Originally Posted by
Scorpion
I think it unlikely that anyone else here has as much experience of psychic mediums as I have. I have been looking into it since the 1960's and I attended many trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London throughout the 1970's. My conclusions were that some mediums are genuine, and they do not just do cold reading, as James Randi says. They do tell you facts and names, and details that it would be difficult for them to know unless they are doing what they say they are doing. Which is talking to the spirits of the departed. I conclude that most people here have little or no experience of psychics, and they write them off because of a preconception that they must all be fakes. Or it would entirely change the scientific paradigm. We would have to accept life after death, and higher realms of experience. Therefore I guess I am trying to preach a belief system.
So why cant any of these psychics ever demonstrate these abilities under controlled conditions? One thing about psychics is that it's actually very easy to test the claims they make.
The things you list - "Facts and names, and details that it would be difficult for them to know unless they are doing what they say they are doing" - all very easy to test under controlled conditions. All things that psychics apparently do with ease day in day out during private sessions, stage and TV shows. Yet as soon as simple controls are used that prevent shenanigans (and more importantly prevent natural human cognitive biases from skewing the results) the abilities mysteriously disappear.
Show me results from a few credible, properly controlled tests that demonstrate psychic ability exists and I'll change my mind on the matter. What will it take for you to change yours?