Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the ?740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe. Why don't the television editors insist on some equivalently rigorous test? Could it be that they believe the alleged paranormal powers would evaporate and bang go the ratings?
About this quote
- What does it mean?
- Paranormal claims vanish under rigorous testing which suggests they are fake and media ignores this.
- In plain terms
- Paranormal powers fail tests so media avoids rigorous checks.
- What can you take from it?
- Paranormal claims fail under testing so be skeptical.
Where it applies
Putting it to work
Questions to consider
- Why does media avoid testing claims?
- What do test results tell you?
Another view
Not all paranormal claims are necessarily fraudulent.
More from Richard Dawkins
Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have rigorous contro…
Permalink to quote #112 Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he …
Permalink to quote #114 Scorpio could go retrograde up Uranus and it wouldn't make any difference.
Permalink to quote #111
Related quotes
Well, another program proving absolutely nothing. Proving that UFOs don't exist, that there isn't an extra dimension and there are no flying saucers or little …
Phil HendriePhil Hendrie quote #27 The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant…
Carl SaganCarl Sagan quote #3 I doubt there's ever been a true thing said on Fox. Maybe the weather report, maybe not.
Fran LebowitzFran Lebowitz quote #4