FAQ - ANTICIPATED LINES OF INQUIRY ...
As might be expected, I find that when I'm interviewed by the media, I very often get the same question tossed at me regarding my work and the handling of claimants for the JREF million- dollar prize. And, e-mail correspondents ask many similar questions. Here are a dozen of the favorites, along with my brief responses.
About investigations of psychics, and claimants for the prize . . .
(1) What's the toughest case you've ever had to crack?
None have been particularly difficult. The hardest part has always been to get the claimant to state clearly what he or she thinks they can do, under what conditions, and with what accuracy. Most are very vague about these aspects, and very few have any notion of how a proper test should be conducted. We at JREF sometimes take months getting those matters settled, only to have the applicant suddenly drop out of the negotiations. But the actually solving of what's happening, or why claimants believe that they have powers if that state is ever reached is easy, because the range of claims is rather small and nothing really new is ever offered. The claims are sometimes interesting variations on very old misconceptions or delusions, but seldom is there anything that surprises us or that requires very much heavy analysis. Of course, there are some situations where not enough information is given by the applicant, even though we try to get all the needed data, so we are not able, in these cases, to ever determine what the claim might consist of.
(2) Has there ever been a time when you thought, "This is the one that will take the prize?"
No. I wish there were some really challenging offers or claims, just to add some excitement to my job, but it's pretty well the same old material, endlessly repeated. And never have I ever even been much surprised at a claim, though I'm often surprised at the fact that anyone is actually surprised by it, or taken in by it, even for a moment.
(3) To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF?
That's not a simple question to answer. Many hundreds have made application, and most have had to be instructed to reapply sometimes several times because they did it incorrectly or incompletely. There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered, but from experience we know that the vast majority will drop out even before any proper preliminary test can be designed. Of those who get to the preliminary stage, perhaps half will actually be tested, and some of those will quit before completion. To date, no one has actually passed the simple preliminaries and arrived at the formal test stage, though a couple dozen have completed and failed the preliminaries. So, no one has been formally tested for the big prize, though we're ready and willing.
(4) Why does it appear that you only test persons with very minor and even frivolous claims, and not the prominent "psychic" performers and/or scientists who appear on television and in the media, and who write books about their careers?
We can only test persons who either apply to become claimants for the million-dollar prize, or who will actually submit themselves to undergoing proper test procedures. The "stars" never do this, and in fact they do anything they can to avoid us and our challenge; they would rather just run on about past glories, point to anecdotal evidence, or grandly ignore our genuine offer to test them. The people who do apply are probably honestly convinced of their abilities, and have no fear of discovery. Where are James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, George Anderson, John Edward, and the rest of the current "big names"? And why hasn't Uri Geller, the professional spoon-bender (remember him from the 70s?) snapped up this easy cash? One can only wonder.
We at JREF must offer to test any and every applicant, because we cannot be the judges of whether a claim is likely to be valid. Only occasionally, we encounter a claim that is just so silly, we do not offer to go ahead with negotiations. Example: a person claimed to be controlling every event in the world just by shaking his head, and even sent us a video of himself in action. He also "fed" a spirit living in a black stone, through a hole in that stone. We are tolerant, but not quite naive enough to spend time discussing such a claim.
(5) What harm does it do to simply let people believe in silly things? Why do you take away their pleasant delusions?
The potential harm is very real, and dangerous. Belief in such obvious flummeries as astrology or fortune-telling can appear quite incorrectly to give confirmatory results, and that can lead to the victim pursuing more dangerous, expensive, and health-related scams. Blind belief can be comforting, but it can easily cripple reason and productivity, and stop intellectual progress. We at JREF never try to impose our beliefs or philosophy on others; we only try to inform them, and suggest that there are alternate choices to be made. Examples of personal tragedies resulting from an uncritical embrace of supernatural claims, are plentiful.
(6) Why do you continue to preach critical thinking about the paranormal, superstition, and quackery, if you can't ever really disabuse people of their errors?
We feel that an effort must be made, particularly to get young people thinking critically and bravely about these subjects. Those who have not completely surrendered to careless acceptance of flim-flam, can be brought to think about their decisions, and in many cases can and will change their minds. Others, we realize, will retain their delusions because they have so much invested in them. Not to try to communicate what we know to be true, would be unethical.
(7) Will you ever win the battle of rationality over superstition?
