Not so super psychics

If there’s one consistent feature of claims of psychic ability, it’s that they fail to show when exposed to close scientific scrutiny.  Since Harry Houdini started to explore the world of mediums in the 1920s, no definitive evidence of psychic ability has been conjured up, and not for want of trying by successive generations of scientific exploration.  So yesterday’s report that two professional mediums were unable to show any psychic ability under test conditions isn’t really a big surprise, particularly when you consider that nobody has been able to accurately describe a measurable mechanism by which psychic powers work.

The series of tests, carried out by Goldsmiths, University of London, in partnership with The Merseyside Skeptics Society, found that the two mediums performed no better than chance.  Was the test a definitive refutation of psychic abilities?  No.  But this test now adds to the many others where a person who has claimed to be in possession of psychic powers has been unable to prove them.

At least these two mediums had the nerve and belief in themselves to have their abilities tested under blind test conditions, and they deserve credit for that.  It is a pity that one or more of the big hitters in the world of professional mediumship didn’t use this test as an opportunity to prove themselves.  Are they afraid of something?

This raises for me a question about the claims of mediums and the services they provide.  I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard a medium sagely admit that there are some dishonest mediums out there cynically taking money off people.  But how does the average consumer know that a medium can do what they say they do?  A domestic gas engineer needs to be qualified to touch your gas fire or boiler.  A financial adviser has to pass exams to give you advice about your investments.  For many service industries, the consumer has an expectation that the one providing the service has some objective measure qualifying them to provide that service.  Surely mediums, some of whom earn millions from their claimed psychic abilities, should have to pass a series of blind tests to show they are consistently and significantly better than chance before they can ask their clients for money, and more importantly, trample all over their emotions and mental wellbeing?  Shouldn’t there also be a way to ‘strike off’ discredited and dishonest mediums found to be making it up, to protect their industry and protect people, some of whom are vulnerable, from being ripped off?

This isn’t only about whether the paranormal is real, but an issue of ethics and responsibility to fellow citizens.  Sadly, I doubt that mediums will get together any time soon to clean up their industry.

Fortunately for the mediums in this test, another similarly consistent feature of psychic abilities is that they reappear once the the psychic is in control of the environment, so I don’t expect their careers to suffer any adverse reaction from their failure to prove their powers.


Tags: , , , ,

5 responses to “Not so super psychics”

  1. Peter W Skevington says :

    The 1951 Fraudulent Mediums Act was repealed a few years ago, and it now appears that responsibility for investigating complaints about mediums rests with local authority Trading Standards Departments operating under powers available in relatively recently enacted Consumer Protection Regulations. However, you do not have to possess psychic powers to predict that resources and staff available to trading standards will be cut during the next few years.

  2. Paul Meade says :

    You’d have thought they’d have known they were going to fail!!

  3. Peter W Skevington says :

    Any psychics care to predict when Gary Gleeson will get a reply to his questions…??

  4. Peter W Skevington says :

    Still no stirrings in the C&EB email ether, Gary. But, you could not have predicted Ireland’s crushing defeat of Argentina on the rugby field.

  5. Peter W Skevington says :

    Any predictions for 2013, Brian? One of our early Xmas cards wished us “good luck for 1913”! A Freudian slip no doubt. I have a feeling that Messrs Sue, Grabit and Runne could be in business, but in the UK rather than the USA courts,,,However, the worsening situation in the Middle East could make a little local litigation pale into relative insignificance.

Don't go yet, leave a reply!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: