Ask Erin: If psychic phenomenon is real, why can’t it be proven?
March 29th, 2006 by Erin Pavlina
Email this article to a friend
Question: I think there is more to reality than what science has (or can) describe. However, if such proof of paranormal occurrences is so pervasive, as they seem to be by your accounts, why are there still skeptics? Surely some sort of data can be shown to the world that conclusively shows there is something going on. Your thoughts? – Haig
Answer: Many paranormal experiences are subjective and difficult to prove. Science requires that in order to accept something as fact it has to be repeatable, and many paranomal phenomenon simply aren’t.
I read something in a book years ago that seemed to sum up why it’s difficult to prove paranomal experiences. The tools simply don’t exist yet. But just because you can’t see a thing doesn’t mean the thing is not there. We can’t see atoms with our naked eye, so we didn’t really know they existed until the electron microscope was invented.
People used to think the world was flat because they simply lacked the ability to see that it was round; but that doesn’t mean the world was flat until they discovered it was round. It was round the whole time and just waiting for people to discover it.
We don’t have the ability to detect astral bodies. At least, not that I’m aware of. 
We can’t see other beings living on different planes of existence with just our naked eye, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Until science creates tools to detect these things, they will remain largely unprovable.
As another example, let’s say everyone was blind; no eyes, can’t see. But a few people have this strange and mystical ability to actually see. They try to describe colors to those without sight and everyone thinks they’re making it up. They tell someone, “Hey, lookout, you’re about to bump into a chair” and when it happens people say, “How did you know that would happen?” and the person simply says, “I could see it.” No one believes them because they don’t have “the sight.” They think these people just made a lucky guess or are using parlor tricks to make people think they have special abilities. To those with sight, however, it’s just so obvious.
Another reason there are still skeptics is because many people have simply decided that paranomal abilities are impossible so they are creating a reality in which those things become impossible. They will accept any other explanation for an event that to some is so obviously paranormal. I’ve experienced this denial first hand after I went vegan and starting telling my family and friends how food animals suffer before they are slaughtered. Most people don’t want to know about that so they simply deny the fact that this is happening. I am amazed at the lengths people will go to to deny something that is fact because they are unwilling to accept what it would mean to their belief structure.
I think in time science will catch up and eventually we’ll be able to prove the existence of many things that most people today believe aren’t possible. The truth is out there already; the universe is just waiting for us to notice it.
Discuss this post in the Erin Pavlina forum.Get clarity on your life purpose, career path, relationships, finances, and health. Book an intuitive reading with Erin today.
Get Erin's new audio program, Raising Your Vibration, as an instant download or on CD.
Related Posts
March 29th, 2006 at 7:03 am
How do you know that psychic phenomenon are real?
How do you know what reality is? Do you just believe that it is as you experience it? If so, how do you know those experiences aren’t fabrications of your mind, or even worse, the deception of some evil being(s)? For example, how do you know that old man on the astral plane truely is a benevolent guide and not an evil being in disguise?
March 29th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Tell James Randi
and pocket a million dollars.
The money is yet unclaimed.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
March 30th, 2006 at 8:01 am
James Randi will never award that million dollar prize. His business is to disbelieve, at all costs, anything he investigates, because he makes money from the credulous DISBELIEF of faithful skeptics.
In every occasion I’ve seen him working, his methodology is to invent—as a stage magician—a functional way to appear to duplicate what the paranormal claimant was doing. Then he shows you how he did it, saying, “this is how it’s done.”
He depends on unquestioning belief every bit as much as charlatans, which is pretty sick.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Hi Erin. I think psychologists say that the first step in scientifically studying the unobservable is to critically define every aspect of it. Do critical, explicit and agreed upon definitions exist for psychic phenomenon?
March 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’m not sure if critical, explicit, and agreed upon definitions exist. I’m sure there are people out there of a scientific nature who are working on that though.
The Amazing Randi…. just because he can duplicate pyschic phenomenon using magic doesn’t mean psychic phenomenon doesn’t exist. To me it’s like this. A man in Los Angeles claims he can swim. A man in the middle of the desert says, “Okay, come here and demonstrate it. Show me how you swim.” The man from Los Angeles says, “Well, I mean, I can’t show you in the desert. There’s no way to swim in the desert.” And the desert man says, “See, ha! You’re a FAKE! If you could REALLY swim you’d be able to do it here, in the desert, among all of us watching.” It’s silly.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
All thought is energy, which can be manipulated. A disbeliever who demands proof is really provoking a duel, not just demanding proof, because the disbeliever will be using his own thought power to negate the other. If, on the other hand, someone really wanted to know and was not committed to opposition, there’s a higher chance of success (my opinion).
September 25th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Ira: oh please, that’s just the generic canard about James Randi by people that don’t want to take the test.
#example of a charlatan#
Here is some guy that claims to move things with his mind (convincing videos eh?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKlbt-L8HU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhIA0q1ZH6w
here is James Randi testing him:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7471941094792399305
and an interview where he admits he’s a fraud (it goes into more depth about the above video, including how it’s 90 minutes long and how he refused to be tested with the styrofoam removed from the table but he has to wear a mask over his face):
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html
#examples of self-delusion#
Here is a 40 minute long video where dowsers are tested:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034
and this show on the BBC that tested homeopathy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathyrandi.shtml
read the paragraph that contains the word “incentive” (to summarize, the American Physical Society agreed to test various homeopathic medicine under standard double-blind placebo controlled conditions (and pay for all costs) and James Randi offered his $1,000,000 as an incentive, but the person refused):
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/09806guess.html#i7
Actual contest rules, large FAQ, and a small sampling of applicants:
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I’ve met Randi once and if there really is anything paranormal that science has missed, he wants to know about it. He doesn’t come across as somebody that would cheat to make himself look good as you claim. His test serves as a way to debunk charlatans and honestly finding evidence of something paranormal that stands up to a properly set up controlled test. His test is the way it is to weed out any possibly of cheating or self-delusion, but come on, the person that passes wins gets $1,000,000 even for something mundane like moving a toothpick with their mind or picking out pictures better than chance.
Erin: that’s a bad analogy. Both the claimant and the JREF agree exactly at what constitutes the test. So if the claimant claims he can swim, both of them would have to agree it would be in a body of water. For three real world examples:
- Somebody claims they can see auras. Three immediate ways I can think of testing this either involves either putting barriers so people can see the auras through them but not the bodies, using thin barriers so they can see the glow from the auras extending from the edges of the barrier, or having everyone in a pitch black room.
- Somebody claims to be a remote viewer. Both the reviewer and tester agree to a set of pictures to be used and the remote viewer picks which picture from the set was placed in an empty room. Then the experiment is repeated an agreed upon number of times and if the number of correct matches is above the agreed upon number, the remote viewer passes the test.
Notice how this exactly matches up to your blind person example in this blog post. If you don’t believe something along these lines would actually be accepted by skeptics or scientists, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromat
- Somebody claims to channel ghosts via the Ouija board. All the people handling the Ouija board go to an agreed upon spot and are blindfolded and provided an Ouija board with the letters randomly shuffled (this board is provided by the tester so they can’t memorize the layout before hand). The board is videotaped from above to record all the letters and the people are also taped to see if they cheated by adjusting their blindfolds. The tape is reviewed to see if the letters spelled out anything or if it was complete gibberish.
Notice how all of these have results that are self-evident (it only needs somebody to carry out the test and make sure the claimant isn’t cheating), there is nothing subjective (like in the remote viewing case of “seeing blue” or “I smell fresh air”), and most importantly it takes the number of misses into account and uses “statistically significant” odds because the average person doesn’t account for either of these when “something strange happens”. If you don’t agree and have any specific complaints about Randi/the challenge or comments about testing specific paranormal abilities, feel free to respond.