Britain's Psychic Challenge

Is that the article from the express? She says alot without any corroborating evidence. She doesn't seem to have followed through on her initial promise which is frustrating. You'd think with such powers she would be a household name?
 
It seems fairly east to be a close minded skeptic. All you need to do is look at the evidence in a biased fashion, and dismiss any possible evidence as fake, hoaxed or fraudulent. Being skeptical is important, but when you view everything that goes against your ideologies as obviously flawed then that becomes a problem.
 
It seems fairly east to be a close minded skeptic. All you need to do is look at the evidence in a biased fashion, and dismiss any possible evidence as fake, hoaxed or fraudulent. Being skeptical is important, but when you view everything that goes against your ideologies as obviously flawed then that becomes a problem.
I almost mis-read this post. I was going to add that one must also deliberately avoid applying the same standards and techniques to one's own beliefs. But I see now you got that covered in the phrase "close minded". But still, this lack of reciprocity is a major failing of the sceptic movement.
 
I agree, I bet if Diane had been subpar in her challenge skeptics would be all over it! But since she proved successful that wasn't the case. It seems like skeptics only use the evidence when it is convenient.
 
Here is a full analysis of Diane Lazarus in the show and the show in general with all episode according to this Diane was not successful in every test. It seems its again counting the wins and forgetting the loses:

http://skepsis.nl/britainspsychicchallenge/

Example:

Test 2 – match the football boots to the player.

This test, done at Lincoln city FC, was as close to a proper test as we’ve seen. The psychics were given a choice if six pairs of football boots to choose from and they had to match them to their owner using their psychic powers to pick up on the “energy”. The players’ watches were placed inside the boots too.

Again, the test was only single blind, but this time Chris French did a good job of making sure that there was sufficient randomisation. Between each test, the boots were moved and renumbered. The test was also ran with three different players. As boots all look similar the choice was also equiprobable. There was no reason to pick one pair of boots over another or avoid any particular pair.

Statistically the most likely result with a 1 in 6 event ran 7 times is that 1 person would match the boots up by chance alone.

The results were:

  • Amanda Hart Incorrect
  • Diane Lazarus Incorrect
  • Dave Sumerton Incorrect
  • Dennis Binks Incorrect
  • Mary White Incorrect
  • Austin Charles Incorrect
  • Anna Galliers Correct
Source: http://skepsis.nl/britainspsychicchallenge/

There is more on the page and according to it. Its really too soon to claim psychic powers on the show.

Happy Halloween 2016 to everyone here.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting articles written by unbiased sources! Feliz dia de los muertos
First thing Skeptic report was posted here also and was not met with such a comment from you. Second its the whole show and a look of a skeptic on it If you do not believe him fine just watch the whole show and make your own conclusions but its a show and not a real science test and it was made to attract people to watch and not scientifically prove PSI. Third everyone is biased even you.
 
Were you there for the challenge? Was your source there for the challenge?

Honestly, I'd rather take the opinion of Chris French and the other skeptics involved with the program than the sources you provided. It's okay to be suprised with Diane's results, you don't automatically have to jump to fraud or cheating. From what I saw and from the opinions of the individials involved she performed exceptionally.
 
Last edited:
Were you there for the challenge? Was your source there for the challenge?

Honestly, I'd rather take the opinion of Chris French and the other skeptics involved with the program than the sources you provided. It's okay to be suprised with Diane's results, you don't automatically have to jump to fraud or cheating.

Were you there for the challenge? - this is ridiculous were you there for the challenge bsanch123? I doubt that you were. Secondly you really believe a TV show that is there to attract people to watch? Which can be edited changed and the skeptics for money and watching quotes could be bought?

As for the was your source for the challenge - yes he was he watched the whole series. You can make conclusions from that with no problem and you can watch it too.

First I am not surprise, how can I in a TV show. Second I am not jumping to fraud by Diana where did you get that? Its impossible to tell something here because its made for entertainment. I just posted a link where a skeptic did watch the whole show and it did not convince him and wrote about the problems and errors in there.

Fine take the opinion of Chris French if you like but according to the skepsis link she failed in other trials which were made by Chris French which I posted and quoted here. If you want to draw conclusions even from a TV show please at least see the whole series and not just one segment or episode.

I wish you a nice day and holiday.
 
In the challenge she also located the place where police found a murdered girls body, correctly paired 5 couples from 10 photos, and out of 6 men in cells correctly identified the one who was an ex-con. Anyone who knows and personally interacts with someone who is genuinely psychic will be able to identify with this--someone repeatedly defying odds to the point where trying to attribute it off to cues, luck, and all the other usual suspects becomes becomes more unbelievable then accepting that psychic phenomena is real. This was years ago, and she was willing to put herself up to test, but I'd be surprised if French pursued any further tests with her.

Cheers,
Bill

Mike, please see above. And thanks for the well wishes.
 
Mike, please see above. And thanks for the well wishes.
The problem is that Chris French did other tests with her in the TV show where she failed. So why pursue other tests when she failed even in a TV show according to the skepsis site? One of the tests she failed is quoted here by me and it was design by French himself. This is I think personally the problem why French did not do more tests in more rigorous setting but that is only what I think and you would have to ask him personally to get the answer which you can, if you are interested. His email is available on the Goldsmiths University of London.

I wish you a nice day.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that Chris French did other tests with her in the TV show where she failed. So why pursue other tests when she failed even in a TV show according to the skepsis site? One of the tests she failed is quoted here by me it was design by French himself. This is I think personally the problem why French did not do more tests in more rigorous setting but that is only what I think and you would have to ask him personally to get the answer which you can, if you are interested. His email is available on the Goldsmiths University of London.

I wish you a nice day.
Someone with psychic abilities is not a circus act. They may not have talent in every area, they may have good days and bad. Any psychic worth the name will insist they can only tell what they feel, they may be 100% successful one third of the time, close another third and way off the rest. Because they "fail" two thirds of the time does that make them bad psychics, or is psychic ability a weird and sometimes fugitive state relying on things even the psychic can only guess at?

Chris French is part of a movement to transform parapsychology (the study of weird shit) into anomalous psychology (the study of why people believe weird shit). That tells you all you need to know about French, his protocols and his overall aims. Skepticism the movement is a branch of sceptical materialism, a metaphysical world view with particular aims and objectives. There is nothing neutral in French's agenda.
 
Last edited:
Someone with psychic abilities is not a circus act. They may not have talent in every area, they may have good days and bad. Any psychic worth the name will insist they can only tell what they feel, they may be 100% successful one third of the time, close another third and way off the rest. Because they "fail" two thirds of the time does that make them bad psychics, or is psychic ability a weird and sometimes fugitive state relying on things even the psychic can only guess at?

Chris French is part of a movement to transform parapsychology (the study of weird shit) into anomalous psychology (the study of why people believe weird shit). That tells you all you need to no about French, his protocols and his overall aims. Skepticism the movement is a branch of sceptical materialism, a metaphysical world view with particular aims and objectives. There is nothing neutral in French's agenda.

I agree, I think this "she failed some tests" argument is spurious. If she passed some tests which were sufficiently controlled then that's sufficient. The only caveat might be if she failed due to fraud (or succeeded due fraud for that matter). The "white crow" analogy fits here perhaps.

On the other hand, relying on Chris French's opinion isn't particularly conclusive either or TV demonstrations. Personally, I don't think Chris French is neutral at all or even to be trusted - I'm thinking of the mock seances he did (if I am remembering correctly - it may have been Wiseman) which although entertaining didn't reflect the process used by participants in other controlled seances.

I guess that is the point being made above though - it's not like Chris French is likely to be reluctant to debunk what he sees if he can find a way.
 
Last edited:
Here is a full analysis of Diane Lazarus in the show and the show in general with all episode according to this Diane was not successful in every test. It seems its again counting the wins and forgetting the loses:

http://skepsis.nl/britainspsychicchallenge/

Example:
I think this test would be valid if it fairly reflects the tasks that Diane normally performs.There is an inevitable tendency among those who definitely do not believe in ψ, to disregard the various factors that psychics claim are important. In particular, they disregard that fact that intense emotions seem to produce psychic effects. Clearly a murder involves far more intense emotions than a set of football boots!
Source: http://skepsis.nl/britainspsychicchallenge/

There is more on the page and according to it. Its really too soon to claim psychic powers on the show.

Happy Halloween 2016 to everyone here.
The point about every test like this, is that it doesn't make sense to talk about a binary choice - psychic powers vs fraud/mistakes etc. We really need a way to assess reports like this using a real number to represent the confidence. With a binary approach, adamant sceptics struggle to find some criticism - however tenuous - to dismiss every case, because they see even one example of accepted ψ as a scientific disaster!

I'd give Diane 0.95 out of 1!

The other thing to remember, is that you can't ignore one success because the same person failed another test, unless you can show that the success can be explained by mere cherry picking.

When I sit down to solve a computer bug, sometimes I succeed rapidly, sometimes I may struggle and put the problem on one side for a while and then solve it, and in a very few cases I don't get a satisfactory solution :) It is important not to require potential psychics to jump through hoops that others would fail at in their own area of speciality.

David
 
Last edited:
I hesitate to use this analogy, because I don't think it is entirely representative of the psi phenomena. However, sometimes I think of it as being like certain athletic events. Particular events come to mind such as the long jump or the pole vault. Someone may perform to a world-beating standard on one occasion yet fail completely on another occasion. e.g. in the long jump a foot placed a fraction of an inch too far forward leads to the jump being disqualified, regardless of the distance jumped. There are also a whole set of factors which are not simply a matter of physical strength or fitness which come into play. The difference between success and failure can be down to something which is impossible to pin down. However no-one would claim that because the factors which affect a performance cannot be fully understood, that successful athletic performances don't exist.
Yet any sub-par performance in psychic ability is bizarrely extrapolated to mean that the entire field is thrown into question.
 
Back
Top