<< Return to The Skeptics

Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against

Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena



By Winston Wu

(WWu777@aol.com)

[Please note that clicking on any heading will bring you back to the top.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Section I: Critique of General Skeptical Arguments Against The Paranormal

Argument # 1: "It is irrational to believe anything that hasnt been proven."

Argument # 2: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Argument # 3: The Occams Razor rule.

Argument # 4: The "invisible pink unicorn / dragon in the garage" false comparison tactic.

Argument # 5: The "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument.

Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument to dismiss anecdotal evidence.

Argument # 7: "The burden of proof is on the claimant."

Argument # 8: "There is no hard evidence to support any paranormal phenomena."

Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method.

Argument # 10: "Paranormal and supernatural phenomena arent possible because they contradict all known natural laws gained from science."

Argument # 11: "Unexplainable does not mean inexplicable."

Argument # 12: "Skeptics dont have beliefs. They/I base our views and judgments on the degree of evidence."

Argument # 13: "A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry."

Argument # 14: "Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational, childish and uninformed ways."

Argument # 15: "Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality."

Section II: Critique of Skeptical Arguments Against Specific Paranormal Phenomena.

Argument # 16: "Psychics and mediums use a technique called cold reading to amaze you with accurate hits, not psychic powers.

Argument # 17: "Experiments that show evidence for psi must be replicable in order to count as evidence."

Argument # 18: "No psychic phenomena has been demonstrated under controlled conditions."

Argument # 19: "Miracles are impossible and defy everything we know about science and anatomy."

Argument # 20: "Alternative medical practices only work due to the placebo effect."

Argument # 21: The Skeptical explanation for answered prayers.

Argument # 22: The Skeptical explanation for precognitive dreams.

Argument # 23: The Dying Brain Hypothesis for Near Death Experiences.

Argument # 24: "There is no such thing as a soul or spirit that lives on after you die. Consciousness is purely neurological and nothing else."

Argument # 25: "Spiritual experiences only exist in your mind, not in external reality."

Argument # 26: "New Age philosophies are just childish fantasies for dealing with a cold uncaring world."

Argument # 27: "There is no evidence to support the existence of UFOs or the notion that we are being visited by extraterrestrials."

Argument # 28: "Since Evolution and natural selection are sufficient to explain the origins of life, there is no need for God to fit into the equation."

Argument # 29: "It is just as irrational to believe in God as it is to believe in Santa Claus."

Argument # 30: "Atheists dont hold the belief that God doesnt exist. An Atheist is one who is without a belief in God, or lacks a belief in him. Therefore the burden of proof for God is on the theist, not the atheist."

Conclusion

This article rebuts the most common arguments made by skeptics regarding psychic phenomena and the paranormal, and shows the flaws and limitations in their thinking and methodology. Ive listed their common arguments one by one and pointed out the problems in them based on years of experience in debating and discussing with them. Skeptics who use these arguments include honest doubters, cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won't admit it), scientific materialists, haters of religion, etc. With the exception of sensational pro-paranormal programs, these skeptics are often given the chance to present their arguments and explanations in the media, national magazines, and certain television programs, without rebuttal from the other side, even when their explanations contradict the facts of the case. As a result, there is often an imbalance in the presentation of paranormal and psychic phenomena in the media, leaving most viewers and believers uninformed. This article attempts to counteract the imbalance. It is written both for the education and knowledge of the believer who deals with skeptics, and for skeptics who are willing to hear counterarguments to their positions.

First though, a little about me. My name is Winston and I am a researcher and explorer of the paranormal, psychic phenomena, metaphysics, quantum physics, consciousness research, realms of higher consciousness, and religion/philosophy. Ive always had a sense of adventure and interest in esoteric things. I started out during childhood as a Christian fundamentalist. After a slow deconversion when I turned 19, I became Agnostic for a while. Realizing that there were way too many phenomena that couldnt be explained by conventional explanations, I started looking for other answers and non-organized forms of spirituality. After much research and questioning, I discovered many fascinating things such as new paradigms that fit the unexplained data, a more comprehensive view of reality and spirituality, and that there is indeed powerful evidence (some of which is irrefutable) that many types of paranormal phenomena do have a basis, both scientifically and in terms of anecdotal evidence. To try to gain an understanding of the other side, (which is what you should do when you want to learn something in depth) I went to skeptics to ask what they had to say and also read some of their literature. I found that what they had to say made sense on the surface, but was very different than what I heard from the literature about paranormal phenomena, accounts of paranormal experiences from ordinary people (some of which I know and trust), and my own experiences. In order to try to make sense of such different but arguable views, I tried to sift through the details and the evidence. What I found was that although both skeptics and believers can be closed-minded and tend to rationalize away what they dont want to believe, in either case the objective evidence for the paranormal is incredibly strong in many areas. Although the main focus of this article is to critique skeptical arguments, the evidence for the paranormal will often be addressed as well. (If you have any questions about a particular phenomena or want to know the evidence for some of them, feel free to email me at the address above under the title, and I will try to respond.)

As I became educated of the evidence for many types of paranormal phenomena, I presented this to skeptics both on message boards and internet newsgroups. What resulted was an endless charade of arguments on both sides, with each side bringing up facts that support their side while denying the facts of the other side. This is typical of debates in general, no doubt, but since there were so many types of paranormal phenomena, the topic range was broad and diverse enough to make continuous and interesting discussions. Consequently, the discussions dragged on much longer than expected. Not only were there so many topics to discuss, but I kept finding more and more quality evidence to support my view each time I looked. All this became a fascinating and educating hobby. While debating them, hearing their arguments and reading their websites (like Bob Carroll's "The Skeptic's Dictionary" at www.skepdic.com), I have heard almost all their arguments and learned how to respond to them. After several years of this, I gained the knowledge and experience to critique and comment on the skeptics arguments, because I know where their strengths and weaknesses lie, as an experienced chess player understands the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of his opponents pieces, hence the interest in writing this article. For almost three years now, I have debated skeptics ranging from honest doubters looking for truth (like me), to those who are clearly cynics masquerading as skeptics having already made up their minds before looking at the evidence. What I've learned is what I want to share with you.

Before I begin, I want to clarify that I have nothing against honest skepticism. It is good to have a healthy dose of skepticism to protect one from scams, con artists, misleading advertising, misleading claims, jumping to conclusions, etc. It's when that skepticism turns to cynicism (without them realizing it even) and closes one's mind so that anything that doesn't fit into their world view is dismissed automatically as misperception, delusion, or fraud, that it's taken too far. That's where I draw the line between healthy skepticism and pseudo-skepticism, or closed-minded skepticism. Of course, every skeptic is going to say that they are open-minded and not cynical, but the proof of the pudding is in their actions and way of thinking. After a while, one can recognize these clues that distinguish a true skeptic and a cynic. One of the tell-tale signs of cynics and closed-minded skeptics is in the words they use when describing believers, such as: "delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking", etc. Watch out if you see someone or an author frequently using words like that to describe what they dont understand. These kind of skeptics also tend to belong to organized Skeptics groups fighting to suppress paranormal evidence, such as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), Australian Skeptics, ISUNY (Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York), and many others. Skepticism should be a tool and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not as a cover to defend one's own paradigms and cynicism. Doubting things and looking for answers will help one learn things, but trying to debunk everything outside your world view does not lead to learning. Therefore when I critique skepticism here, I'm not referring to honest healthy skepticism, but the cynical kind that tries to debunk everything outside of the materialistic world view, publishes or reads one-sided magazines like "The Skeptical Inquirer", belong to organizations like CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal), and who consider James Randi's unwon million dollar psychic challenge to be proof that no one is truly psychic. This type of cycnicism masquerading as science is especially prevalent in the attitude of the popular skeptical newsgroup Sci.Skeptic. Not everyone who calls himself a skeptic fits into these categories of course. The true skeptic though, should be skeptical of his own beliefs and positions as well of others. In debating skeptics, Ive noticed some common flawed tactics that they use. These include:

1) Ignoring facts and evidence that dont fit into their preconceived world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts, which is more logical. (e.g. "It cant be, therefore it isnt!")

2) Trying to force false explanations to explain a paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the facts. In essence, cynical skeptics tend to prefer inventing false explanations rather than accepting any paranormal ones. For example, using "cold reading" to explain the amazing accuracy of a psychic reading when no known cold reading technique could account for the facts and circumstances. (see Argument # 16)

3) Moving the goal posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for evidence is met. For example, a skeptic wants evidence for psi in the form of controlled experiments rather than anecdotal evidence. When this evidence is presented, he will then raise the bar and demand that the experiments be repeatable by other researchers. When this is done, then he will either attack the researchers integrity and character, attack their methods, or demand a report of every detail and minute of the experiment or else he will contend that some unmentioned lack of controls must have been the culprit to explain the positive psi results, etc. He will always find some excuse due to his already made-up mindset.

4) Using double standards in what they will accept as evidence. For example, when a psi experiment shows well above chance results, they will not accept it as evidence against psi. But when a psi experiment only shows chance results, they will accept that as evidence against psi. In the same fashion, they will not accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal because they consider it to be unreliable, but not surprisingly they will accept anecdotal evidence when it supports their position (e.g. "Others never reported any paranormal activity in the area").

5) Attacking the character of witnesses and undermining their credibility their evidence or testimonies cant be explained away. As we all know, when politicians cant win on the issues, they resort to character assassinations. Unfortunately, this is also what skeptics and debunkers tend to do as well. When evidence or testimony from key people cant be explained away or are irrefutable, skeptics will find ways to discredit them such as character assassinations or grossly exaggerating and distorting trivial mistakes. This has especially been done with the direct eyewitnesses of the 1947 Roswell Incident, as Roswell author Stanton Friedman often points out.

6) Dismissing all evidence for the paranormal by classifying it either as anecdotal, untestable, unreplicable, or uncontrolled. Skeptics who wish to close their minds to any evidence, even after asking for it ironically, tend to do so by classifying it into one of the categories above. If the evidence is anecdotal, they will say that anecdotal evidence is worthless scientifically and untestable. If the evidence is in the form of scientific experiments, they will then say that it is unreplicable or uncontrolled.

(For more on skeptical tactics such as these, go to http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html, and http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt)

These illogical ways of thinking are strange coming from people who pride themselves on their logic and rationality! Of course, flawed thinking such as the above can come from both believers and skeptics. That is why it is good to point them out to keep both sides in check. Please enjoy these rebuttals and keep an open mind. (Note: I have assigned numbers to each skeptical argument below so that I can make references to them throughout this article.)



Section I: General Skeptical Arguments Against The Paranormal

Argument # 1: "It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven."

This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. As Dr. Melvin Morse, Seattle pediatrician and author specializing in child NDEs (Near Death Experiences) said:

"The notion that 'It is rational to only believe what's been proven' somehow got twisted into It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven." (Video: "Conversations with God")

By "proven" skeptics mean proven according to the scientific method, which they consider to be the only reliable method. There are several problems with this argument:

1) First of all, just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered. Bacteria and germs would never have caused illnesses until they were proven and discovered, smoking would not cause cancer until it was proven, the planet Pluto would not have existed until it was discovered, etc. Anyone knows that this simply is not so. For instance, when Acupuncture was first introduced in the West, skeptics and certain scientists claimed that it had no basis and only worked due to the placebo effect because they couldnt understand how it worked. This reflected the typical false thinking of skeptics that anything they dont understand must be due to superstition or chance. However, practitioners and believers knew otherwise and were later validated by extensive studies have been done to show that it indeed does work for treating various ailments and getting results which placebos cant account for. An extensive listing of these research studies can be found on the Med lab website. In fact, the AMA (American Medical Association) has already declared that Acupuncture works and is an effective treatment, proving the skeptics wrong. The point is that Acupuncture worked before it was proven to work, not after.

2) Second, just because something hasn't been proven to established science doesn't mean that it hasn't been proved firsthand to certain people. Established views are not the dictum of all reality. Many types of paranormal phenomena have been proved firsthand to eyewitnesses and experiencers. For example, even though the cases of NDEs don't prove the existence of an afterlife (at least not yet), those who have experienced them claim that the experience of the separation of body and spirit is firsthand proof to them of an afterlife, just as riding in a car is firsthand proof that cars exist, and they fear death no more. Those who have OBEs (Out of Body Experiences) also make similar claims, and they need no proof nor do they need to convince anyone. These claims are further supported by the fact that in many documented cases the subject could hear conversations or see things in other rooms and other places, which are later confirmed and verified to be remarkably accurate. Who's to say that they're wrong just because we haven't had the same experiences? That would be equivalent to saying that because Ive never been to Japan, everyone else who claims to have been there is mistaken or deluded. The same goes for eyewitnesses of ghosts, UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects), alien abductions, Bigfoot, etc. These sightings and encounters range from the obscure and distant to ones that are crystal clear and at point-blank-range, making them much harder to dismiss.

3) Third, many research experiments and studies conducted under the scientific method HAVE passed with positive results. For example, experiments in micro-psychokinesis done by Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs (PEAR) using random generator machines to measure subjects PK influence on them, obtained positive consistent results for over 20 years. These were done under proper controls and scientific procedures, even according to prominent skeptic Ray Hyman, who investigated the Prince experiments in person and conceded that he could find no flaws in the methodology. The small but consistent results achieved by PEAR over 20 years are calculated by chance alone to be 1 in 1035. (For more on PEAR, see their website at www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html). Likewise, the Ganzfeld experiments in telepathy done in the early 70s also had repeated success, with receivers in 42 controlled experiments scoring an average of 38 to 45 percent compared to the chance rate of 25 percent. (See Argument # 17) The odds of that occurring by chance are less than one in a billion. More recently, controlled experiments involving four prominent mediums accuracy were done by Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Lab of the University of Arizona. (See Argument # 16) These mediums achieved a hit rate 70 to 90 percent, even when in one experiment they were NOT allowed to ask any questions of the sitters or see them! Skeptics repeatedly continue to ignore this fact! (See the Jan 2001 edition of the Journal for the Society of Psychical Research) A list of studies that produced psi results can be found in Dean Radin's book The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. Many researchers will tell you that these studies prove that telepathy and micro-psychokinesis exist at least on the micro level. The skeptics, of course will say that those tests yielded impossible results and therefore were not done under properly controlled conditions, or else the researchers overzealous desire to get psi results botched the results. But this of course reflects their bias and a priori dismissal of facts that dont fit in with their beliefs. It is not logical to deny the facts that dont support your beliefs, it is more logical to update your beliefs to account for the facts. Nevertheless, new scientific discoveries tend to pass through stages first before being accepted (see last paragraph of Argument # 8)

4) Fourth, just because something is irrational to skeptics doesn't mean that it is irrational to others who know or believe that it is real. Skeptics and scientific materialists do not have the monopoly on rational thinking. Lots of rational intelligent intellectual people believe in God, spiritual dimensions, or that there is more to reality than the material world. The skeptics' system of rational thinking is not the dictatum by which all things that exist must conform to. This can easily be demonstrated by all the things that skeptics have been wrong about before, such as flight, laws of physics, quantum mechanics, giant squid, etc. proving their fallibility.



Argument # 2: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This seems to be the mantra of hard nosed skeptics. One common way it is presented goes like this:

"If my friend told me that on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would believe it because it is an ordinary claim. However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Now it would help if the skeptics who proclaim this argument specify what they would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 6 difficulties to keep in mind.

1) First, although this rule is good as a general guideline, the fact that 3 possible alternatives exist make this rule fallible.

a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving "hard evidence" yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can easily exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.

c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees. So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

Of course, skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence. However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond. No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge, at least not consciously. Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality."

2) Definitions of "extraordinary claims" vary based on prior beliefs and experiences. Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Suppose we were fishes for example, and lived underwater our whole lives without ever seeing or hearing about land. The claim of land existing above water would be an extraordinary claim to us, though not to the creatures living on the land above. Now obviously just because the claim of land is extraordinary to us as fishes does not mean that the land doesnt exist. The point is that extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone. What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is mystical to Westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in Asia. Chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and observed by us. Likewise, the concept of Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences is extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who experience them regularly, it is an ordinary thing to them that they know is a reality. In the same way, our cars, radios and cell phones are extraordinary to tribal natives in remote parts of Africa, but ordinary to us. The best solution, in my opinion, is for everybody to put their cards on the table by honestly specifying their prior beliefs. This sets the standards for what is to be expected and leads to a better mutual understanding of each other.

3) Different people have different standards for what is "extraordinary evidence." Depending on your definition, it could be said that we already have some extraordinary evidence for certain types of paranormal claims. Take the following 4 types of phenomena for instance.

a) UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects): It can be said that there is extraordinary evidence to support the existence of UFO's from unexplainable photographs, video camera footage, multiple eyewitness sightings, abduction reports, Air Force radar reports, etc. All of these constitute convincing evidence for some people, but not for others. Although much of it can be explained as misperceptions, natural phenomena, weather balloons, aircraft, birds, balls of lightning, luminous Earth lights, etc. there are still many cases which are unexplainable and display features not known of any natural phenomena. One example is the White House Merry Go Round Incident of July 1952 where Air Force fighters repeatedly chased UFOs that kept appearing on Air Force radar was never adequately explained. Even skeptics admit that some cases are unexplainable, though they claim that unexplainable does not mean inexplicable. (See Argument # 11)

Since its not always possible for extraordinary things to leave behind some type of tangible evidence, if I saw a UFO at close range and didn't have my camera with me and then it flew away, how am I expected to have extraordinary evidence? Am I supposed to be able to call that UFO back as if it were under my command or chase it like Superman? The fact that this event happened without our control makes us unable to satisfy this criteria. The same goes with ghosts and other things.

For hard nosed skeptics though, even good evidence will not be enough, since their mentality is to debunk rather than to discover and learn. You see, even if I had a piece of a crashed flying saucer and showed it to them, they would just say that it is probably just a piece of top secret military aircraft that we don't know about yet. They would want the full saucer itself to be convinced. Then if I found a whole saucer and showed it to them, that would still not be enough because then they could say that there is no proof that the saucer is extraterrestrial in origin and that it could just be a secret type of aircraft invented by the military. Of course, if they had real alien bodies in front of them, then it'd be much harder to dismiss <g> but you get the idea here. They will continually raise the bar. It's their mentality that causes them to close their minds and ignore everything that doesn't fit into their viewpoint.

b) Ghosts and Spirits: The same goes with ghosts. There are many credible witnesses who have seen ghosts and experienced unexplainable things taking place in haunted houses, such as sudden apparitions, the feeling of an unseen presence, unnatural movement of objects, frequent displacement of things around the house, sounds, voices, etc. Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area. Plus, there are also countless stories of hauntings in all around the world from the mundane to the incredible and uncanny. Although these claims are largely anecdotal, we must understand that while anecdotal evidence is not completely reliable, it is not completely unreliable either and is considered to be evidence in societal functions depending on various factors. (See Argument # 5 regarding the validity of anecdotal evidence) In addition, the amount of anecdotal evidence is also relevant because the higher the number and the more credible the witnesses, the stronger the evidence.

However, die hard skeptics will not consider anecdotal evidence to be valid evidence regardless of the amount. To them, credible evidence has to be measurable in some conventional way and reproduced at our beck and call. The problem with this is that what we can measure is limited to our level of technology. For instance, before we had the technology to measure seismic-activity in the Earths crust, they still existed even though they couldnt yet be measured. Furthermore, since we cant see radio waves, electromagnetism, air, gravity, magnetic force, etc. but they exist anyway, it is logical to assume that there are other things that could exist but arent yet measurable. Our technology may not be up to the level to measure other things that could be there. Or it may be that our technology can only detect things of the physical plane and not the spiritual plane. Looking for physical evidence of something spiritual is like looking for evidence in the ocean for the existence of Mars rather than looking for it in space.

c) ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) and Telepathy: This is also especially true for ESP and telepathy. Experiments under controlled conditions have been done that revealed consistent well above chance results, which strongly point to the conclusion that ESP and telepathy exist at least to a small degree. (See Dean Radins The Conscious Universe and Bernard Gittelsons Intangible Evidence for more specifics) These experiments, particularly the Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld experiments done from 1974 to 1997, were repeatable too, with 2,549 sessions showing above average results. (See Argument # 17) The problem is that not all scientists and researchers are able to produce the same results. Skeptics usually point to the failures of psi experiments and ignore the successes. They will accept the failed psi experiments as evidence against psi, but not the successful psi experiments as evidence for psi. This is an obvious double standard, which is typical of closed-minded skeptics. One skeptic I debated did not consider the high success of the Ganzfeld experiments as evidence for psi. She pointed out that the few failed experiments invalidated the other successful ones! She wanted a 100 percent success rate. (and even if she got a 100 percent success rate, she would obviously have moved the goal posts and charged fraud! Very few things are 100 percent!) Of course, not all skeptics are that closed-minded, but this gives you an idea of the mentality of closed-minded skeptics. Im not saying that we should only pay attention to the successes and ignore the failures either, but that we should take them both into account, and when we do so, there is in fact strong consistent evidence that psi exists, both from scientific experiments and overwhelmingly large anecdotal evidence. It is possible of course, that some scientists skew the psi results because they are eager to find evidence for psi, but why do skeptics automatically assume that it must be that? Obviously its because of their preconceived beliefs (which they will not admit). If ESP and telepathy exist, it doesn't mean that it has to be controllable at our beck and call like some raw energy. We've only begun to scratch the outskirts on the nature of the whole thing anyway.

Besides experiments, countless accounts of psychic experiences abound, both documented and undocumented. Studies show that about 2/3 of Americans claim to have had psychic experiences, making them quite common rather than "extraordinary". The most common type of psychic experience is telepathy, such as when loved ones and close friends from vast distances apart know at the exact time when something traumatic happened to the other. Sometimes, every detail of the traumatic event is observed or felt from afar. They are extremely powerful personal proof. I've had a few of these kind myself. Often, what was suddenly felt out of nowhere about what happened to the loved one is later verified to be true, occurring at exactly the time it was dreamt or felt. This suggests some subconscious telepathic link between people who are close. Experiences of this kind are in fact very common. Skeptics of course say that these kind of things are nothing but pure coincidence, but this is unsubstantiated and a rush to judgment. They just dont realize that just because something happens that they cant understand doesnt mean that it MUST be coincidence or chance. In the same manner, if someone spoke Spanish and I didnt, that doesnt mean that the person speaking Spanish is speaking random gibberish. If someone living in a tribe in Africa saw me turning channels with my remote and didnt understand how remote controls work, that doesnt mean that my pushing buttons on the remote and the channels changing are just a coincidence!

d) Mystical Experiences: And what about mystical experiences, spiritual enlightenment, being "born again", Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences? These can also be said by those who experience them to be extraordinary evidence as well, because they are often self-authenticating and life changing in themselves. As the 1994 New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia states under Mysticism:

"Mysticism in general refers to a direct and immediate experience of the sacred, or the knowledge derived from such an experience. . First, the experience is immediate and overwhelming, divorced from the common experience of reality. Second, the experience or the knowledge imparted by it is felt to be self-authenticating, without need of further evidence or justification. Finally, it is held to be ineffable, its essence incapable of being expressed or understood outside the experience itself . the experience itself is always of an Absolute that transcends the human efforts or methods of achieving it." (New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1994)

Experiencers will describe these experiences not as faith-based, but an "inner knowing." The fact that these type of experiences are dramatically life changing makes them "extraordinary evidence" themselves simply because ordinary experiences don't alter people's lives in this way. To say that these self-authenticating, life changing experiences are just pure imagination is closed minded to say the least. As Faith, a practitioner of Shakti Gaivism and one who has had all-pervasive cosmic transcendental experiences of God in Unity state, constantly reminds us on my email group:

"But remember .. there is "Belief" a chosen activity of mind... and there is an actual Knowing... via direct experience. They are 2 differnt things. I never could accept chosen Belief.. THAT is why I was an Agnostic.

I like the example of the person working in an inner office with no windows. A co-worker could come in and tell them it is raining out. IF they accept That as truth... it is ONLY a chosen belief. But.. If they were to go outside themselves and stand in the driving rain and get soaking wet... then that is no longer a chosen belief... that would qualify as an actual Knowing.. by Direct experience.

Your Mind is Limited... but "YOU" are far greater than your mind... you are ALL that is..... you just cannot see it yet. Mind keeps you contracted.... but You can go beyond individual mind and tap the All Knowing. The only way you can KNOW this... is by experiencing it. I am not talking about "Belief" here... but direct experience. IF you were to accept what I say here.... THAT would be a Belief.... No Good in my book or yours either I am sure. So... I will NOT be disappointed if you do not ACCEPT what I say.... on the other hand..... You cannot really know that what I say is really illogical babble either...... I think the fairest thing to do is... stay open to the possibilities.... That there are things beyond the scope of Science, things that your current logic based min has not been exposed to.... but that are none the less Possible." - Faith (FaithRada@aol.com)

4) "Extraordinary evidence" is subject to perspective because those who have firsthand direct experience of the phenomena already have their "extraordinary evidence" while others who havent, dont. (See Argument # 5 regarding anecdotal evidence.) For instance, those who have had full blown OBEs already have a realization and knowing that separation of body and spirit can and has taken place, and that there is life after death, especially if they are able to witness specific details at a distance which are later verified as accurate. For them the experience is as apparent as it would be apparent to you whether you were in your own car or house. Similarly, those with transcendent mystical experiences describe it as an "inner knowing" that transcends all description and removes all doubt. In the same fashion, those who have seen Bigfoot or ghosts firsthand at close point-blank-range also have their "extraordinary evidence."

5) The argument is based on an unproven premise. It is based on the premise that paranormal phenomena are either impossible or extremely improbable. The reason it reflects this premise is obvious. Someone who believes that paranormal events are impossible is obviously going to need a lot more proof than someone who believes that they are possible and normal. However, just because miracles, ESP, sightings of apparitions, or OBEs haven't happened to skeptics doesn't mean they haven't happened to others. Likewise, just because I havent been to Spain doesnt mean that everyone who has is mistaken or deluded. In order for one to know what is impossible or improbable, one would have to be an all knowing creator of the universe who possesses every knowledge that there is. But none of these hard nosed skeptics are anywhere near that level, so their assumption that paranormal events are impossible in my view is baseless. As scientist and author Arthur C. Clarke states in his first law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

6) The argument favors conservatism or retaining the established theory in spite of contrary evidence. This has its pros and cons. Obviously, it makes sense to retain what works until something better comes along. However, when it comes to modifying our paradigms or world view we also tend to resist change, even when the data calls for it. This argument I fear, is used as an excuse for those who resist change. But if we never abandoned theories or expanded them, then science would not make progress. History has shown that progress comes with new discoveries and abandoning old outdated theories that no longer fit the new data acquired. This skeptical rule does not specify a sufficient condition for sufficient evidence. Therefore, rules should be established to clarify whether a competing theory is promising enough to warrant further research so that when those rules are satisfied, excuses cant be used to try to dismiss the evidence off hand. Otherwise, as Ron Pearson says in his article Theoretical Physics Back Survival: (http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vwzammit/afterlifech33.html#Heading34)

Science, however, cannot progress by theory alone; it requires a synthesis of theory and experiment. When observation runs ahead of theory to provide anomalies which seem inexplicable, then as history has shown by repeating itself over and over, the anomalies are avoided, ignored or discredited in order to maintain the status quo: to avoid the need to injure existing intellectual vested interests.



Argument # 3: The Occams Razor rule.

Typical usage: "When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely."

This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to a paranormal events, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. This principle was popularized by scientist Carl Sagan in his novel turned movie "Contact", where Jodie Foster quotes it while during a conversation with a theist to defend her belief that God doesnt exist. (Ironically, at the end of the movie it is used against her in a public interrogation by a National Security Agent.) However, an analysis on the facts and assumptions of this argument reveals some obvious problems.

1) First of all, Occams Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for. As Phil Gibbs points out in "Physics FAQ": (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)

"To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended ..

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

"The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute."

Even Isaac Newton didnt use Occams Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (see same Physics FAQ) Obviously, he was referring to explanations to explain natural phenomena, not paranormal or supernatural phenomena!

2) Second, what is "simpler" is often relative. As Phil Gibbs points out in the same Physics FAQ:

"Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do."

3) Third, even if we take Occams Razor at face value the way skeptics use it, just because one explanation is more likely doesnt mean that its always the correct one. For example, if I toss a die, it is more likely that I will get numbers 1-5 than it is that I will roll a 6. But that doesnt mean that a 6 will never come up. Therefore, occasionally an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes. However, skeptics treat Occams Razor as if it were an absolute rule and use it as an excuse for denying any claim, no matter how valid.

4) Fourth, while Occams Razor may be a good rule of thumb, the problem with it is that skeptics tend to use it as an excuse to insert false explanations over paranormal ones. They will do this even if it means denying the facts and assuming things that arent true or didnt happen. For example, if someone had an amazing psychic reading at a psychic fair (not prearranged) where they were told something very specific that couldnt have been guessed by cold reading, skeptics would start inventing false accusations such as: "Someone who knew you must have tipped off the psychic in advance", "A spy in the room must have overheard you mention the specific detail before the reading", "You must have something in your appearance that reveals the detail", "You must have remembered it wrong since memory is fallible", etc. Even if none of these accusations are true, skeptics will still insist on it simply because its the simpler explanation to them. Similarly, when someone during an NDE or OBE hears a conversation or witnesses something many miles away and later upon verification, it turns out to be true, the skeptics will say that the simpler explanation is that the patient knew about the detail or conversation beforehand but forgot it. Likewise, if someone has a close up encounter of Bigfoot, skeptics will use Occams Razor to claim that it is more likely that the experiencer was either lying or hallucinating. Even if none of those alternate explanations are true, skeptics will still insist on them anyway, using Occams Razor as justification. Hence, they prefer a false non-paranormal explanation, even if untrue, rather than accept the truth that it happened the way described. This is clearly a case of bias rather than objectivity. What skeptics dont seem to understand is that reality is not confined or measured by Occams Razor, and the use of Occams Razor in this manner does nothing but impede progress and learning.



Argument # 4: The "invisible pink unicorn / dragon in the garage" false comparison tactic.

Typical Usage: "Of course I can't prove that God, spirits, UFOs, paranormal phenomena or metaphysical realities don't exist, but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either."

The comparison used in this skeptical argument is notoriously common, yet severely flawed and ludicrous. It is often more of a belittling tactic than a reasoned logical argument. Used when skeptics are challenged to disprove a paranormal claim, they often state it like this: "Of course I can't prove that God, spirits, UFOs, paranormal phenomena or metaphysical realities don't exist, but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either." Other similar variations of this are "but you cant prove to me that there wasnt a dragon hiding in my garage either" and "but you cant prove to me that little green gremlins arent stealing pennies from my pockets either," etc. The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then its in the same category as everything thats been made up or fictionalized. However, it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons. A simple examination reveals this.

1) First of all, the biggest problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what a skeptic deliberately makes up for satirical purposes! To compare the two is ludicrous and illogical. Since the skeptic using this argument hasnt really experienced invisible pink unicorns himself, everyone knows that he is deliberately making up something fictitious to put down something he doesnt believe in while the experiencer or claimant is not. Comparing them would be like comparing my real life experience of visiting a foreign country to any fictitious story you can find such as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz. That simply makes no sense, even if misperception was involved on my part in my experience. Not only would that be nonsensical, but also both downgrading and insensitive.

2) Second, what someone sincerely believes is NOT the same as what someone knowingly makes up. Since the skeptic who uses this argument dont believe in invisible pink unicorns himself, it is pointless as well as inconsiderate to compare that to what people genuinely believe and experience, such as God, spirits, or ESP. Of course, just because someone genuinely believes something doesnt make it true, but to compare an honest person to a deliberate fraud is not a valid comparison.

3) Third, if like paranormal, psychic, religious, and spiritual experiences, there were millions of credible intelligent people out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns or dragons in their garage, then this comparison would have some merit. But there arent, so this comparison is without merit.

4) Fourth, the significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.

5) Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I cant prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I cant prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesnt mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.

The bottom line is that while it is true that no one can disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the evidence to support God, spirits and psychic phenomena, although mostly anecdotal, is vastly greater, more significant, more relevant, and more sincere than the evidence to support invisible pink unicorns and other fictitious examples deliberately made up by skeptics.



Argument # 5: The "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument.

Typical usage: "All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable and not valid evidence for paranormal claims."

Corollary: "Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence."

The "anecdotal evidence" classification is one of the main categories that skeptics put paranormal evidence into in order to dismiss it. (Another category being the "unreplicable / uncontrolled" group that scientific experiments supporting Psi are often put into. See Arguments # 17, 18) Skeptics who use this argument often claim that the evidence we have for paranormal claims is largely anecdotal and therefore worthless as scientific evidence. They claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid because it is largely untestable and subject to error. Some skeptics will even go so far as to say that anecdotal evidence is zero evidence. Not surprisingly though, skeptics tend to quote anecdotal evidence when it supports their side! (another double standard) Therefore it appears that classifying evidence as "anecdotal" is simply a dismissal tactic to try to discredit evidence that skeptics cant explain away.

One of the ways that skeptics dismiss anecdotal evidence to classify witnesses as either mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. This again reflect bias and pre-judgment on their part. Skeptics dont really know that a claimant must fit one of the above categories, they simply put them there to keep their mental model paradigms intact. This is further evidenced by the fact that many skeptics will continue to insist on one of these three categories even when they are shown to be either impossible or too unlikely to consider. This reflects cynicism rather than true skepticism.

While it may be true that paranormal evidence is largely anecdotal in nature, that by no means makes them worthless or untrue. Not only is anecdotal evidence mostly reliable with regard to everyday things, but its reliability can further be measured based on several factors. Consider the following.

1) Anecdotal evidence is mostly reliable in regard to everyday things. The main problem with the "anecdotal evidence is invalid" argument is that anecdotal evidence IS in fact mostly reliable with regard to everyday mundane things. Most of the stories and things I hear about tend to check out. If a tourist who visited France described the details of the Eiffel Tower to me, I could easily check it out by looking up books or brochures on it. When I hear that there is a sale going on for something at the local store, it is validated if I go and check it out. Once, when I heard that a new Star Wars movie was coming out, a year later the movie Star Wars The Phantom Menace came out. When I hear secondhand that something happened on the news, all I have to do is to turn on the news later and what I heard will be verified, often with regard to specific details such as names, number of victims, price hikes, etc. So we do see that anecdotal evidence is reliable in general. My experience has shown that over 90 percent of things I hear about check out later on. Now since anecdotal evidence is reliable and trustworthy for the MOST part with regard to everyday things, why should it be any different for paranormal phenomena just because it lies outside the skeptics belief system? With skeptics, what is mostly reliable suddenly becomes worthless zero evidence. This is because this argument is a dismissal tactic, used by pseudo-skeptics who prefer to lump all paranormal claims into the small percentage of instances that anecdotal evidence is mistaken or fraudulent. What they dont realize though, is that if skeptics were right about anecdotal evidence being unreliable, then most of the things I hear about with regard to everyday things would check out to be false, but in fact the exact opposite is true as I just mentioned! This alone seriously damages the dogma of this argument.

2) Anecdotal evidence is dependent upon perspective. My firsthand direct experiences are anecdotal evidence to others, while their direct experiences are anecdotal to me too. Therefore, whether something is anecdotal or not depends on whether or not you are the experiencer, rather than on it being true or false. Obviously, just because something happens to someone else doesnt mean that its false. This is not to say that what everyone says is true, but that just because my firsthand experience is anecdotal to someone else does not diminish its validity, especially if I am telling the truth. Of course, since closed-minded skeptics tend to prefer any explanation rather than a paranormal one, they will consistently use this dismissal tactic.

3) Important variables increase the reliability of anecdotal evidence. The degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence can usually be measured by variables such as:

a) The number of eyewitnesses.

b) The consistency of the observations and claims.

c) The credibility of the witnesses.

d) The clarity of and proximity of the observation.

e) The state of mind of the witnesses.

That is why anecdotal evidence is commonly accepted in many societal functions, such as in the court of law, with the strength of evidence directly proportionate to the number of eyewitnesses. If it was no evidence at all, the courts wouldn't be using it as such, but they do. Job interviewers rely on anecdotal evidence when they screen applicants by checking their references and former employers. If anecdotal evidence was worthless, they wouldnt be doing that. Most of us rely on anecdotal evidence when we get feedback from others about which brand of products are worth buying, which restaurants have good service, etc. (Of course, we consider this evidence more valid when it comes from people we know and trust.) In addition, psychiatric treatments and new medications are often evaluated based on anecdotal evidence.

Here is a further elaboration on the variables that determine the degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence, and how they have been more than adequately met for many paranormal phenomena.

a) The number and amount of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims. The more eyewitnesses and testimonies there are, the greater the weight of evidence. If one person told me something amazing, Id doubt it. But if a considerable number of people told me the same thing including people I know and trust, then I might think that there could be something to it. To put it simply, something is MORE likely to be true if a lot of people can attest to than if no one attested to it. This criteria is definitely met in the case of psychic phenomena and divine experiences. Surveys show that two-thirds of Americans claim to have had psychic experiences (mostly in the telepathic area) which is a significant number ranging over two hundred million in this country, not counting the rest of the world!

b) The consistency in the observations and claims of witnesses. The consistency in the reports we get is also significant. If people were lying or hallucinating, then it is unlikely for there to be consistency in their claims. Of course, consistency in observations and experiences does not mean that what was perceived was really what occurred, but it helps rule out fraud for the most part and points us in the right direction. This criteria is also met for some paranormal phenomena. In multiple witness sightings of ghosts and UFOs for instance, there are accounts of several or more people witnessing the same thing and describing the same details. Even more striking is consistency among people who dont know each other nor live near one another. For example, in the case of NDEs, we have great consistency among experiencers in the form of seeing their body below them, moving through a tunnel, going to a great light of love that some call God, going through a life review, returning with permanent life changes, etc. Of course, skeptics see this consistency as supporting their side because they see it as pointing to the similar brain structure that we humans have, which shuts down in a way that produces similar NDEs. More on NDEs will be elaborated in Argument # 23.

c) The credibility of the witnesses. The credibility of those making the reports and claims is also significant. Factors that influence credibility include integrity, character, whether theyve been known to lie before, education and expertise, mental stability, how well we know them personally (obviously you would place more value in the claim of someone you know and trust as opposed to a stranger), etc. We definitely have anecdotal evidence from this group for various paranormal/psychic phenomena. That is indisputable. Doctors and scientists of esteemed reputations have attested to miracles or paranormal phenomena. Trained radar personnel and Air Force observers have observed UFOs both on radar and in the sky. Accomplished quantum physicists have found quantum evidence that make psychic phenomena more plausible, such as the discovery that particles behave differently when observed as opposed to unobserved, the nonlocality and connectedness of twin particles that are split, etc. (see Fred Alan Wolfes Taking the Quantum Leap and Michael Talbots The Holographic Universe) Prominent Psychiatrists such as Dr. Brian Weiss, author of Many Lives, Many Masters, have discovered and documented clinical evidence that past life memories are real and can be verified. Besides experts, people that we know and trust also claim to experience or observed things of a paranormal nature. Note that Im not saying that an appeal to authority means that its right, only that it carries more weight.

d) The proximity and clarity of the observation. How close and clear an observation or experience takes place also an important factor. If someone thinks they see Bigfoot as a speck in the distance, then it could be dismissed as almost anything. However, if they saw Bigfoot at close-up point-blank-range, then it would be much more compelling and harder to dismiss. For the person to be mistaken at point-blank-range, he/she would have to be either lying or greatly hallucinating and in need of help. Otherwise, the skeptics should do some serious thinking about their beliefs! Again, this criteria has been met for some paranormal phenomena such as Bigfoot, UFOs and apparitions, which have been reportedly seen at point-blank-range in crystal clarity. Any research into will reveal lists of testimonials of this close-up nature.

e) The state of mind of the witness at the time. Another relevant variable is the mental state of the witness, which include factors such as their alertness level, fatigue level, intoxication level, emotional level, fear and panic level, etc. This criteria has also been satisfied for paranormal/psychic phenomena because many of the witnesses were sober, awake and sane at the time of their observations and experiences.

f) What the witnesses/experiencers stand to gain from their testimony or claim. Whether the witnesses profit in any way is also a factor to consider. What one stands to profit puts doubt on their sincerity since they have ulterior motives which might skew their objectivity. On the other hand, if they have nothing to gain then they are less likely to be manipulating us unless it was out of their genuine belief. This is especially so if theyve suffered ridicule and damage to their reputation for their claims. The latter has been true for both paranormal experiencers as well as those who made new discoveries that validated paranormal phenomena. Esteemed scientists and experts in their fields have risked their reputations to share their discoveries. These include physicist David Bohm (a protégé of Einstein and author of Wholeness and the Implicate Order) who postulated consciousness related quantum physics theories that contradicted the reductionist views of the universe, Miami Chair of Psychiatry Dr. Brian Weiss (author of Many Lives Many Masters) who endured ridicule and criticism from his peers for his clinical reports and discoveries in past life regression, and others.

Now of course not all of the evidence for every paranormal and psychic phenomena have met all these criteria, but many of them have met some or all of them. Therefore we can conclude that the evidence is overwhelmingly strong, and certainly not zero evidence like the skeptics claim.

Ordinarily, anecdotal evidence this strong is accepted as valid evidence in most circumstances, so why not in regard to paranormal or psychic phenomena, especially when its so common? The reason is because skeptics and certain scientists dont think these things are possible, therefore they assume that the fallibility of anecdotes must be the cause. In my experience with skeptics though, no matter how much better evidence you give them, they will still find excuses to reject them, even if it means imposing double standards, denying facts or preferring false explanations over paranormal ones. It is apparent that closed minded skeptics arent looking for evidence, but ways to shut it out to protect their views. After all, if theyre really looking for evidence, then why would they shut it out every time it comes up?

