under the strictest conditions. Those claiming psychic powers must be able to state exactly what they can do, what they intend to do, and be able to demonstrate their abilities under controlled, repeatable conditions.
It is the claimant who has the burden of proof ? the person who asserts that certain psychic phenomena are real is the one who should be presenting the primary evidence and arguments in support of what they allege.
If they do not, then there is no rational reason to believe them.
James Randi has offered an illuminating example which illustrates how and why it is the claimants of psychic phenomena who must make the first step with regards to evidence. He presents a thought experiment in which we imagine that we test to see if reindeer can fly, thus perhaps disproving the possible reality of Santa Claus as traditionally portrayed. We can take one thousand reindeer up atop a tall building and begin pushing them off, one by one, to see if any of them fly. They would, presumably, all fail ? does this then disprove the possibility of flying reindeer? According to Randi:
- ?What have we proven with this experiment? Have we proven that reindeer cannot fly? No, of course not. We have only shown that on this occasion, under these conditions of atmospheric pressure, temperature, radiation, at this position geographically, at this season, that these 1000 reindeer either could not or chose not to fly. (If the second is the case, then we certainly know something of the intelligence of the average reindeer.) However, we have not, and can not, prove the negative that reindeer cannot fly, technically, rationally, and philosophically speaking.?
Similarly, experiments on alleged psychics, if they fail, would not disprove that the alleged psychic powers do not or cannot exist ? there are always possible or even reasonable excuses. Thus, it is up to believers to establish the reality or the liklihood of such powers by performing experiments and coming up with good results. As Harry Houdini put it in 1924:
- ?It is not for us to prove that mediums are dishonest, it is for them to prove that they are honest.?
This is important because the prevalence of cheats and frauds is simply beyond argument.
One would think that those who study parapsychology would be on the forefront of unmasking frauds ? after all, they pose a greater threat to the researchers than to outsiders. Imagine if there were a person with genuine psychic powers and they are tested in a laboratory that doesn?t take sufficient care in establishing safeguards and which has had frauds fool them before ? there seems little question but that this genuine psychic would be dismissed as well.
When faced with an alleged psychic, researchers should ask themselves and the claimant a number of serious and probing questions. They should ask, for example, under what circumstances these psychic powers are used ? does the person make a living from their claims? If so, then they have a financial interest in a seal of approval from the researchers, thus providing an incentive for cheating.
This leads to the question of why the claimant wants to be tested at all: are they looking for some sort of official approval for their powers? In many cases, participating in research can provide people with an added ability to market themselves to the public. Thus the honest researcher may unwittingly be pulled into a fraud perpetuated on unsuspecting people.
It should be clear that the only way to make a credible case for a particular person being psychic is if the controls to prevent fraud are rigorous and if those doing the testing have a reputation for not being fooled. Absent such conditions, parapsychological researchers seem doomed to be the subject of jokes and derision among those who do real science.
As stated above, the burden of poof lies with those who claim to have psychic powers; anyone involved in parapsychological research is obviously involved with helping sustain that burden, but should only do so under the strictest conditions. Those claiming psychic powers must be able to state exactly what they can do, what they intend to do, and be able to demonstrate their abilities under controlled, repeatable conditions.
Source...