Editing Psychic (section)

==Criticism and research==
[[File:Ganzfeld.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Participant of a [[Ganzfeld experiment|Ganzfeld Experiment]] whose results have been criticized as being misinterpreted as evidence for [[telepathy]]]] [[Parapsychology|Parapsychological research]] has attempted to use [[random number generators]] to test for [[psychokinesis]], mild sensory deprivation in the [[Ganzfeld experiment]] to test for [[extrasensory perception]], and research trials conducted under contract by the U.S. government to investigate [[remote viewing]]. Critics such as Ed J. Gracely say that this evidence is not sufficient for acceptance, partly because the intrinsic probability of psychic phenomena is very small.<ref name="Gracely"/>

Critics such as [[Ray Hyman]] and the [[National Science Foundation]] suggest that parapsychology has methodological flaws that can explain the experimental results that parapsychologists attribute to paranormal explanations, and various critics have classed the field as [[pseudoscience]]. This has largely been due to a lack of replication of results by independent experimenters.<ref name=NSF2006>{{Cite journal|title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 |publisher=[[National Science Board]] |year=2006 |url=https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818094952/https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm |archive-date=2015-08-18 }}</ref><ref name=Hyman>{{Cite journal|last=Hyman |first=Ray |author-link=Ray Hyman |title=Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena |journal=The Journal of Parapsychology |volume=59 |issue=1 |year=1995 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120709142606/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-09 |access-date=2007-07-30 }}</ref><ref name=Akers>{{Cite journal |author=Akers, C. |title=Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 4 |publisher=PesquisaPSI |year=1986 |url=http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html |access-date=2007-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223348/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html |archive-date=2007-09-27 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal
 |author=Child, I.L. 
 |title=Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 5 
 |publisher=PesquisaPSI 
 |year=1987 
 |url=http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html 
 |access-date=2007-07-30 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html 
 |archive-date=2007-09-27 
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wiseman |first=Richard |author2=Smith, Matthew |title=Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments – Psychophysical Research Laboratories |journal=The Journal of Parapsychology |year=1996 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120709230555/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-09 |access-date=2007-07-30 |display-authors=etal }}</ref>

The evidence presented for psychic phenomena is not sufficiently verified for scientific acceptance, and there exist many non-paranormal alternative explanations for claimed instances of psychic events. [[Parapsychologists]], who generally believe that there is some evidence for psychic ability, disagree with critics who believe that no psychic ability exists and that many of the instances of more popular psychic phenomena such as [[mediumship|mediumism]], can be attributed to non-paranormal techniques such as [[cold reading]], [[hot reading]], or even self-[[delusion]].<ref name=critandcont1>EBauer, berhard (1984) "[http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology – An Overview] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070621043016/http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf |date=2007-06-21 }}", Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, European Journal of Parapsychology, 5, 141–166 (2007-02-09)</ref><ref name=mediumship1>O'Keeffe, Ciarán and Wiseman Richard (2005) "[http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070207093521/http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/MediumBJP.pdf |date=2007-02-07 }}", British Journal of Psychology, 96, 165–17</ref> Cold reading techniques would include psychics using flattery, intentionally making descriptions, statements or predictions about a person vague and ambiguous, and surreptitiously moving on to another prediction when the psychic deems the audience to be non-responsive.<ref>{{cite book |last = Wiseman |first = Richard |author-link = Richard Wiseman |date = 2011 |title = ''Paranormality'' |pages=36–38}}</ref> [[Magic (illusion)|Magicians]] such as [[James Randi]], [[Ian Rowland]] and [[Derren Brown]] have demonstrated techniques and results similar to those of popular psychics, but they present physical and psychological explanations as opposed to paranormal ones.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}}

In January 2008 the results of a study using [[Functional magnetic resonance imaging|neuroimaging]] were published. To provide what are purported to be the most favorable experimental conditions, the study included appropriate emotional stimuli and had participants who are biologically or emotionally related, such as twins. The experiment was designed to produce positive results if [[telepathy]], [[clairvoyance]] or [[precognition]] occurred, but despite this, no distinguishable neuronal responses were found between psychic stimuli and non-psychic stimuli, while variations in the same stimuli showed anticipated effects on patterns of brain activation. The researchers concluded that "These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."<ref name=MK>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Moulton ST, Kosslyn SM |title=Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate |journal=Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=182–92 |date=January 2008 |pmid=18095790 |doi=10.1162/jocn.2008.20.1.182 |url=http://www.creativespirit.net/psiresearch/neuroimagepsi.pdf |access-date=2017-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170812011925/http://www.creativespirit.net/psiresearch/neuroimagepsi.pdf |archive-date=2017-08-12 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[James Alcock]] had cautioned the researchers against the wording of said statement.<ref>Science contradicts Psi, Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2008</ref>

A detailed study of [[Sylvia Browne]] predictions about missing persons and murder cases found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct, "Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Shafer | first1 = R | last2 = Jadwiszczok | first2 = A. | year = 2010 | title = Psychic defective: Sylvia Browne's history of failure | url = http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure/ | journal = [[Skeptical Inquirer]] | volume = 34 | issue = 2 | pages = 38–42 | access-date = 2010-05-13 | archive-date = 2012-12-23 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121223092014/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure/ | url-status = live }}</ref>  Concerning the television psychics, [[James Underdown]] states that testing psychics in a studio setting is difficult as there are too many areas to control: the psychic could be getting help from anyone on the set. The editor controls everything; they can make a psychic look superior or ridiculous depending on direction from the producer.  In an [[Independent Investigations Group]] ''exposé'' of [[John Edward]] and [[James Van Praagh]] they discovered that what was actually said on the tape day, and what was broadcast to the public were "substantially different in the accuracy. They're getting rid of the wrong guesses... Once you pull back the curtain and see how it's done, it's not impressive at all."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/09/21/putting-psychics-to-the-test/ |title=Putting Psychics to the Test |newspaper=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=2011-09-21 |access-date=2011-09-12 |archive-date=2012-10-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121007044842/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-09-21/news/0709210538_1_psychics-james-van-praagh-reality-tv |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Richard Saunders (skeptic)|Richard Saunders]], Chief Investigator for the [[Australian Skeptics]], and producer and presenter of ''The Skeptic Zone'' podcast sought to answer the question “Can self-proclaimed psychics predict unlikely future events with any greater accuracy than chance?”<ref name="Palmer">{{Cite web |last=Palmer |first=Rob |date=March–April 2022 |title=The Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project: Pondering the Published Predictions of Prominent Psychics |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/the-great-australian-psychic-prediction-project-pondering-the-published-predictions-of-prominent-psychics/ |access-date=29 January 2023 |website=Skeptical Inquirer |archive-date=1 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201191853/https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/the-great-australian-psychic-prediction-project-pondering-the-published-predictions-of-prominent-psychics/ |url-status=live }}</ref> To answer that question he launched "The Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project". Over the course of 12 years, Saunders and then Saunders and his international team of skeptics - Michelle Bijkersma, Kelly Burke, [[Susan Gerbic]], Adrienne Hill, Louis Hillman, Wendy Hughes, Paula Lauterbach, Dr. Angie Mattke, Rob Palmer, and Leonard Tramiel - searched through Australian published media for individuals making psychic or otherwise paranormal predictions.<ref name="Palmer" />

The goal of the Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project was to collect and then vet the accuracy of every published psychic prediction in Australia since the year 2000. The team analyzed over 3800 predictions made by 207 psychics over the years 2000 to 2020. While a few of the psychic predictions were about events outside of Australia, the predictions primarily focused on celebrities, scandals, natural disasters, weather patterns, sports, and real estate trends.<ref name="Saunders">{{cite web |last1=Saunders |first1=Richard |title=The Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project |url=https://www.skeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/magazine/The%20Skeptic%20Volume%2041%20(2021)%20No%204.pdf |publisher=The Skeptic |access-date=29 January 2023 |archive-date=6 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230106165737/https://www.skeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/magazine/The%20Skeptic%20Volume%2041%20%282021%29%20No%204.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

The results of the analysis of the predictions found that psychics were correct 11% of the time, wrong 35% of the time, and that some predictions were too vague to characterize (19%) or the predicted outcome was so obvious it was to be expected (15%). Two percent of the predictions were unable to be categorized.<ref name="Saunders" />

The main conclusions of the Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project were:<ref name="Palmer" />  <br>“Psychics are appallingly bad at predicting future events.” <br> “Most predictions were too vague, expected, or simply wrong.” <br> “Most of what happens is not predicted, and most of what is predicted does not happen.”

The Project confirmed that even when considering the margin of error, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion except that people who claim to see into the future cannot do so with a rate of success better than that of educated guesswork, chance, or luck.<ref name="Saunders" />