[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

'Skeptics don't do research'. It was hillarous that this episode came out the same week that the "Psychic Fair" episode in the

Are you impressed by this? Do you seriously call this 'research'? They fake a photograph and to see how stupid they can make a fortune teller look? How on earth did their trial measure for weak effects? This *is* evidence that Steven Novella and 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' have not read the parapsychology/psychical research

Alex in his program said look for the best 'medium' one can find. They go to a fotune teller at a psychic fair. No, I am not supporting 'psychics' out to make money at psychic fairs, frankly I would support making it against the law for psychics or mediums to charge money other than travel expenses or receive donations (just to try take the temptation to cheat for a living out of it). But those pseudo-skeptics on this program are doing pseudo-science – truly!.

Good protocols for testing mediums have long existed. In the 1950s Pratt (a colleague of Rhine) tested 15 mediums, using 15 sitters unaware which message was for them, all scoring how well a message fitted them personally, the end result supportive of the claim mediums give information that fits the target better. This result was replicated in a much larger experiment by Professor Roy/Robertson around 2002 in a 'triple blind', long term research which tested numerous mediums over a period of months - same result the information fitted the targets better, well above chance. In those experiments cold reading is impossible. So the common skeptic explanation that the information would fit anyone equally well is seriously under doubt, Gary Schwartz research again suggests the same.

There have been failed trials too. Not long after the above more comprehensive trials had published positive results were getting a trickle of media attention. Richard Wiseman, tested 5 anonymous spiritualist mediums with 5 male recipients from university - the more sceptical sex. (Note: one known way to theoretically foul up this type of experiment is to use hard skeptics or disinterested recipients because any bias may not make them rate how well statements fit honestly, whereas a believer or open minded person can't bias it in favour, even if they tried). In this short trial, Wiseman found no evidence, gaining a surprising amount of media attention for such a short trial.

So this stupid claim by Alexis is falsified right on the spot.

And of course, you just have to pick any book by Joe Nickell for example of many "skeptical" investigations on the field.

I don't have any books on Joe Nickell, an oversight perhaps, do these publish his own research, protocol and statistical outcomes? Or is it more just revision of others claims or like the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair?