So, the skeptical community is satisfied that I have failed two tests and that is that. All the skeptics want, when they offer to test a claim of the paranormal, is for the psychic claimant to have the test, fail the test and be over with. Next. Of course, a truly psychic ability might pass at the 100% mark that is given. But what about any result that falls fairly high up within the grayzone? My goal is not to prove that I would be some psychic, but to investigate this claim. I want to know what it can do, how well, and under what conditions. With that said, a simple yes/no answer will not do when my claim does not do 100% or 0%, but something in between. So, more tests are required to satisfy my curiosity, but the skeptical community is satisfied that I did not reach 100%. So where to next?
Fortunately, unless unfortunately, there are a lot of paranormal groups who are interested in claims of the paranormal. But I have always focused on this investigation being skeptical in nature. I am a skeptical girl! A skeptical test will be reliable, scientifically conducted, and neither biased nor distorted to try to lean toward a confirming answer. Skeptics, although they are not scientists, are a good resource for conducting good, reliable tests. I now have to turn to paranormal groups, and I expect them to have vested interests in a positive answer whereas skeptics offer an unbiased test. Paranormal groups might lack in the skills of critical thinking and skepticism, and that might mean that any test conducted with a paranormal group, as well as its results, can be considered worthless. Let's just see what they can offer and then assess its quality.
Why can't we trust paranormal investigation groups?
In the world of investigations of paranormal claims, there exist two very distinct camps and nothing in between. Investigation groups or individual investigators, are either skeptics or not skeptics. A skeptic is someone who does not believe in anything unless it is proven to be real with scientific evidence. A skeptic will even question their own personal experiences and understands the many processes that can lead to a false conclusion. A skeptic knows that a personal experience is an anecdote and that it can not be regarded as verified to others and not even to oneself unless reasonable formal evidence exists. Formal evidence is evidence which will suffice as proof to everyone, to distinguish it from other things that may seem to some as evidence, but are not adequate to all because some are simply fooled by them but they are in fact not evidence.
Paranormal claims are not only investigated by skeptics, they are also dealt with by paranormal groups. But paranormal groups approach the subject matter from the other direction. They typically want paranormal claims to be proven real, or, they are quite concerned personally of the idea that the paranormal be proven. They have vested emotionally or otherwise in the idea that elements of the paranormal be real. Either they truly enjoy the idea of the paranormal, and so in their minds, even if they were to step back and require evidence before any formal application of "the paranormal" be done, it still remains somewhat real in their minds or preferable that it be real.
A skeptic does not mind if the paranormal would be proven, rather, in the very moment that something paranormal is proven to exist it becomes part of science and skeptics love science because science depicts reality. Skeptics vow to reality. So, in other words, skeptics are not biased. Skeptics are open to new discoveries perhaps more than any other group, just that they are very careful that what they embrace be proven real. Skeptics understand that what seems real to a person even to themselves is not necessarily real. And that is what makes a skeptic the perfect type of person to design, conduct, and evaluate a test of a claim of the paranormal.
Why can we not trust paranormal investigators (ie. the ones that are not skeptics)? For their vested interest in discovering, or in dealing with elements of the paranormal as if they be real, or their emotional gratitude from the assumption that the paranormal be real, it does introduce some extent of bias whether that be intentional or not. And once bias has poisoned the mind, not only can it litter the quality of any aspect of investigation, by its mere being it challenges the credibility of all work done by the paranormal (ie. as opposed to skeptical) investigator. I say this as a science student and future scientist. I am not oblivious to the curiosity or kind intentions of paranormal (as opposed to skeptical) investigation, and by having paranormal claims I am a woo myself, but this is a reality and it does pose a real problem. Although paranormal investigations (as opposed to investigations done by skeptics) promises a great, and very welcoming resource for my investigations, I am hesitant to allow my claims into their hands.
Woo persons will often distrust the skeptical community, and what I have said here will of course make many woos think that I am not on their side but on the skeptics' side. Which is true. Anybody with any real and reasonable interest in the paranormal should always be a skeptic. What woos don't understand, is that skeptics are quite open to new discoveries, they are not in any ways "against" the possibilities of the paranormal. It is just that personal belief, and anything coming from personal preferences that the paranormal be real, are no part of the way they handle these claims.
But I am by no means "against" the paranormal, I have my own claims! But I handle those claims as a skeptic. The frustrations between these two groups, as they study the very same topics of the paranormal, each with their very own approach. This whole skeptic-woo issue is a very interesting study of an aspect of culture and social interactions, if I were a anthropology or psychology student I would certainly write a book about it.
So how can we "proof" a paranormal test?
If I just went ahead and had a test with a paranormal group the test results would very well be useless. The main concern is that they have no credibility. There is no way to know that they did not tell me what the right answers would be, and there is no way for me to prove that they did not tell me the right answers.
If the test subjects (ie. the persons that I look at and feel for health perceptions) are properly concealed so that one could not be distinguished from another visually, by the use of adequate screens that only show the part of the body that I am "feeling into". And the order in which they are seated would be randomly determined right before the test and after me and the testing paranormal organization has no more private contact until after the test. But there are still more ways of cheating. What if the paranormal organization and the claimant (I am the claimant) agrees to cheat by having the test subjects make some sort of signal which reveals which of them is the target? I just don't see any credible way of arranging a test with a paranormal group, when it comes to testing which involves live human test subjects. It can not be done. If cheating is hypothetically possible, then all credibility is lost.
I am faced with the decision whether to continue trying to arrange a test with skeptical groups or individuals who will not since they think failing to meet a 100% mark of a test means there is nothing more to learn, or going ahead and having some tests but with paranormal groups, who would probably be more willing and interested to work with me but with a serious credibility issue that is hard to overcome.
One solution
Fortunately, even a test with poor credibility is capable of falsifying a claim. Any negative results can always be accepted as there is no reason to think that cheating is responsible for being wrong. A paranormal group and/or claimant is unlikely to have cheated to get a wrong answer. And regardless of the credibility involved behind a wrong answer, if in addition the claimant accepts a wrong answer then it is to be held against the claim. What claimant would accept a wrong answer without making excuses after the fact? I would, and I have. If I am wrong and I was not tired and I did say that my claim was performing then I accept the answer regardless of if it turns out to be right or wrong.
Any accuracy obtained in a test that was arranged with a paranormal group might have to be disregarded due to credibility issues, ie. there is no way to make sure that there was no cheating (intentional bias) or unintentional bias when expectations or desires affect the thought processes behind planning, execution, or assessment after the test.
And so, if all we are reasonably expecting out of a test is the falsification of this claim then maybe a paranormal test could offer that. As long as we remember that any positive outcome is to be disregarded due to credibility issues, if negative results are obtained then those can be used in this investigation. But we must also remember that the lack of negative results could also potentially be due to cheating. So: Positive results, or the lack of negative results, are both meaningless unless credibility of the test with a paranormal group can somehow be assured, and negative results can be used in this investigation because it is unlikely that a paranormal group and/or claimant cheat against the claim.
I will proceed to find paranormal groups interested in testing my claim. My same high ethical standards will apply, I will not practice "psychic reading attempts" on persons other than skeptics. So if personal "readings" do occur, the recipient if not a skeptic (or, since not a skeptic) will not find out what my impressions were of their health since the information could be inaccurate or distressful and I think only a very skeptical person can handle that in a responsible and harmless manner. I will still not make any money off my claim, but continue spending money, so far in excess of $2,500 total in this investigation.
And so begins a new chapter in my investigation, something that I am not very happy about, something that is kind of a step backwards in quality, but hopefully yielding some more results and answers in this claim.
