James Randi is everyones favorite super skeptic. Frankly, I don't even think he would accept that the world is round if he could find some way to convince himself otherwise.

But, skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing...

First of all, people claim that he purposely picks mediums and psychics with almost no talent that are likely frauds in the first place, and THESE are the ones that get to do his tests.

Is this true?

Take spiritual mediums for instance.

If I round up some of the better spiritual mediums, say 10 or more, and I go out in the street and pick up 10 or so sitters at random, and have the mediums perform readings for them...

There you go. You will have a ton of data from the readings to go over. Honestly, if I was there overseeing such a test and some of the mediums are able to get SOLID hits that are way too complex to be a guess....well, I would have to concede at the minimum there is some sort of energy that I cannot detect that mediums are connecting with.

Has James Randi done such an experiment?
Does his assistant simply pick out the fakes and losers just to help hold up they're own viewpoint?
- Purposefully avoiding anyone likely to actually show true results?

The whole thing has me rather upset and confused. I myself AM a "Super Skeptic." I am an agnostic, but I prefer not to consider myself an atheist because I have met many atheist that are completely closed minded.

I believe that the afterlife is a definite possibility, that has not been proven or 100% dis-proven for me to make a real decision.

James Randi has had an OBE. He talks about his OBE on youtube.

Oh that's easy, I am sure he debunks OBE by stating that it is simply a trick of the brain and the whole thing involves the brain.

Any scientist would accept that simple explanation in fact!

That is unless the scientist was able to continue concrete repeatable OBE tests involving specific signs / words / numbers in a closed, blind, secure environment where the OBE experimenter can continue to report what the image being displayed is.

In response an OBE advocate/believer will simply say, well, it just doesn't work that way.

Then in response the scientist will say, well... then I cannot effectively test your supposed OBE.

In conclusion, OBE may be a real legitimate occurrence, yet it may also simply be a brain related illusion.

So therefore what IS the Bottom line scientifically?

OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.

Dr wrote:

'OBE cannot be scientifically proven. Period.'

How about this scenario: we take a number of people who claim to be able to obe. We have them 'go out of body'/ phase and collect information of relevence to them rather than numbers/letters etc. e.g what activity their children are engaged in at that moment. This information is collected. A control group is set up who claim no such proficiency and we have them attempt to do the same.We score both sets for accuracy. Lets say the OBEs have an accuracy of 37% while the control are 25%.Does'nt sound impressive. But as Dean Radin explains in The Conscious Universe small differences like this can become astronomically significant when subject to multi-centre replication and given statistical meta-analysis e.g. billions to one against chance. This is the case for things like ESP for example.

Rather than methodological problems its maybe more about scientific will and finance ...

I would only say that from my understanding most people don't OBE into C1, so how is trying to what is basically remote view going to ever produce a high percentage of hits? I can appreciate the difference between seeking numbers and letters AND seeking info on something more important and close to the OBEer, but if most people OBE to an astral realm that resembles C1 but isn't then how do we make a solid conclusion?

Dr. Who wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 11:27pm:


Here is an exert from an OBE experiment by Dr. Charles Tart, Psychologist. You can check out the whole article here:

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=50

Out-of-the-Body Experiences: Second Study

"....On the first three laboratory nights Miss Z reported that in spite of occasionally being “out,” she had not been able to control her experiences enough to be in position to see the target number (which was different each night). On the fourth night, at 5:57am, there was a seven minute period of somewhat ambiguous EEG activity, sometimes looking like stage 1, sometimes like brief wakings. Then Miss Z awakened and called out over the intercom that the target number was 25132, which I wrote on the EEG recording. After she slept a few more minutes I woke her so she could go to work and she reported on the previous awakening that:

    I woke up; it was stifling in the room. Awake for about five minutes. I kept waking up and drifting off, having floating feelings over and over. I needed to go higher because the number was lying down. Between 5:50 and 6:00 A.M. that did it. . . I wanted to go read the number in the next room, but I couldn’t leave the room, open the door, or float through the door. . .. I couldn’t turn on the air conditioner!

The number 25132 was indeed the correct target number. I had learned something about designing experiments since my first OBE experiment and precise evaluation was possible here. The odds against guessing a 5digit number by chance alone are 100,000 to 1, so this is a remarkable event! Note also that Miss Z had apparently expected me to have propped the target number up against the wall behind the shelf, but she correctly reported that it was lying flat...."

Until recently I had always assumed Tart was from the turn of the last century. I didn't realize he worked With RAM. As trusting as I am I have to admit that it is a little suspect that the only person who gives pretty definitive proof of the OBE is no longer available. I mean, sheesh, I would have made very sure that I stayed in touch with her and if not, why wouldn't she come forward after reading Tart's book? I hate to say this because I am certainly a proponent of OBE and NDE and all, but it seems like a lot of the proof is hard to nail down. For example, the dentures story and the sneaker story with NDEs. These people just vanished after telling their story. I can't believe that researchers could be that lax when it comes to staying in touch. But still I am firm when it comes to consciousness being fundamental. I'm quite sure of it.

The biggest problem we are faced with is, the moment the subject projects, in 95 out of 100 events he/she will project into the a nonphysical dimension, simply because it is the corresponding energy equivalent to the astral body. (I wrote a little article about that on my website http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Mechanics_of_Out-of-body... )

We are unlikely to get lots of hits under laboratory conditions. The only way one will probably ever feel convinced is by actually experiencing it oneself. Having said that in my early days I tried all sorts of tests to convince myself. Now I am convinced I enjoy spending my time when out of the body in "mapping" out our multidimensional territory.

Though I eagerly await the time when science delivers a "projection device" (parts of the brain which are active during lucid dreaming have already been identified according to New Scientist). This would increase our numbers. May be it is a numbers game.