|
There are still numerous
rumours and allegations flying around following an article in a national
newspaper in which I allegedly expose a well-known paranormal show as a
con and sensationally debunk the show’s leading medium. Let me set the
record straight.
I did not lose my job because of this interview. I was not paid to do it.
I was approached by the newspaper journalist and agreed to do the
interview on condition that my fee in full would be donated to a named
music therapy charity. I informed my employers about this interview, but I
was never pressured, coerced or asked to do it by anybody. I volunteered
to do it, and here’s why.
I am an academic and one of my areas of expertise is the scientific study
of paranormal phenomena. In January 2005, I was awarded a Ph.D. by the
University of Hertfordshire for the scientific research I had conducted
since 1999 with Prof. Richard Wiseman on assessing paranormal advice and
special claimants (i.e. psychics, mediums and astrologers). Part of this
research has been published in the British Journal of Psychology, after
being reviewed by other experts in the field, thus attesting to the
scientific standing of my research. I have also been a full-time lecturer
on Parapsychology at Liverpool Hope University since September 2002.
With regards to paranormal phenomena, and mediumship in particular, I am a
true skeptic. What that means is that I do not pretend to know the truth:
though I continually question the veracity of mediums’ claims, I cannot
tell you whether or not mediums have genuine abilities. In fact, to this
day, unfortunately, nobody can tell you this for sure. I can only tell you
of specific mediums involved in specific incidents that indicate the most
probable explanation is a normal one, whether that be cold reading, Barnum
Effect, or even fraud. Some people can try to convince you that true
mediumship does not exist, because they genuinely believe it doesn’t or
because they have a vested interest in convincing you it is all fake, or
because they feel they have evidence to prove it doesn’t. Alternatively,
they can try to convince you that true mediumship does exist, because they
truly believe it does or because they have a lot to earn from you if you
believe it does. I am in neither camp. My approach to scepticism has
always been “education, not condemnation”.
So when I was approached by the newspaper to “give my professional opinion
on mediums, psychics, psychic-phone lines in general, and the show’s
leading medium in particular”, I agreed because I felt that an entire
article examining the sceptical side to mediums and psychics would inform
the public and raise questions. There is room for both sides of the
argument, and I sincerely believe that the search for truth can only
succeed if there is an open dialogue between each side.
The particular incidents surrounding the medium mentioned in the article
did happen as described. In view of these incidents, it is tempting to
conclude that we are not in the presence of genuine mediumship. But as I
had also explicitly said during the original, unpublished, interview,
there may be other explanations – the medium may genuinely believe he has
an ability, and there are other instances where accurate information was
forthcoming when one could argue that he possibly demonstrated paranormal
communication. Of course, incidents such as those described in the article
do weaken the possibility of genuine mediumship considerably but they do
not prove, beyond all doubt, that we are dealing with a ‘fake’. By the
same token, to this day, in my opinion, no definitive evidence has been
presented that proves with absolute certainty that we are facing genuine
mediumship ability. Regular viewers and parapsychology students are aware
that, until I am presented with such definitive evidence, I will endeavour
to offer a number of possible explanations that typically focus on the
logical, natural, ones. I hope, as I did when I first agreed to be
interviewed for the article, that this will raise enough doubt for people
to continue to question mediumship, rather than take it for granted or be
too quick to deny it. I hope that this will arm those attending theatres,
platforms, one-to-one readings and watching paranormal shows with the
power to make a critical, informed opinion about what they are seeing or
experiencing.
At first, I was upset and angry that the article distorted my view and
took such a narrow focus on the show and its medium. I am not retracting
anything I said but the article evoked a picture of me as an antagonist
unwilling to listen to any alternative arguments. That is not true. Many
of my quotes, where it appears I’m providing definitive conclusions, are
taken out of context. In hindsight, however, there is one thing I am
extremely pleased at: the discussions this article has created. A true
skeptic questions. The fact that people are now no longer accepting
unconditionally what they are shown and are more questioning is a good
thing. Though the balance of probability states otherwise, I will always
attempt to provide a number of possible explanations and let the reader,
or viewer, make up their own mind.
Ultimately, my intention coincides with my remit – exposing the
facts...letting you decide.
|