Even arch skeptic Bob Carroll of The Skeptics Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com) says that while anecdotal evidence may not be proof, but it helps point us in the right direction. (http://www.skepdic.com/comments/ndecom.html) This isnt saying of course, that we should believe every anecdotal claim out there. That would be foolish. This is just saying that just because an anecdotal claim doesnt fit ones world view, doesnt mean that it must be due to mistake, fraud or hallucination. The bottom line here is that although lots of people saying something doesnt mean its true, (the ad populum argument) it at makes it MORE likely to be true compared to if no one at all said it was true.

Finally, it can also be said that the skeptics subjective dismissal of anothers experience is just as unreliable as any anecdotal evidence. Greg Stone, director of the film "A Campaign to Remember" with Ted Koppel and an NDE/consciousness expert, makes some intriguing points about how skeptics treat anecdotal evidence: (taken from his email to me)

(referring to the writings of Skeptic Paul Kurtz):

"I suggest that rather than rejecting the eyewitness accounts of so many as unreliable, that he understand that his offhand subjective dismissal of anothers experience is equally unreliable. What is missing is his attempt at understanding what is -- based upon the accounts. That they are laden with the complexity of personal observation does not mean the underlying phenomena are not actual and real. The confusion of the scientist in sorting out complex evidence does not itself render the phenomena unreal...it only means the scientist lacks the insight or tools to do the work. Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place."



Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument to dismiss anecdotal evidence.

Typical Usage: "Memory is malleable and unreliable. People can remember a highly edited version of what occurred, making anecdotal evidence unreliable."

A common skeptical sub-tactic to try to further discredit anecdotal evidence (covered above in Argument # 5) is to attack the reliability of peoples memory. Skeptics argue that since memory is malleable, then the memory of paranormal experiencers is unreliable and therefore not to be trusted as valid evidence. This is related to the concept of False Memory Syndrome. Skeptics also try to justify it by using Occams Razor, claiming that inaccurate memory is a more probable and simpler explanation than any paranormal one. However, two significant problems with this argument reveal that is not only weak, but inapplicable as well, making it one of the least convincing of the skeptical arguments.

1) The main problem with this is that although memory isnt perfect and doesnt work like a tape recorder, the majority of what sane people remember IS reliable and can be checked out and verified. (See criteria 1 of Argument # 5) This is easily demonstrable. I could make a long list of things I did yesterday, last week, or even last year. And I could also make a long list of events that happened from yesterday to years ago. The vast majority of these things (I would bet over 95 percent of them) could easily be verified by other people, records/receipts, news articles of the events, etc. No one of course remembers every detail of every second of their life, but what we DO remember tends to be accurate and can be verified. This simple fact is severely damaging to the false memory dogma of this argument. Of course, there are bound to be a few details that are fuzzy that I may not remember correctly, but these are addressed in the second point below.

2) Where memory tends to be unreliable the most is in the area involving details that the brain considers too insignificant to remember (which is the category that most things go into such as the colors of the cars you saw on the way to work this morning, number of steps on a staircase, etc.). Thousands of details we perceive everyday which our minds consider useless and insignificant are discarded. Unfortunately for skeptics and debunkers, paranormal experiences dont fit into this category because they tend to be significant, shocking, and revealing. As we all know, significant life-altering events in our lives make the biggest impression in our memory and tend to be remembered immediately with clarity, not years afterward. Since paranormal/psychic experiences belong in this category, this further damages this already weak argument even more. In fact, people describing shocking or traumatic events from long ago tend to say, "It was years ago, but I can still see it as if it were happening right now." These memories are often the same way years later as they were the day they occurred. This means that the memory is consistent and reliable. Its not like I just thought of an event from years ago that made no impression on me back then and suddenly realize upon reflection that it was paranormal! Therefore memories of paranormal events are not likely to be created by memory malleability. Such was demonstrated in my own case when a psychic who sensed from my "vibrations" that there was a tragic period in my life when I was 9 years old. When a skeptic challenged the reliability of my memory of it, which only occurred a year and a half ago, I easily met his challenge by showing him a post I wrote up about it the day after it occurred, which contained the SAME details that I remember now. (its ironic these days when science and technology helps us prove skeptics wrong!)

Therefore, based on the two points above, the memory malleability argument is not only too weak to use to dismiss significant paranormal claims but also inadequate and inapplicable as well.



Argument # 7: "The burden of proof is on the claimant."

Typical Usage: "Skeptics don't have to disprove anything because they're not the ones making a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant."

When Skeptics who dismiss or deny are challenged to disprove something, they typically respond with this argument which states that since they are not the ones making the claim, they don't have to disprove anything, but that the burden of proof is on the claimant. This argument is similar to the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" requirement of Argument # 2 (see rebuttal for that section). While this may be sound sensible on the surface, it poses some problems for the skeptics' pursuit of knowledge.

1) First of all, as said before, just because one is unable to prove something to others doesn't mean that it is false or nonexistent. For instance, I can't prove what I dreamed about or thought about yesterday, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also, I can't conclusively prove that I saw a certain movie last month either. The skeptics could say that my saved ticket stub was stolen or forged, that my memory of the movie was obtained from hearing about it, that the people that were with me in the theater only constitute testimony and not proof, etc. You see, there is no way it could be proven 100 percent. Anyone who wants to deny can always find a reason to. The burden of proof may be on the claimant for the scientific and skeptical community to accept it, which is fine and understandable. But this argument is no grounds to use to dismiss claims and explain them away with alternate explanations, which skeptics like Michael Shermer tend to do. That would be more of what a cynic does. After all, why is a debunker's subjective dismissal more credible than one's direct experience? Skeptics can dismiss all they want, but they never seem to understand that they are doing it on purely subjective and speculative grounds.

2) Second, this argument does nothing to aid the skeptic's understanding of the paranormal. All it does is maintain the status quo of their own beliefs. If skeptics want some proof for something, they have to go find it themselves. Though not all paranormal experiences and encounters can be found by those willing to seek, some of them can at least. But asking a claimant to hand over proof on a silver platter isn't really going to lead anywhere. That's not how it works. How would one hand over proof of ghosts, UFO's, mystic experiences, or telepathic experiences, to a skeptic? Can one take a piece of a ghost and bring it back? Skeptics who want to investigate ghosts and UFO's should talk extensively to the eyewitnesses and perhaps spend some nights over in a haunted place, rather than just sitting back and thinking up their own explanations for it. Even the well-liked late Carl Sagan, who dismissed alien abductions offhand in his book The Demon Haunted World, never bothered to interview any abductees to learn about the abduction experience. That's certainly not the action of someone trying to understand something or looking for the truth. If a skeptic wants proof of metaphysical realities through mystical experiences or OBE's, they will have to do the work required to experience it themselves. There are a variety of techniques for inducing OBE's and astral projections. However, most skeptics are unwilling to do these type of things because they consider it a waste of their time since they don't think it's real. Instead, they lazily offer this argument, which makes sense scientifically, but progresses them nowhere in their knowledge or exploration. In fact, not bothering to investigate or experience something yourself, but just sitting back lazily and using this argument makes no sense.

3) Third, the claimant who already has his/her proof doesn't need to prove it to others to validate their experiences. NDEers often emphasize this. Their personal proof from their experience or encounter is a blessing, gift or message meant for them, not for the skeptics. In other words, the claimants, if sincere, have already proved it to themselves. Whether or not skeptics accept the proof is inconsequential to them. Skeptics can believe what they want, but what they think does nothing to change the reality of a paranormal phenomenon. The skeptics who only want to see proof from other people without looking for it themselves is totally missing out on their own transcendental experiences.



Argument # 8: "There is no hard evidence to support any paranormal phenomena."

This is a vague argument because it doesnt define what constitutes "hard evidence." If by hard evidence they mean something solid and tangible, then it would not be possible to obtain this from certain things like UFOs, ghosts, spirits, or ESP. since they are intangible in nature and possibly involve other dimensions we dont fully understand yet (could also be the case with UFOs). By this standard, we have no tangible evidence for stars, galaxies, black holes, or nebulas that are light years away either, although we can observe them. (Skeptics could argue that theyre just holographic images on a giant movie projector.) In the same manner, although we cant reach out and touch UFOs, we have observed them hovering in the sky and outmaneuvering our best aircraft. Even if all the photographs and video footage of UFOs were hoaxed, there are still many cases of sightings that were observed by whole cities or towns, such as the Mexico City mass sighting of January 1995. This indicates that theres "something" there causing these mass sightings. Of course, this "something" could be a whole range of things besides alien spacecraft, but at least its not zero evidence and not due purely to imagination. Though UFOs show up far less frequently than the other astronomical phenomena mentioned above, infrequent doesnt mean nonexistent. The possibility of winning the lottery is also very infrequent too, but not nonexistent. The same could also go for ghosts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, etc.

If by hard evidence they mean things that we can test and measure with experiments, then this would be difficult to do with ghosts and UFOs since they are out of our control, but this has already been done and replicated for psychic phenomena like telepathy and telekinesis (See evidence in Arguments # 17, 18). We have the vastly replicated Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld controlled telepathy experiments, the 20 year consistency of the Princeton Random Number Generator PK experiments, the controlled tests on psychics such as Uri Geller that he succeeded in, the recent tests on mediums by Dr. Gary Schwartz, and others. Skeptics need to clearly define what they want as hard evidence, rather than being vague about it and then raising the bar when anything is presented.



Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method.

Typical Usage: "The only reliable way to know about anything is through the scientific method. All other methods are unreliable."

This statement is usually made by skeptics who glorify and worship science as their God, even though they would never put it in those terms due to the connotations of them.

1) First, this is an absolutist statement since there is not just one single way to know everything. Other ways of knowing things include direct observation, personal experience, textbooks and articles, and advice from those who are wiser and more experienced than us. There are countless real things I can experience that dont need to be proved by the scientific method. Even mundane examples can demonstrate that. For instance, I can see rainbows by direct observation even though I cant bring them back to scientists, though they can see them too if they chose to go look. I can learn parenting through the experience of being a parent, and swimming by the experience of going into the water. Marketers and businesses learn the marketability of their products through surveys. We can also learn valuable things from wiser and more experienced people too, despite the fact that we didnt use any scientific method to check them out. In addition, I cant prove where I was yesterday either with the scientific method, but that doesnt mean that any claim of where I was yesterday is false. Neither can I prove what I dreamed last night with the scientific method either, but that doesnt mean that I dont know what I dreamed about. Likewise, if Acupuncture or some alternative medicine technique works for me, then I know that it works for me regardless of whether its proven by the scientific method or not. Not everything has to be official for it to be true. (See rebuttal to Argument # 1 for more on that.) The scientific method is a tool for testing hypothesis and finding out things, not for defending ones own paradigms.

2) Second, since successful psi results have been achieved in tests conducted under the scientific method, (See Arguments 17, 18) it can be said that evidence for psi has been gained from the scientific method anyway. Not surprisingly though, skeptics tend to only accept results done with the scientific method that show the results they want, which is no psi results and only chance results.

3) Third, things dont have to be proved by science in order to be true. (as explained in Argument # 1) Many things were true and real before science discovered or proved them. Though the converse of this is also true, why should we consider the skeptics subjective dismissal as being more reliable than ones direct experience? Besides, without direct experience, how would we know anything at all? A member of my discussion list, Greg Stone, put it very well when he posted:

"But balanced against science's supposed lack of evidence one finds the DIRECT EXPERIENCE of those who report. And the reports are consistent and voluminous. Thus, while science, according to Kurtz, cannot weigh in definitively on either side of the equation, the DIRECT EXPERIENCES are a fact. And, as everyone knows, we do not need to check with science to confirm all the aspects of our daily lives...we did not need to wait for science to properly define and experiment with the atom before we could manipulate things made up of atoms."

"Experience, direct knowledge, is of a higher order of understanding than mere subjective speculation without experience. If one were to accept your argument that experience is intrinsically invalid as a way of knowing, then you undermine your entire position as you have nothing else upon which to base ANYTHING. Thus, we see the weakness of a position that replaces firsthand knowledge, firsthand experience with the SPECULATION of someone who has no experience."

"Which one does the real scientist consider more valid... the report of a direct experience (make that volumes of consistent reports) OR the musings of someone with NO experience, only their speculation?"

Now I dont dispute that science is our best way of collecting knowledge, testing theories, or discovering how things work. The point is that it is not the ONLY way. And since science has not disproved the existence of God, life after death, spirits, or psi, then there is no point in skeptics trying to use science to dismiss those things. Furthermore, the best method of knowing things also depend on the kind of knowledge one is attempting to acquire. There are many issues and problems everyday for which empiricism is impractical or impossible. We make many rational daily decisions both individually and as a society that are based on no empirical observations. Sometimes common sense and direct observation are all that are required.

Dean Radin points out in the beginning of his book The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, that new scientific discoveries tend to go through stages. He writes: (page 1)

"In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptic confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea being to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

The idea discussed in this book is in the midst of the most important and the most difficult of the four transitions - from Stage 1 into Stage 2."



Argument # 10: "Paranormal and supernatural phenomena arent possible because they contradict all known natural laws gained from science."

First of all, natural laws as we define them are based on our interpretation of empirical testing and observation. Therefore, they are subject to constant change as new discoveries are found which challenge or contradict our models. Throughout history, we have constantly updated and expanded our understanding of the laws of how the universe works. In the past, it was said that things like heavier than air flight and going to the moon were impossibilities. Skeptics of those things were proven wrong of course. At one time, according to the law of aerodynamics, a hummingbird shouldnt be able to hover, yet it did, so we had to figure out why and revise our laws of aerodynamics. When Albert Einstein discovered that light travels at a constant speed (e.g. if youre traveling in a car and shine a flashlight forward, the cars speed is not added to the lights speed), and formulated his theory of relativity (time slows down as you go faster), and postulated that gravity involves distortion of space, all these things contradicted the Newtonian laws of physics at the time, yet they were eventually validated. As of now, special relativity and quantum mechanics are at odds with each other, and physicists are seeking a grand unified theory to unite them both. As history has shown, we constantly update and expand our laws of physics to fit the data, not deny the data and new discoveries just to protect our beliefs.

In fact, new discoveries in quantum physics each year are shattering the materialistic reductionist view we had of the universe, making psychic phenomena and other dimensions more plausible. These include the non-locality (meaning distance and space dont exist) of twin particles (discovered by Alan Aspect in 1982), string theories that postulate several other dimensions beside our own, the discovery that particles behave differently when observed (making psychokinesis more probable), etc. (See Fred Alan Wolfes Taking the Quantum Leap and The Spiritual Universe) Each new discovery seems proves the skeptics wrong and moves us further from their views and closer to metaphysical paradigms. This is obviously not a good sign for their case. It appears that the skeptic camp is a sinking ship that one should get off to avoid embarrassment. Just the discovery alone in quantum physics that all matter is a form of vibrating energy makes paranormal and psychic phenomena much more plausible and understandable.

Finally, good theories try to unify the data. As Ron Pearson notes in his article Theoretical Physics Back Survival: (http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vwzammit/afterlifech33.html#Heading34)

"Theories make sense of the experiments and show how apparently unrelated phenomena are

aspects of the same thing. Good theories provide unifications. For example, magnetism and electricity were separate fields when science was in its infancy. As understanding grew it was found that magnetic effects could be produced by electric currents and the converse also applied. Now we speak of electromagnetism as a single force; one of the four forces of nature. Theoretical physicists hope ultimately to join these by a unified field theory arising from a single 'superforce'."

Argument # 11: "Unexplainable does not mean inexplicable."



This phrase is emphasized by arch skeptic Michael Shermer, author of Why People Believe Weird Things. This argument means that just because something is unexplainable does not mean that paranormal forces must have been involved, only that we havent found the explanation for it yet. However, skeptic who use this should also remember that the following converses are true as well:

1) Just because something happens that they think isnt possible doesnt mean that it didnt happen. To do so would be to deny reality.

2) Just because something happens that they think isnt possible doesnt mean that it must be due to misperception, fraud, or hallucination.

3) Just because a natural explanation hasnt been found for something unexplainable doesnt mean that only a natural explanation could exist.

4) If a natural explanation doesnt explain all the facts, that doesnt mean that you should insist on it anyway just to protect your belief system.

Take the following example. In the reincarnation cases investigated by Dr. Ian Stevenson in his book Twenty Suggestive Cases of Reincarnation, none of the natural explanations account for the data and facts of the cases, such as babies and children having accurate detailed memories of their past lives which couldnt have been obtained in their environment, but are later verified to be true. Dr. Stevenson concludes that the reincarnation hypothesis best fits the data he personally investigated. Though the skeptic is free to insist that a natural explanation must be the culprit anyway, (and often does) he does so by flatly denying the four converse rules above. Would Shermer approve of that, I wonder? (For more on the reincarnation phenomena, check out Twenty Suggestive Cases of Reincarnation and Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery.)



Argument # 12: "Skeptics dont have beliefs. They/I base our views and judgments on the degree of evidence."

Some skeptics on the extreme end even go so far as to claim that unlike the rest of the world, they dont have "beliefs" but reasoned judgments based on pure evidence alone. Not all skeptics claim to be immune to beliefs, but there are some that do. This is plain silly though, because statements of belief can be found in almost anything someone says. We all do things and say things based on assumptions we have, which are formed in part based on beliefs. These assumptions are sometimes in the line of beliefs because they are not always based on hard evidence, but our world views, predisposition, and natural tendencies. Beliefs are especially found in the skeptical arguments discussed so far, as most of the skeptical arguments in this article are clear statements of a priori belief, such as "It is irrational to believe anything that hasnt been proven" (Argument # 1) and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Argument # 2) Further common skeptical beliefs include "Believers in the paranormal are irrational", "Psi is improbable", "Psychics and mediums prey on the gullible" and "Psi experiments show no better than chance results when proper controls are put into place".

Though skeptics will claim that their views are based on the evidence that theyve examined, they rarely apply their skepticism to their own beliefs, which any true skeptic would do. Furthermore, upon close scrutiny its obvious that they prefer false explanations to paranormal ones, resort to character assassinations, and ignore data that doesnt fit their hypotheses. Strange behavior for people who dont have beliefs! Rather, I think that skeptics are using this "I dont have beliefs" argument to excuse themselves from having to defend their views, while shifting the burden to believers and paranormalists.



Argument # 13: "A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry."

This statement is usually found in introductions or FAQs sections of skeptical websites and books. Here is an example from the website of The Skeptics Society: (http://www.skeptic.com/faqs.html)

"What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse "skeptic" with "cynic" and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideasno sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position."

What these skeptics dont understand is that people in general dont have misconceptions about skepticism as a concept. The cynicism that people see in so called "skepticism" is not due to their misunderstanding of the word itself, but due to the cynical WORDS and ACTIONS of the PEOPLE who call themselves skeptics. When pseudo-skeptics make cynical statements such as in the arguments presented in this article, they portray to others a cynical closed method of thinking, dismissing anything that they dont understand or consider possible. Thats where this impression comes from. Cynics who masquerade behind science and skepticism often reveal their cynicism through their words, thinking methodologies, closed system of beliefs, and dogmatic assertions. The six common flawed tactics described in the introduction of this article are the kind of things that give others the impression of cynicism. This is why even some of the well known skeptics and leaders of organized skeptic groups are perceived as cynics, including James Randi (the famous magician, author, debunker, and nemesis of Uri Geller), Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine), Joe Nickell (one of the leaders of CSICOP), Martin Gardner (psychic debunker), Susan Blackmore (University of London Psychology Professor and proponent of the Dying Brain Hypothesis of NDEs), etc. These people use closed ways of thinking to dismiss data that dont fit into their hypotheses, which is prevalent from statements made in their articles/books. Therefore, these closed minded skeptics are the ones that have the misconception of mistaking their cynicism with true skepticism.



Argument # 14: "Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational, childish and uninformed ways."

This statement is often made by the more extreme and opinionated type of skeptic. Fortunately, many skeptic groups have realized the extremity and folly of these type of statements and have stopped making them in public. The fact is, many who hold spiritual beliefs or metaphysical views came to them after researching all the data and examining the different explanations, making informed conclusions.

Nevertheless, it can also be argued that closed-minded skeptics who are out to debunk everything paranormal are thinking in irrational and uninformed ways because they simply refuse to consider the data that support strong paranormal phenomena cases, but instead dismiss it on a priori grounds. If they are not up to date on the evidence, then they are the ones who are acting uninformed. How can one be truly informed if they only wish to look at the data that support their views? Rationalizing away facts to defend ones paradigm is not an example of rational thinking.

Furthermore, people who hold paranormal or other non-empirical beliefs may simply be expressing a cultural, personal or spiritual view, and nothing more. This does not mean they are less intelligent, more irrational or childish than non-believers of the paranormal. In fact, these people are usually capable of applying rational and intelligent thought to a wide variety of everyday situations when it matters, and no doubt do this effectively and rationally.

We have to remember that basically, it is simply our a-priori beliefs that affect our acceptance of the data for paranormal phenomena. Closed minded skeptics and debunkers know going into an investigation that there is a natural explanation, and are firmly committed to finding it. The problem is that it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions. It also doesn't do much for skepticisms reputation when a researcher goes in (falsely, and obviously so) proclaiming neutrality when the reality is otherwise. Why not just be honest and say "I don't believe it. It is possible to convince me, but I don't think that is going to happen because in my experience, the world doesn't work that way.'"?



Argument #15: "Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality."

This phrase has often been used in articles and websites of skeptical organizations and magazines, including CSICOPs Skeptical Inquirer and others. Fortunately, this phrase is now critiqued by skeptics themselves, and used less. Michael Sofka of ISUNY and author of the article Myths of Skepticism, (http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html) points out that CSICOP often uses it in their fundraising requests. Folklorist Stephanie Hall comments on this in her article Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics: (http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/skeptics.html)

"Another change advocated by many Skeptics is in the choice of language used to represent skepticism to others. For instance, a phrase that has commonly appeared in articles by Skeptics and in statements in the brochures or Web sites of skeptic groups was an expression of concern about "the rising tide of irrationality." But although this phrase became an identity marker demonstrating alliance with organized skepticism and a statement of shared concern, it has increasingly been criticized by Skeptics themselves. At the NCAS Millennial Madness workshop in May 1999, Chip Denman critiqued this phrase as, perhaps, skepticism's own bit of Millennialism, asking questions such as, "What do we mean by irrationality? How is it measured? How do we know it is rising?" It seems that this phrase, as a marker of skeptical identity, may be going out of fashion.

These events are an indication to me as a researcher that Skepticism is going through changes as it grows, as we might expect in any social movement, and that local groups are beginning to discover the things they have in common. Perhaps because the movement has steadily grown and this may inspire confidence and stability, Skeptics also seem increasingly willing to critique themselves and express strong views on the ways they do and do not want skepticism to be presented to the public. This self-analysis is, of course, a good thing, for any rational endeavor should be willing to critique itself."

Chip Denman, quoted above by Hall, makes a good point. The statement fails to define what is considered to be irrational. Most likely, what they mean by irrational is anything others believe in that doesnt fit their world view or hasnt been proven their way. Therefore, this is more a statement of bias and faith, rather than fact. If by irrational they mean unproven, then this is false too as there is strong evidence for many paranormal and psychic phenomena (See Argument # 1)

In fact, there does not seem to be any evidence of an increase in irrationality or superstition. I would challenge any skeptic to show me a mass poll where a high percentage of people admit literally that they believe in "superstition and irrationality". There probably arent any, because most people dont label their beliefs as superstition or irrationality. It is the skeptics who label paranormal beliefs as such. Thats an important thing to remember. Even the polls published over the years in Skeptical Inquirer indicate at most a shift in emphasis as one belief replaces another in the popular imagination. Moreover, to the extent that polls have been done we find church attendance dropping, and people shifting from organized religions to less formal or more individualized forms of spirituality. In the traditional religious sense, our society is more secular now than before.

It appears that on the whole irrationality, belief, and credulity are at about the same level as they have always been, just distributed in different ways. What probably is going on is that this phrase is used to describe new and expanded beliefs (i.e. New Age type beliefs) versus established beliefs in society, with the new beliefs appearing as though there is an increase.



Section II: Critique of Skeptical Arguments Against Specific Paranormal Phenomena.

Argument # 16: "Psychics and mediums use a technique called cold reading to amaze you with accurate hits, not psychic powers.

This is a common skeptical argument against professional and non-professional psychics and mediums. Skeptics claim that psychics and mediums use cold reading to pick up clues about clients and amaze them. First, let me explain what cold reading is. Then Ill explain why it does not account for all psychic readings. Cold reading is an umbrella term for a series of techniques used by magicians and mentalists (specialists in mind reading tricks) to employ a variety of methods to gain information and clues about a client for a reading. These methods include but are not limited to: fishing for clues by asking questions, listening to everything a client says to get clues, making general or vague statements that most people interpret as hits, observing facial expressions and body language as you make statements, analyzing clues from a persons dress and demeanor, and other mentalist tricks, etc. (despite what politically correct people say, it is a fact that there are many things you can tell about a person based on their looks, even from a photograph) Even the smallest things can give a trained cold reader important clues about you. In conjunction with cold reading, another technique known as "hot reading" can also be used. Hot reading is the technique of investigating a persons background and records prior to a psychic reading to obtain specific information about them. Mentalists performing in stage shows often use hot reading to obtain prior information about audience members beforehand, such as maiden names, former addresses, etc. Cold reading can be used both consciously and unconsciously. Some cold readers knowingly use and develop their cold reading techniques like a skill or art. Others may subconsciously use cold reading techniques, attributing it to intuition or psychic abilities, thus deluding themselves as well as their clients.

Although it is true th