Psi phenomena as tricks

On another thread, I suggested Raf999 should do more reading on parapsychology, and he asked what he should read.

Oleo suggested the Psi Encyclopedia, which I agree is a useful source of information, though the sheer number of articles available there now could be a bit overpowering. However, there is a general overview of experimental parapsychology by Richard Broughton which would be a good starting point:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...psychology

Actually I found it quite difficult to think of a suitable book. There is Caroline Watt's "Parapsychology" (2016), which is meant to be a beginner's guide and is available on Kindle for £4. It is mildly sceptical in tone, but that may be helpful for someone coming from a sceptical position:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parapsychology-...inw_strp_1

Otherwise the 27-page introduction of Broderick's and Goertzel's "Evidence for Psi" (2015) is available in a Google Books preview and provides an overview from a more psi-friendly but still balanced point of view:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5i7jBQAAQBAJ

Does anyone have any other recommendations?

So I was reading "parapsychology" and damn, the amount Randi was right is outstanding. Also, his Alpha Project clearly showed how easily magicians can pass resesrchers protocols. I think we need to really be aware that most psi phenomena are tricks, and that researchers too can be tricked by decent magicians.

This is also why I think that NDEs are good evidence, no magicians there.

[Ninshub]

I've moved your post here, Raf, since if this is the position you want to argue, this is the portion of the forum such a discussion belongs in.

Very good, thanks.

So I was reading "parapsychology" and damn, the amount Randi was right is outstanding. Also, his Alpha Project clearly showed how easily magicians can pass resesrchers protocols. I think we need to really be aware that most psi phenomena are tricks, and that researchers too can be tricked by decent magicians.

This is also why I think that NDEs are good evidence, no magicians there.

How far have you got with the book? As far as I can see, all Randi's appearances - apart from a brief one in the Conclusion - are in the first three chapters out of twelve.

Have you got as far as the three chapters on laboratory research yet? If not, maybe it would be better to read them before reaching general conclusions. If so, it would be interesting to know why you reject the lab studies as well as the areas Randi has been involved in.

I'm about halfway into it. Randi I think is really important, because without him we would have been tricked into thinking that psi was real by common tricksters and magician, demolishing any work on it. Randi has also been able to expose the spoon bending business, where the spoons are treated before the exhibition in a way that makes bending easy (I suspect Radin was cheated on this way too, as the spoon wasn't his own).

I have found the remote viewing part interesting, as the star gate project went on for 20 years and I don't think founding would have continued for so long if results were close to zero. Yes, the CIA stated that it wasn't enough for them but in the end report it showed that some "above average" success was achieved. Maybe RV is highly random and not very accurate, so CIA couldn't base their operations on it, but it shouldn't be discarded as a total failure.

Right now I'm reading on mediumship and as I already expected is nearly always fraud or delusions. The methods of testing were also horribly flawed, like most Parapsychology tests are.

This is why I doubt about lab tests too, they are often so deeply flawed that magicians can con their way into them and trick the researchers.

I'm about halfway into it. Randi I think is really important, because without him we would have been tricked into thinking that psi was real by common tricksters and magician, demolishing any work on it.

I think that's an enormous assumption to make.

It's not borne out by Caroline Watt's account of Randi's Project Alpha hoax, for example:

Events came to a head in August 1981, at the Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. Phillips and Shafer submitted a written ‘research brief’ on their macro-PK testing and showed film of their work with Shaw and Edwards. The brief indicated that Phillips and Shafer were personally persuaded that Edwards and Shaw had psychic abilities, but the film received ‘extremely strong criticism’ from many of the other parapsychologists attending the conference. Randi also attended the conference and pointed out evidence of possible fraud in their film. Shaken, the researchers recalled their research brief and reissued it, having inserted caveats such as ‘apparently’ and ‘ostensible’. Following this feedback from parapsychologists and Randi, the MacLab researchers immediately tightened up their protocols. Shaw and Edwards found they could no longer produce seemingly impressive PK effects. Finally, Randi decided to reveal the hoax. ...
[my emphasis]

So I was reading "parapsychology" and damn, the amount Randi was right is outstanding. Also, his Alpha Project clearly showed how easily magicians can pass resesrchers protocols. I think we need to really be aware that most psi phenomena are tricks, and that researchers too can be tricked by decent magicians.

This is also why I think that NDEs are good evidence, no magicians there.

Have you read George P. Hansen's book, "The Trickster and the Paranormal?"

That book changed my life.

It is not merely an exploration of the trickery commonly found around Psi (by someone who is a believer in the reality of Psi), but an exploration of the archetype of the Trickster and how the Trickster inhabits this reality. It changed my paradigm, gave post-modern thinking a make-over, and helped me see reality through the lens of structure and anti-structure. Psi is typically a liminal anti-structural boundary condition type of thing and so the Trickster shows up.

I think that's an enormous assumption to make.

It's not borne out by Caroline Watt's account of Randi's Project Alpha hoax, for example:

Events came to a head in August 1981, at the Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. Phillips and Shafer submitted a written ‘research brief’ on their macro-PK testing and showed film of their work with Shaw and Edwards. The brief indicated that Phillips and Shafer were personally persuaded that Edwards and Shaw had psychic abilities, but the film received ‘extremely strong criticism’ from many of the other parapsychologists attending the conference. Randi also attended the conference and pointed out evidence of possible fraud in their film. Shaken, the researchers recalled their research brief and reissued it, having inserted caveats such as ‘apparently’ and ‘ostensible’. Following this feedback from parapsychologists and Randi, the MacLab researchers immediately tightened up their protocols. Shaw and Edwards found they could no longer produce seemingly impressive PK effects. Finally, Randi decided to reveal the hoax. ...
[my emphasis]

Sure I read that part, but I still think skeptics like Randi are needed. Also his challenge is good way to rule out people claiming ESP/PSI who are fake, like the martial arts dude who was faking everything. We have to deal with the fact that 90% or so PSI claims are fake or frauds, and exposing them is needed.

Sure I read that part, but I still think skeptics like Randi are needed. Also his challenge is good way to rule out people claiming ESP/PSI who are fake, like the martial arts dude who was faking everything. We have to deal with the fact that 90% or so PSI claims are fake or frauds, and exposing them is needed.

Sure I read that part, but I still think skeptics like Randi are needed. Also his challenge is good way to rule out people claiming ESP/PSI who are fake, like the martial arts dude who was faking everything. We have to deal with the fact that 90% or so PSI claims are fake or frauds, and exposing them is needed.

I agree that the more outlandish claims need to be debunked, and even that Randi's Prize may have been useful in that respect.

Hoaxing legitimate researchers is a lot more problematical, and it has to be questionable whether Randi's hoax achieved anything useful, given that the normal process of peer review dealt with the problem.

The real problem is when people jump from the area that Randi was involved in and draw sweeping conclusions about the whole of parapsychology. For example, it's often said that the fact that no one claimed the Prize proves that psi doesn't exist, despite the fact that the terms of the Prize specifically disallowed the kind of lengthy study building up statistical evidence that is typically used by parapsychologists.