Britain's Psychic Challenge: the aftermath.

[Admin]

Despite showing themselves up as having no psychic ability at all, we're starting to see the psychics more than happy to milk their appearance on the programme for all it's worth.

Mary White was "delighted" to be the runner up: http://www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewAr...icleID=1364490

"I was delighted with my performance," said Mary. "To be on television was the experience of a life-time, but the whole point of the show was to prove that psychics exist, and I believe we managed to achieve that."

We all know that psychic claimants exist, but this programme did not prove that they have any ability. In fact, most of the time, they were less successful in the tests than the non-psychic control groups.

I love this at the end of the article:

The Express is giving you the chance to win your own reading from Mary, absolutely free!
Is love on the cards? Will you be landing a new job? Whatever your future holds, Mary will be able to uncover what lies in wait.
To stand a chance of winning, take a look at the photograph. Mary has drawn a picture and placed it in a sealed envelope.
All you have to do is guess what the picture is. The clues on offer is that Mary uses it every day, we all have more than one, but not everyone uses it.

Mary did a similar test in BPC where she had to give some info on a person's photo sealed in an envelope. The result: Mary White: "This person must have had a love for cars, fast cars." The target: Mother Teresa.

The BPC programme is documented here: Britain's Psychic Challenge

[Muse]

Oh please don't get me started on this one Admin.

Anyway, don’t newpaper reporters have a responsibility to report the truth and not what we are spoon fed by TV companies?

Sorry I digress, but there is something else going on here that needs a closer look –

Townhouse TV’s Exec Producer Malcolm Allsop originally hyped the show saying,

“We want to test if they can actually do anything under test conditions and if there is a rational scientific explanation for what we see.”

Rubbish. While skeptics Chris French and Philip Escoffey may have monitored the tests they certainly weren’t designed by them – 23 tests and not a double blind in sight! Flawed tests = worthless results. Of course, Malcolm Allsop’s declared purpose was also at odds with the format of a show that was constructed to establish a ‘winner’ - so assuming the very existence of the ability they were claiming to investigate. (!)

Needless to say the skeptics weren’t allowed any time to fully explain what else could be going on here. They were merely meant as window dressing – invited solely to create the illusion of scientific rigour. Techniques like cold reading are a psychic’s stock in trade, similarly subjective validation and confirmation bias all play a part in both deception and self-deception – none of which was explored.

Put that together with a pronounced pro psychic bias shown inadequate testing regime, sloppy protocols and the commentary which frequently declared the prosaic as ‘remarkable’ or ‘extraordinary’ and you have a fudge designed purely for entertainment but with a pseudoscientific veneer. One look at the ‘Facts and Theories’ on the Psychic Challenge web site will give you the general idea where they repeat the old “we only use 10% of our brain’ myth along with a few other gems of ignorance.

What’s the harm – its just entertainment isn’t it? As I write the legitimisation of psychic ability as a reality tested by science is taking place, helped by that show. Despite psi ability having yet to be established as scientific fact anywhere, this sort of nonsense has a habit of seeping into the public consciousness as ‘proven fact’ – after all weren’t these psychics ‘scientifically tested’ on TV? Diane Lazarus is already heavily trading on her instant credibility afforded by the show – pure gold for her but the truth loses out again.

Organisations like The Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE) and the James Randi Foundation offer psychic tests conducted with proper scientific rigour and protocols. Passing tests of this calibre is the only reliable measure of psychic ability and not what Townhouse TV wants us to believe.

[Admin]

That's a good point Muse. No matter how good or bad the psychics did, there was always going to be a "winner". The series was designed that way.

I have also previously raised doubts about skeptics getting involved with this type of programme. Whilst they do manage to get a skeptic's point of view across (both Chris French and Philip Escoffey were particularly good), they can also give a false perception of authority to the programmes.

In this article: http://tinyurl.com/msoz4 - they say:

The tests were monitored by experts, including psychologist Chris French; Philip Escoffey, a professional illusionist and one of the UK's top mindreaders, and former top police officer Jackie Malton, the real-life inspiration behind the character of Jane Tennison in Lynda La Plante's TV drama Prime Suspect.

Notice that the skeptics are mentioned and their qualifications stated, but there's nothing on how the skeptics concluded that in their opinion they hadn't seen anything that was psychic.

[Muse]

While they did a good job in the circumstances it could have been so much better if only they had been given a little more time. Of course that wasn't the point of the exercise from the programme maker's point of view.

Like you I've often wondered about the wisdom of skeptics getting involved with this sort of venture where they have so little control. Inevitably their presence is used to lend credibility and a sense of balence where there is none. Add to that the hype, skewed commentary and faux 'gravitas' of Ms Goddard and the illusion is complete.

All of which bring me to the question of BPC in relation to OFCOM's Broadcasting Code which states,

1.19 Demonstrations of exorcisms, occult practices and the paranormal (which purport to be real), must not be shown before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening. Paranormal practices which are for entertainment purposes must not be broadcast when significant numbers of children may be expected to be watching, or are particularly likely to be listening. (This rule
does not apply to drama, film or comedy.)”

Also....

2.6 Demonstrations of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination,
or practices related to any of these that purport to be real (as opposed to entertainment) must be treated with due objectivity.
(See Rule 1.19 in Section One: Protecting the Under-Eighteens, concerning
scheduling restrictions.)
2.7 If a demonstration of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination,
or practices related to any of these is for entertainment purposes, this must be made clear to viewers and listeners.”

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/

BPC did not have an 'entertainment only' disclaimer and was presented as 'real' (as opposed to entertainment) hence the presence of skeptics to lend 'due objectivity'. Although I think it can be successfully argued that the show was far from objective in its presentation and format, eg. Jackie Malton's pro psychic quotes, ridiculously low threshold for declaring hits, obvious pro psychic commentary etc.

A worthy case for OFCOM? Probably - but the recent Derek Acorah ruling showed it for the toothless dragon it is.

[Dr B]

I see a letter from Chris French has been posted over on the JREF (well done ). I did post in that thread ages ago....and said that the skeptics were not involved in devising the tests (poor Interesting Ian got it wrong...again) - it seems clear to me - but many are confused over this. Chris makes it quite clear in his reply.

The lesson here is that the format for the programme generated confusion. Most think that the skeptics devised the tests simply because they were on the programme. I never got that impression, but clearly many did (see the thread over there in JREF)

[Admin]

It was never made clear in the programme that the skeptics had nothing to do with the tests so people probably assume that it was they who devised them.