Nonbeliever, and here's my thought process on it...
When we see something we can't explain, it's unsettling, so we often seek an explanation to settle that feeling, even if we must create one. For those who see a "psychic performance" of some sort, we are immediately unsettled by the question "how did that happen?" If the psychic seems able to accomplish something which seems outside our own capabilities, we may ascribe to the psychic additional capabilities that are not had by all, and that explanation satisfies the unsettling feeling -- for some.
For others, the existence of those additional capabilities opens the door to further unsettling questions -- "what is/are the mechanism(s) by which these capabilities operate?", for example. "Magic" or "supernatural" explanations fall into this same category -- basically answering the question "how did that happen?" by saying "it's magic." Saying "it's magic" is turning an unknown thing into a category, which then becomes a known thing simply by giving it a name (but not understanding or seeking to understand how it works), and thus satisfies the unsettling feeling of the question "how did that happen?"
Not being able to find satisfactory explanations for these new questions, we skeptics go back to the beginning, and look deeper to see if there is an alternative explanation for "the psychic must have magical powers." These explanations are found within psychological study, and many experiments have been conducted testing how humans react and behave and perceive in a myriad of situations, more than those that encompass "psychic performances."
James Randi is a well-known skeptic, and he (and other skeptics, such as myself) follows the second course of action, attempting through rigorous observation and detailed collection and analysis of data to decipher what is actually going on, as opposed to what our psychological biases lead us to believe. Basically, this perspective is that psychic (and other supernatural) phenomena is a sort of optical illusion -- the result of a trick of the way our brains process stimuli. To test these ideas, a representation of the same "illusion" principle is presented in a controlled laboratory setting, and results of human participation are recorded and analyzed. If the results are similar in the lab to the "field" of a psychic performance, we can say then that "psychic ability" is not the only possible explanation. And since the alternative (illusions based on human perception) does not lead to further unsettling questions for the skeptics, this path is the one followed by them.
An example is an analysis of "cold reading" techniques. In short, when we are witnessing a psychic performance of calling out predictions in front of an audience, those who follow the path of explanation utilizing "psychic capabilities" will seek to affirm their beliefs. As a result, they will tend to remember more strongly the "hits" (correct predictions) and tend to forget the "misses" (incorrect predictions) of the psychic's readings. They will also tend to find any evidence of a pattern within randomness, emphasizing those points that fit the pattern and dismissing those points that don't. Skeptics like Randi would attempt to avoid the pitfalls of human perception and take a tally of hits and misses to find out the actual percentage of "hits" relative to the total number of predictions, and take into account hits based simply on probability that could be made by anyone knowing what characteristics are commonly found within an audience (i.e. what name is most common, what are the odds that someone in an audience lost a loved one to cancer, being able to make general assumptions based on appearance and physical/behavioral characteristics observed of audience members, etc).
So, in my opinion, it all comes down to what you want to believe, and you will find something that satisfies your unsettling question of "how did that happen?" either way. The divide is based on whether the "psychics have magical capabilities" explanation settles you, or leads to further unsettling. Being a skeptic, I think that believing in psychic/magical capabilities means that you answer the first question of "how did that happen?" but then tell yourself that it's pointless to ask further questions. I will always ask questions, so that path is not satisfactory to me.
When we see something we can't explain, it's unsettling, so we often seek an explanation to settle that feeling, even if we must create one. For those who see a "psychic performance" of some sort, we are immediately unsettled by the question "how did that happen?" If the psychic seems able to accomplish something which seems outside our own capabilities, we may ascribe to the psychic additional capabilities that are not had by all, and that explanation satisfies the unsettling feeling -- for some.
For others, the existence of those additional capabilities opens the door to further unsettling questions -- "what is/are the mechanism(s) by which these capabilities operate?", for example. "Magic" or "supernatural" explanations fall into this same category -- basically answering the question "how did that happen?" by saying "it's magic." Saying "it's magic" is turning an unknown thing into a category, which then becomes a known thing simply by giving it a name (but not understanding or seeking to understand how it works), and thus satisfies the unsettling feeling of the question "how did that happen?"
Not being able to find satisfactory explanations for these new questions, we skeptics go back to the beginning, and look deeper to see if there is an alternative explanation for "the psychic must have magical powers." These explanations are found within psychological study, and many experiments have been conducted testing how humans react and behave and perceive in a myriad of situations, more than those that encompass "psychic performances."
James Randi is a well-known skeptic, and he (and other skeptics, such as myself) follows the second course of action, attempting through rigorous observation and detailed collection and analysis of data to decipher what is actually going on, as opposed to what our psychological biases lead us to believe. Basically, this perspective is that psychic (and other supernatural) phenomena is a sort of optical illusion -- the result of a trick of the way our brains process stimuli. To test these ideas, a representation of the same "illusion" principle is presented in a controlled laboratory setting, and results of human participation are recorded and analyzed. If the results are similar in the lab to the "field" of a psychic performance, we can say then that "psychic ability" is not the only possible explanation. And since the alternative (illusions based on human perception) does not lead to further unsettling questions for the skeptics, this path is the one followed by them.
An example is an analysis of "cold reading" techniques. In short, when we are witnessing a psychic performance of calling out predictions in front of an audience, those who follow the path of explanation utilizing "psychic capabilities" will seek to affirm their beliefs. As a result, they will tend to remember more strongly the "hits" (correct predictions) and tend to forget the "misses" (incorrect predictions) of the psychic's readings. They will also tend to find any evidence of a pattern within randomness, emphasizing those points that fit the pattern and dismissing those points that don't. Skeptics like Randi would attempt to avoid the pitfalls of human perception and take a tally of hits and misses to find out the actual percentage of "hits" relative to the total number of predictions, and take into account hits based simply on probability that could be made by anyone knowing what characteristics are commonly found within an audience (i.e. what name is most common, what are the odds that someone in an audience lost a loved one to cancer, being able to make general assumptions based on appearance and physical/behavioral characteristics observed of audience members, etc).
So, in my opinion, it all comes down to what you want to believe, and you will find something that satisfies your unsettling question of "how did that happen?" either way. The divide is based on whether the "psychics have magical capabilities" explanation settles you, or leads to further unsettling. Being a skeptic, I think that believing in psychic/magical capabilities means that you answer the first question of "how did that happen?" but then tell yourself that it's pointless to ask further questions. I will always ask questions, so that path is not satisfactory to me.
Last edited:
