A new petition has been started to petition the Prime Minister to introduce Critical Thinking as part of the core curriculum in primary and secondary schools.

From the petition’s creator:

If there is one major skill that is lacking in the general population, it is Critical Thinking. It is relatively simple to learn the basics and it would benefit people greatly to have these skills but it is only available as an option in education at ‘A’ level. It is not taught at all throughout our general education system.

Now, it could be argued that these petitions don’t really work in influencing the government to do anything, but one thing is certain: doing nothing surely won’t influence the government to act!

So if you agree with the aims of this petition, please simply sign it by adding your name here: Critical Thinking petition.

Stem-cell treatments are in the news again this week. However, it’s for the wrong reasons this time.

The Department of Public Health Sciences and Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada has carried out some research looking at private clinics offering stem cell treatments for many diseases, particularly neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and Multiple Sclerosis; and more bizarrely, autism, muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy.

The researchers looked specifically at clinics offering such treatments online via their websites and looked at the sort of treatments being offered, the claims made for them and whether there’s any clinical evidence to support these claims.

In our article on pseudoscience, we said one characteristic of pseudosciences is that they are often aimed directly at the public:

Scientific breakthroughs will normally have been published in science journals, scrutinised by other scientists, and only announced to the public once scientists have agreed that the scientific breakthrough is indeed genuine. The progress of the acceptance of the idea will be documented and anyone can reference this information in the relevant journals.

Pseudoscientific ideas are sometimes driven by cultural or ideological reasons, but very often they’re driven by commercial goals. A company that is trying to sell its products or ideas without having gone through this scientific scrutiny is giving out a telltale sign that their products will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. A new ‘miracle breakthrough’ healing device, for example, that is being sold directly to the public, but which has no science references to support it, probably doesn’t work.

These stem-cell therapies are being marketed directly to the public precisely in this “direct-to-consumer” manner.

Not surprisingly, when the researchers looked for clinical evidence in the PUBMED database to support the therapies these clinics were selling direct to consumers, the particular conditions that are being treated by these clinics are not backed up by clinical evidence.

Not only that, most of the clinics’ websites that were looked at made no mention of any side effects or risk factors involved with these treatments.

Conclusion

There is certainly a feel-good factor and optimism involved with stem-cell treatments because of the potential and hope these therapies may offer in the future; and this is augmented by success stories like the trachea transplant mentioned earlier. This is all the beginning however; the potential to cure many diseases using cell-stem therapy lies in the future.

The clinics currently offering these stem-cell therapies for various neurological disorders are riding on the back of the optimism, hope, and positive press it gets, but they are clearly making false claims for the efficacy of these treatments as the claims are not backed up by clinical evidence.

In summary we have:

• Claims of cures for treatments that are not supported by evidence;
• Omission of the associated side effects or risk factors involved; and
• High cost of treatment to the consumer: the average cost for these treatments is ~ £14,670 ($21,500 or €16,800).

As is usual, these treatments are not illegal. So it is again a case of buyer beware. Just as with many more obvious forms of quackery, these clinics are selling nothing more than false hope – which is particularly repugnant as they are hitting people who are vulnerable, and they surely know what they are doing.

The general advice to people contemplating stem-cell therapy offered by a private clinic is to keep well away. The technology is not yet advanced enough to cure the conditions that these clinics claim it can.

We don’t normally take part in these ‘skeptics versus believer’ debates as they usually turn out to be of little value – skeptics often being included simply to provide some token opposition. UKS forum member Richard Sutherland decided that he would, however, represent the skeptics’ side of the debate; and this conversation turned out to quite different to the usual:

The first point of note was that the radio station were not doing the programme simply to promote the psychic. Host Joe Finnegan actually sounded rather sceptical of psychics’ claims himself and did a good job of allowing both sides of the debate to be heard.

The second point of note was the the psychic, who calls herself ‘psychic Anna’ (Anna Brennan), agreed live on air to take the JREF $1,000,000 paranormal challenge.

Listen to the broadcast here:

UKS Media: listen to the skeptic vs the psychic programme (MP3)

Despite the usual insults and personal attacks by the psychic (“you’re negative”, “you’re cold”, “I’d like to know what happened to you as a child to make you this way”, “I feel sorry for people who can’t open up to possibilities”, etc.), Richard did a superb job of getting information pertaining to the debate over and did a sterling job in representing skeptics and skepticism.

The main purpose of this commentary, however, is to leave a permanent record of ‘psychic Anna’ (Anna Brennan) agreeing to taking the JREF $1,000,000 challenge live on air.

It is extremely unlikely that she will actually go through with this and if she’s pressed on the issue will undoubtedly come out with the old and tired excuses – but we do have a record of her agreeing to it.

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

The way that it works is that most people tell small lies and they have no difficulty in accepting the fact that other people tell small lies also. Most people however, do not tell colossal lies; therefore they do not believe that others tell colossal lies either. This results in colossal lies being accepted, as it seems too incredible that such lies be told.

Scaremongers rely heavily on the big lie technique: Aspartame causes tumours; Fluoride causes cancer; vaccines cause autism; etcetera. The idea is to use scare words like: cancer; birth defects; blindness; heart failure; seizures; multiple sclerosis; and such like to instil fear into the reader.

All that is required is to make the claim: no evidence need be provided to back it up. Keep repeating the claim so that it becomes “common knowledge” or people accept that “there must be something in it”, and the message will propagate. The big lie is a tried and tested technique: it works.

The scattergun approach.

This technique involves associating a wide range of symptoms and conditions that relate to the scaremongers’ claim so that almost anyone can find a match. Aspartame, for example, has been cited as the cause of ninety plus different illnesses and conditions from (the seemingly obligatory) cancer to restless leg syndrome.

The technique works because for people to believe the lie, they only need to accept one of the claims. This is an example of this trick: Aspartame side effects (opens in a new window). In reality, one substance is unlikely to cause dozens of debilitating or life threatening conditions; claiming this, however, undoubtedly helps when you’re selling an “Aspartame Detoxification Program”.

The scattergun approach is a double-edged sword, however. To those who are aware of it, its overt exaggeration is a telltale sign of scaremongering propaganda.

They claim a conspiracy.

This helps make the claims unfalsifiable. Official, scientific reports are dismissed as part of the conspiracy being waged by big business or “big pharma”.

Any evidence that opposes their claim is part of the conspiracy. Any evidence, including anything that can be selectively (mis)quoted from a scientist, however, unquestionably supports their claim.

Bad science.

One thing that is not seen with scaremongering tactics is reference to quality clinical trials or studies. Claims have to be substantiated with evidence to have any value. “Experts” are often quoted from their books, but where are the published papers showing their work? When “Expert X Ph.D.” is claiming that fluoridation of water causes cancer, his research paper should have been published and peer-reviewed in a prestigious medical journal. If his claims are not backed up with evidence then there’s probably a good reason for it; and it’s not a conspiracy.

Scaremongers tend to use new-age style “Eco words”: we’re being poisoned by “chemicals”; our bodies are full of “toxins”; the compound is an “additive” and therefore not “natural”. By using these words out of context as they do, the scaremongers are leaving another telltale sign of their propaganda.

Generate a bandwagon effect.

This is where the scaremongers create a false impression that their belief is more widely accepted than it really is. Their intention is to make people think that they are members of a group. Group mentality encourages people to conform to the group’s way of thinking and their behaviour will be modified to match the group’s expectations.

This group mentality is what causes those who have fallen for the propaganda to spread it further even though they may have little or no understanding of the real issue at stake.

Unquestioning belief and obstinance.

One major factor in the spread of scaremongering propaganda is the fact that so many people will believe what they see and hear without question. They only have to see one report that X causes Y and they simply believe it. Then, possibly thinking that they’ve found some knowledge that few people know about, they go around informing others about the dangers of X.

People tend to believe information they come across first rather than information that is of better quality. Changing their mind with evidence can be hard as you are now challenging their opinion: not the source of their opinion.

Somatizers.

One group of people who are especially prone to health scares are somatizers (previously known as hypochondriacs). They have psychological problems but absolutely reject the fact; as a result their psychological conflicts manifest themselves as physical symptoms. They often want help, sympathy and attention.

When something is demonised by a scaremonger who’s claiming 90+ side effects, it is bound to match up with many of the symptoms somatizers experience. Having found a “cause” and an authority figure or guru (the scaremonger claiming to be an expert), they can get attention and sympathy in their self-help groups. Once they have this support, their symptoms and ailments clear up.

These people often enthusiastically spread the scaremongering hoax with personal stories of miraculous transformations in their health. Fortunately, their exaggerated claims are easy to spot.

Don’t be misled.

People or organisations with ulterior motives often make these hoaxes and wild claims. Our natural tendency – to err on the side of caution and avoid danger – can lead us to accept claims that have no foundation in reality or that are intentionally made to deceive us.

People are strongly influenced by anecdotes and are much more likely to accept an idea if they believe it was heard inadvertently or informally. When someone comes out with something like, “I will always try to avoid artificial sugar. Aspartame has been banned in the States as it has a link to cancer“, it is because they’ve read the same thing somewhere else and believed it. They’ve jumped straight on the scaremongers’ bandwagon without a thought of checking out the facts.

The antidote to falling for scaremongering tactics is to realise that the people spreading the bogus information may well be sincere, but they may not be right. Propaganda works on many levels; however, checking out claims before believing them will weed out most that are not true very quickly. Understanding the telltale signs of propaganda and basic fact checking, can help us to avoid being duped by a misinformation campaign.

Chillzero © 2007

“What goes around, comes around.”

I looked at the man telling me this – a phrase he had used often before, and noticed a change in his eyes as he spoke. The tone of his voice was altered subtly as well. At the time I was unable to place the change, or the significance, but years later I see that this was when I lost my support network of new-age healers; people I called friends.

All because of karma.

Generally, karma is:

When I was first introduced to the concept, it sounded logical to me. It is often perceived as a kind of cosmic tally system, so it was also reassuring to be told that if I choose to do the right things, I would be cosmically rewarded, whereas those who did wrong would be punished at some stage – whether in this life or the next. I didn’t see the flip-side of this at the time: those people who I saw suffering for no apparent reason must be receiving karmic punishment. By extension, they therefore deserve whatever is happening to them. Either that or they have a massive reward coming in the next life.

Some believers in karma; people like self-professed psychic Sylvia Browne, for example, believe that

This kind of belief system is all well and good when things in your life aren’t too terrible, and will see you through some of the problems you may encounter in your life. Spiritual and new-age communities pride themselves on how they pull together to assist each other and heal each other through difficulties. When a bad thing happens; when you become a victim (whether of circumstance or illness)

This can be tolerated for some experiences, and to a point, but what I want to write about here is the other side of karma. I want to discuss the side that you find yourself on when ‘healers’ believe that the only person to blame for your illness, or your tragedy, is you.

Years ago I had one of those periods in my life that many people have to live through, when it seemed as if nothing would go right. Every week brought a new problem to deal with, and nothing seemed to get any easier as time passed. There were car accidents, illnesses, family funerals, exams, job changes, marriage breakdown … a long list of events that added stress and little happened to alleviate that stress. Looking back, I still think I handled it bravely. Work colleagues often commented on my ability to joke and smile through it all, and to just get on with life. My family and friends, however, eventually took a lot of it on the chin with me. At first I joked with them also, but in later conversations I began to break the veneer of strength and tell them how I felt I couldn’t cope any more, that the next thing to happen might just finish me off. When I say ‘later’, I mean after well over a year of these kinds of problems – not a few weeks.

My family were supportive, and always listened while I explained the latest drama, and how I felt about it all. My GP wanted to treat me for depression, which was another stressful issue – opposed as I was to taking drugs of any kind. My friends helped as best they could. They gave me massages, they listened, they recommended herbal teas or aromatherapy oils, and the ones who owned new-age retail and therapy businesses counseled me through the stress. At first they supported me – telling me that the attitude I had was good, and my positive approach would see me through. I fought off the ‘victim mentality’ for a long, long time. When I felt out of control they reminded me, that ‘everything happens for a reason’ and that I had lessons to learn from my experiences. They encouraged me to look on this all as a positive period in my life, that my soul would be taking huge strides in its karmic development. They held meditations to give me strength to get through it, and added me to various remote healing sessions as well. I felt welcomed, and was regularly encouraged to open my heart and discuss how I was feeling. This was despite the fact I often apologized for only ever meeting them with more bad news. (I should probably add that I was not a passive ‘patient’. I was a massage and reflexology therapist myself at the time. I returned healing with healing, through both therapy and meditation).

I occasionally joked that I must have done something really terrible in a past life to deserve all these problems in this one. At some point that joke became more like a statement of fact to this group of friends. I sincerely believed that I was a casualty of fate, and that I was somehow making the wrong choices to follow my path. I thought that when I took avoiding action for one thing, the fact that something bad happened afterwards indicated that I should have just ‘gone with the flow’ in the first place, and accepted what was bound to happen one way or another. When I became ill, I agreed with my friends who followed the philosophy that:

The intention behind all my treatments and therapy from my friends was designed to

I stepped up efforts on everything that I felt was positive in my life – gave more healing, did more meditations, changed my diet to exclude meat, cut out as many ‘selfish treats’ as I could (chocolate, me-time, etc). After all:

However, time went on, more problems occurred, and my stress levels increased. Nothing seemed to be getting any better. I got fewer offers of assistance and healing, and realized that I was wearing myself out by giving more than I was getting. My treatments on others became less effective as I became more worn out, depressed and withdrawn. When my family told me to hang in there; that it couldn’t get any worse I pointed out that I had given up saying this because to me it seemed to invite more disaster. They said it would all get better in time, and I could only ask ‘when?’. I turned to my friends to ask what they thought I could be doing wrong; why couldn’t I make my life better. The response was along the lines of:

I told them that I didn’t understand – of course I was allowing it: I welcomed it: I truly wanted it. Why on earth would I want things to stay as bad as they were? Some friends told me that subconsciously I must be gaining more from the attention and help that the various traumas brought me than I would from having nothing to worry about. I reminded them that most things were outside my control – accidents caused by the other driver; breakdowns in equipment I had no access to; illnesses; etc. Some responded that I had written my fate, and shouldn’t fight against it. The others still insisted I was subconsciously manipulating my life to be as difficult as possible – either for the education of my soul, or for the attention it could bring me. The conversation I mention at the start of this article was the last I had with that particular ‘friend’. I understood long before this that people can tire of constantly hearing about problems, and was usually very apologetic about having only bad news when asked about how I was getting on. I tried but struggled to find positive things with which to balance conversations. I was very self-conscious about leaning on my friends. I don’t think that these people distanced themselves because they became bored of hearing my problems – they would have stopped listening much earlier if that was the case. Indeed, they told me not to apologise, reminding me that they only had to listen to my problems – I had to live with them. Also, as I mentioned, there was a two-way flow of friendship and healing. I was not just a ‘taker’.

I attended many group meditations, and healing circles, and heard how other people were discussed. After a point it became clear that when things did not improve for a person, then the healers had to start a process by which they could divert blame from themselves. Those of us who accepted standard medical help – such as when I finally agreed with my GP to use anti-depressants – were vilified as having turned our backs on natural healing, and having no faith in the process or the healer. Many of us – all those who had longer term issues – were dismissed as not being open enough to accept the healing. We were too negative, and were inviting black forces into our lives. There was agreement that we were indeed ‘victims’ – but victims of our own negativity; not of any health or circumstantial situations.

I found an essay recently that clearly identifies this attitude:
It is called “Why Most People Don’t Really Want To Heal“, by Kevin B. Burk. This essay is a good example of the kind of thinking I am trying to explain here. For example:

A remote reiki healer that I have quoted a few times here claims that: ”

This kind of comment may at best be mildly useful to some people by encouraging them to take a more positive outlook, but I feel it is limited and arrogant in the assumptions made. It assumes that the person needing healing is not fully participating, and introduces an additional burden – the burden of guilt; because you are wasting the healer’s time by not responding appropriately, regardless of anything you do to try and improve your situation. I consider this attitude abusive.

I have several concerns over the issues I have raised here. Firstly is the mental abuse to those people most in need of help. To suggest that a person in trouble or ill health is contributing to their own demise is appalling and negligent to their emotional needs. All it does is absolve the healer of any involvement in the problem. Next is the issue of qualification. Regardless of how many courses these healers may have taken in the new-age environment, I have yet to meet any that are medically qualified to deal with these situations. They are not psychologists, and so have no knowledge of the damage that can be caused by what they tell their clients. They are not trained physicians, and so should never denigrate the use of drugs in favour of ‘alternative’ therapies. They are not speaking from a position of authority when they tell you that cancer is caused by nothing other than stress and negativity, no matter how confident they are in their assertions.

I overcame my circumstantial difficulties when at some point things just became easier – as my family had suggested they would. My health problems were finally resolved through conventional medical intervention; all without the primary requirement of faith. I am not saying it has all been easy since – life is rarely straightforward. However, gaining an acceptance that I don’t control or own every aspect of every thing in my life has made each problem easier to deal with. When you are in crisis, how can your situation be made any easier by subscribing to a healer who requires that you understand and accept their belief system, as a pre-requisite to completely accepting their ability? Why should any healing system require your unquestioning belief in it before it can work? It is no surprise that a person in crisis is unlikely to be in a place that’s 100% positive, so therefore it is ridiculous that any healing system would deny you relief based on the fact that you are, quite legitimately, disturbed by that very situation. Why should anyone even suggest that you are rejecting the very help you need?

I hope that no-one else has to undergo the crisis of faith I battled with, on top of handling the most difficult situations I had ever faced in my life. It was possibly more harmful to me than the events and illnesses themselves to have to confront the fact that faith in these things was not enough, and worse – it was not working. I relied on my faith to carry me through each crisis, but my faith was also telling me that each crisis was of my own creation. That was very dangerous to my mental health and held me back from taking the appropriate practical actions to resolve the situations for far too long.

If you are suffering, and are having a similar crisis of faith, I hope that my story helps you to consider taking a different approach to your situation. Asking questions should never be considered a negative approach, because after all if a proponent of a faith system claims that it is positive and helpful, then they should be able to withstand a few queries and be glad to further your understanding – shouldn’t they?

As for anyone telling you that you have purposely invited negative events into your life, remember what many wise people have said: ‘shit happens’.

1 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
2 – http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000019790,00.html?sym=QUE
3 – http://www.freespiritcentre.info/articles/8/92_time_for_healing/
4 – http://www.freewebs.com/holistictherapyconsultant
5 – http://www.freewebs.com/holistictherapyconsultant/takecontrolofyourlife.htm
6 – http://www.zenyoga.org/spiritual_healing.html
7 – http://www.freewebs.com/holistictherapyconsultant/whatthebleepdoweknow.htm

John Jackson © 2008

Background information.

Derek Ogilvie is a self-proclaimed psychic whose speciality, or gimmick depending on how you view him, is that he can communicate telepathically with pre-verbal children. Derek claims that by tuning into a child’s mind, he can ascertain family problems and issues from the child’s point of view: in other words, acting as the voice of the child. This information can be used to improve family relationships by making the parents aware of which issues (usually their own) are problematic for the child and which cause bad behaviour etc.

This alleged ability was used in the Channel 5 series The Baby Mind Reader in 2006 although it should be noted that in communication with OFCOM, who were investigating the series because of complaints, Channel 5 made it clear that all advice that Derek gave in the series was not a result of his telepathic ability after all – it was all based on facts which he had established were true by asking the children’s parents.^[1]

We normally see Derek doing his readings whereby he visits a child with its parents then tunes into the child’s mind and does his psychic reading for the parents by interacting with them. The idea is to find out what issues are affecting the family relationships, from the child’s point of view, so that advice can be given and changes made to improve situations. Derek, like many psychics, is usually successful in convincing the parents that he has access to information that he ‘couldn’t possibly have known’. It all looks quite convincing.

Criticism

Of course, appearing to be psychic and actually being psychic are two different things. There’s no doubt that something is going on here but is it really psychic ability that Derek is using or is there another explanation?

Skeptics have noted that although Derek claims he’s tuning into the mind of the child, it’s the parents whom he does the reading for. It’s the parents he interacts with and it’s the parents who give feedback and validate or repudiate Derek’s information. So, perhaps Derek is reading the parents and the telepathic link to the children doesn’t actually exist.

This leaves us with an obvious test. Can Derek read information from a child’s mind when its parents are not present? Two tests of Derek’s claimed ability were shown in the programme: one with Professor Chris French in London, and one for the JREF $1,000,000 prize with James Randi in Florida; both of which were based on the idea of Derek being able to read the child’s mind in the absence of its parents.

Cold Reading

Skeptics often use the term ‘Cold Reading’ when explaining how psychics manage to read for people. Cold Reading simply means to read a person without prior knowledge of them; however, it’s often used as an explanation for how psychics read people: the techniques and methods they use.

Readings are not usually a case of psychics simply giving information to their clients in a one-way process; readings are normally an interactive communication between two people. In short, psychics will make many, usually very vague, statements and then rely on the feedback they get from the client to guide them where to go next. This can give the illusion to the client that they are being told some very specific and personal information, as people tend to personalise vague information as being very specific when it’s given meaning by themselves: a process known as ‘subjective validation’.^[2]

Does Derek Ogilvie use cold reading?

In short, yes he does; but he may not do so intentionally. It is often assumed that knowingly fraudulent psychics use cold reading, whereas the genuine psychics (those who genuinely believe themselves to be psychic) do not. However, this is not the case. If we accept cold reading as being a set of techniques then it is quite possible, indeed highly likely, that people who operate as psychics will hone in on cold reading techniques either by trial and error or on ‘psychic development courses’ where they’re taught which things work and which things don’t.

Derek uses a lot of what’s known in cold reading as ‘trivia stats’. These are little pieces of information given out that are quite common to most people, such as ‘you have a scar on your left knee’, ‘you have a single earring as the partner to it is missing’ or ‘you’ve had problems with your car – left rear wheel/tyre’ (interestingly Derek used that one in the programme yet it’s a classic cold reading trivia stat). Trivia stats serve only one purpose: they’re little ‘clinchers’ designed to convince the client that something psychic is going on. Derek often gives out lot of information like, “mummy has a scar”, “mummy had a sore tummy”, “mummy has an issue with shoes”, etc., and these are all trivia stats. They have no relevance to the intended purpose of the reading but they can be useful in getting the client to accept something psychic is going on. Derek relies quite heavily on this cold reading technique.

Test 1

Professor Chris French of Goldsmith’s College, London, did the first test of Derek’s ability. Derek’s task was to read six children’s minds in the absence of their parents and write down the information that the he got telepathically from the children. The rationale of this test is that if Derek really is acquiring information from the minds of children then he should be able to come up with a report containing information that is specific enough for the parents to recognise their own child from the information.

There were six children, six readings, six reports made by Derek, and six parents. Each parent was given all six reports and they had to choose the one that they thought was most relevant to their own child.

Of course, there’s always a chance that parents could pick the correct report for their own child purely by chance (they have a 1 in 6 chance of doing so) so how can it be known whether a report was picked because it was accurate or simply by chance? Well, for any single case we don’t know; but as there are six parents doing the picking it becomes increasingly unlikely that they would all choose the right one purely by chance. Fortunately, statistics can be used to tell us how likely it is that any given number of readings will be picked correctly purely by chance. When six people choose one from six reports at random the most likely outcome is that one of them will choose the correct one. For four or more parents to pick the correct one by chance the odds of this happening are 115 to 1 against. Four or more correct answers was the required level set by Professor French as the pass mark for the test. This means that if four or more parents picked the correct report for their own child then we can say that Derek’s claims are supported (but not proven) as the result was unlikely to have arisen by chance.

An important point to note at this point is that one test does not prove or disprove psychic ability. Four parents could have chosen the correct reports purely by chance (115 to 1 against is not colossal odds). This is why such tests need to be replicated. If a psychic could pass tests at this level consistently then it would be very difficult indeed to keep arguing that it is down to chance.

As it turned out, only one of the parents from the six matched the report for their child to their child correctly. This is exactly at chance level.

What can we conclude from this? Well, if Derek really had the ability to connect telepathically with a child and glean information then we would expect the parent of the child to be able to recognise their own child by the information that is specific to them. As the parents failed to match any reports above what chance guessing predicts then we can conclude that in this test there was no indication or evidence that Derek can connect psychically to children as he claims he does.

It was interesting to note that during this test, Derek was complaining that he found it difficult to read the children when their parents weren’t present. This is consistent with skeptics’ observation that Derek is cold reading the parents, not telepathically connecting to the child. Further support for this view was that Derek started reading the childminder (who was present with the child during the tests) resorting to his more familiar pattern of reading where he’s used to getting feedback. Feedback being a non-psychic interaction from the client which helps the reading enormously – in fact, it’s actually where most of the information comes from in a psychic reading (not the psychic).

Test 2 – The JREF $1,000,000 challenge

The next test we see Derek undertake is the JREF $1,000,000 challenge in Florida. James Randi devised a test along similar lines to the one described on the UK-Skeptics website.^[3]

Again, the idea is that if Derek can tune into the mind of a child then he should be able to state which toy the child is currently playing with.

This time, the child was chosen by Derek as one whom he could connect with telepathically. Derek was shown the 10 target toys that he would have to pick up on during the test and then he was placed in an isolated and soundproofed room. A toy was chosen at random and given to the child. Derek’s task was to connect to the child and state which toy he was playing with. This was repeated ten times and at the end of the trials Derek’s answers were checked against the toys the child actually played with.

As $1,000,000 was at stake, the odds of success were set higher than in Professor French’s test. Derek would have to successfully match 6 or more toys for the result to be considered a success (6,807 to 1 against doing this purely by chance). Derek had agreed to the test conditions and the odds as being fair before the test commenced.

Derek scored 1 match out of 10 – exactly what chance guessing would predict.

So again, we can conclude that Derek’s claim to be able to communicate telepathically with children doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

When testing a claim like this it is imperative that the thing that is under consideration (in this case Derek’s claim to be able to connect telepathically to children) is the only thing that is tested. It is quite easy for Derek to claim to be connecting to children’s minds when there are no test conditions imposed (and he could be cold reading the parents etc.) but test conditions require that when testing for telepathy that telepathy, and only telepathy, is what is being tested. This is why the strict conditions are imposed during testing.

The finale

Up to this point the programme had been a much better than normal (for a TV programme) at looking at psychic ability. However, TV programme makers never like to shut the door on such things and always like to leave something ‘open’ – let’s say ‘for balance’ rather than an excuse to make more similar programmes with an eye on future advertising revenue…

The final sequence showed Derek having his brain scanned by Dr. Gerald Gluck. Gluck advertises himself as an “energy healer” (i.e. a quack). This does not mean that he can’t use an EEG machine properly but his belief in non-physical cause and effect should be borne in mind when his interpretation of the evidence is presented.

Derek was connected up to an EEG machine, which measured his brain-wave patterns whilst he was doing a typical reading of his (a child with its parents present). The results of the test showed that Derek had a much higher than normal level of activity in one area of his brain: the area that deals with non-verbal communication (imagery, body language, emotion, etc.)

This is where the programme became rather unsatisfactory and reliant upon ambiguity and obfuscation. Gluck was asked what these results meant and he replied that they were consistent with what Derek was claiming. But we weren’t told with which of Derek’s claims!

Derek claims that when he’s communicating telepathically he gets images, pictures or movies in his mind and it’s these that he interprets whilst giving a psychic reading. Now, if we accept that Derek does indeed get vivid mental imagery in his mind (and this is not anything unusual) then the results of his EEG scan are consistent with this.

They are not consistent with psychic ability, however, simply because Derek failed to show any psychic ability: the results cannot explain an ability that does not exist! The EEG results are consistent with a person having rich, possibly even hallucinatory, mental imagery but for them to be consistent with, or a possible explanation for, psychic ability that ability would have to have been demonstrated in the first place.

The programme did not make this point clear and this was probably done on purpose as it all seemed designed to imply that the EEG results meant a psychic ability was there. All it really provides is a possible explanation as to why Derek believes he has psychic ability even though he clearly doesn’t.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why psychic abilities can appear to be real: the interactive nature of readings, people’s confirmation bias, subjective validation, and prior beliefs, for example. To test for psychic ability, and only psychic ability, these other factors need to be controlled for (eliminated from the investigation). The scientific experiment, or hypothesis testing, is designed to do this. In hypothesis testing only one single variable should be tested for at a time (although there are more complex testing procedures that can do more) so that when the results of the experiment are examined, they can only be due to the single thing being measured.

This was done twice with Derek Ogilvie. Twice extraneous factors were removed and tests designed so that he could only pass them by using the telepathy he claims to have. In both tests he scored at exactly chance level. This indicates that his claimed psychic ability doesn’t exist and that any positive results he gets out ‘in the field’ are due to psychological and interpersonal factors rather than psychic ability. In other words, when Derek is operating in his own way (with no test conditions imposed) then he’s simply cold reading the parent(s) of the child.