#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.

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.

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.

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html