We think that "war" will never be won, because the scam-artists and the honestly deluded promoters of nonsense are constantly being replaced with others. And though Barnum never said it, there does appear to be "a sucker born every minute." So, we have predators and prey, and that is a natural and expected condition of life. It has ever been thus. The JREF only hopes to teach those who through no fault of their own, are unaware of certain facts of the real world, to be harder prey for the predators to catch. But there's a difference between winning a "war" and winning a "battle." We win battles every day, when someone walks through our doors and announces that we've added in some way to their understanding of the world. Every class of kids that we speak to, every audience in any part of the world, wins us a battle. That's why we stay with it.
(8) But you're not a scientist. How can you speak on these matters with authority?
Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need, and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too, and can be deceived and self-deceived. We at the JREF are skilled in two directions: we know how people are fooled by others, and we know how people fool themselves. We deal with hard, basic, facts, and we try our best to make them known. We try to protect people from influences that might obscure the true danger of uncritical thinking. We often succeed. And, please just examine our list of advisors, and you will see that we have very substantial and eminent scientific authorities on hand to provide the advice and specialization we require.
(9) Scientific papers have been written supporting paranormal events and talents. Therefore, how can you deny them?
Scientists can be wrong very wrong. The history of science is replete with serious errors of judgement, bad research, faked results, and simple mistakes, made by scientists in every field. The beauty of science is that it corrects itself by its own nature and design. By this means, science provides us with clearer and clearer views of how the world works. Unfortunately, though science itself is self-correcting, the scientists involved do not necessarily correct themselves. And, there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.
(10) What projects are you working on at this moment?
In some cases, we can't say. Sorry. There are always investigations underway, but those matters, because of their very nature, cannot be openly discussed. But, TV specials are being developed and written, books are nearing completion, and lectures are being contracted, all over the world. We try to keep folks informed via our web page.
(11) If what you say is true, that the supernatural powers being claimed every day in the media, are unproven, why is it that scientists themselves don't speak out against those claims?
It's truly unfortunate that more concerned scientists don't trouble to make statements when they see their colleagues going overboard on some matters. At one time we had Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, B.F. Skinner, and a spectrum of scientific luminaries who dared stick their necks out and make their opinions clearly heard in the media. These giants are gone now, and others with comparable profiles are not evident. We need more clear voices of reason to be heard, more often. It's quite true that by and large, scientists do live in "ivory towers," and do not choose to become involved in public controversies.
(12) Are countries other than the USA also plagued by incredible beliefs and claims of quackery, pseudoscience, and magic?
Oh, yes. It's difficult to determine or define a "silliness factor" for any culture, but we can say that all parts of the Earth are currently getting deeper and deeper into such nonsense. Though the "flavor" of the beliefs may vary, they are there in full bloom. In one place, medieval medical notions may be in full effect, while in another location the populace is enamored at the moment with summoning up spirits. And, it's not getting better. Quite the contrary.
In Padua, Italy, I recently attended the annual convention of CICAP the Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Aftermazioni sul Paranormale (Italian Committee for Control of Claims of the Paranormal), and having thereby attained a bit of a profile in the local press, I became the subject of some angry questions and accusations. One fierce-looking woman approached me festooned with beads and crystals, hair awry and determined to slap me down with The Big Question. Through an interpreter, she demanded that I look her straight in the eye and give her "the chemical formula for the soul." I feel that this person, in common with so many others, really thinks that such a question is one that surely must floor me instantly. She placed her statement, then smiled triumphantly, awaiting my confusion which did not materialize. I looked her right in the eye and simply told her that she wasn't making sense, and that she did not understand the nature of the matter she was trying to discuss.
It is a delicate matter, this process. While not ridiculing the honestly self-deceived, we must try to show them where they've gone off-track. We also have to handle them firmly but gently, so that we can move on to other matters. The charlatans seldom come to us, but when we must deal with them, we do so with great care, ever conscious of the litigious society we are immersed in, willy-nilly. Of course, when confronted with a particularly incredible claim like "remote viewing" (the current version of "clairvoyance") we can easily stop short and ask ourselves just why we are involved with such obvious nonsense. But this is the job we chose to take on, and it has its rewards in the feedback we get from those who have listened, learned, and benefitted from our efforts. That's the payoff.
Bring on the next contender . . .
View the Commentary archive.
