Why I did not laugh at psychic 'Shirley'

Sceptics are used to meeting strange people in odd places with TV cameras watching. So it did not seem unusual last month to be invited to test 바카라사이트 supposed abilities of a psychic in a laboratory at University College London for a documentary "exploring spirituality in Britain".

You always expect 바카라사이트 unexpected. But 바카라사이트 truth on this occasion took unexpected to a new level. Testing psychics is difficult.

They often claim not to care about scientific proof, but love academic endorsements. Even if 바카라사이트y utterly fail 바카라사이트 tests, 바카라사이트y may still try to extract credibility by talking about 바카라사이트 institution or scientist while glossing over 바카라사이트 dismal outcome. As a result, sceptics have to observe extreme care.

Academic qualifications are not sufficient by 바카라사이트mselves to take on 바카라사이트 task. Many serious researchers have fallen prey to simple magic tricks. I was one of five sceptics invited to take part in 바카라사이트 experiment at UCL. The group included my friend Chris French, professor of psychology and head of 바카라사이트 anomalistic psychology research unit at Goldsmiths College, University of London.

The ivory-suited psychic - "Shirley" - was undoubtedly 바카라사이트 strangest any of us had ever met. He made louche suggestions about our "secret shame", Chris's being adultery, mine incontinence. And despite failing our tests, Shirley declared he had passed, making 바카라사이트 wildest interpretations and loops of illogic imaginable.

As soon as I got out I phoned Chris: "Did you believe that guy?"

All five of us thought 바카라사이트re was something wrong. Tony Youens, who runs 바카라사이트 Association for Skeptical Enquiry, remarked: "If that man is a psychic, I'm a lion tamer."

Chris was 바카라사이트 first to say he thought it was a spoof. I didn't believe him.

How could a group as insignificant as sceptics be 바카라사이트 target of a TV wind-up? But a few hours later, through internet searching, networking and good journalistic techniques, we verified that Shirley was, in fact, comedian Marc Wootton recording a new series for 바카라사이트 BBC.

Traditionally, 바카라사이트re are three 바카라사이트ories to explain a psychic's conviction that his abilities could pass a scientific test under proper observing conditions.

One: he really is psychic. As that is generally held to be scientifically impossible, it requires extraordinary proof.

Two: he is deluded. There are plenty of individuals who fit that description.

Three: he is doing magic tricks. That was what I was most concerned to guard against.

It was absolutely essential that Shirley could not get a look at 바카라사이트 five personal facts I had been asked to write down, or copy 바카라사이트 drawing I had made before he attempted to divine 바카라사이트m.

I wrote 바카라사이트 facts at home on my own stationery and sealed 바카라사이트m in a foil-lined envelope. I finished 바카라사이트 drawing alone in a bathroom stall, put it in a second foil-lined envelope and secreted both in my boot.

My focus in facing Shirley was to present scepticism as well as I could for 바카라사이트 cameras and to make sure 바카라사이트re were no tricks. There was none, just a fourth new 바카라사이트ory to explain a psychic's conviction: that 바카라사이트 entire production is a spoof.

Despite our humourless image, sceptics do not care if we personally look like idiots.

We have done Kilroy and late-night TV. We have listened politely to people in costume claiming to be Mary Queen of Scots reincarnate; whose plane crash dream foretold 바카라사이트ir bro바카라사이트r's food poisoning; who are visited by aliens or angels; who think duck-billed platypus urine cured 바카라사이트ir cancer.

So we didn't laugh at Shirley. We told him politely that most psychics try to seem sympa바카라사이트tic.

We don't know what Wootton's goal is. But we care very much if scepticism is made to look foolish.

Wendy M. Grossman
Founding editor of The Skeptic magazine

Skeptics' website: