|
(Investigator Magazine #225, 2026 January)
Palmistry
Reading the creases in one's palm is another well patronised albeit fruitless method of trying to tell the future.
One of note, late in 1991, featured Babu Lal Khatri, an eighty-year old Fijian Indian palmist who, for a fiver, will peer through his magnifying glass at your palm and, with the aid of an old worn out imperial tape measure, make some very specific predictions. Now five bucks to us may be a reasonable rate for a prospective hour's entertainment, but in Fiji it represents a day's pay for many who can ill afford to fall victim to charlatanism. One would also have to be extremely gullible to take Mr Lal's readings seriously, for he naively cuts his own throat by saying, 'I have read the palms of over one thousand people and I only tell them what they want to know.' This being so, there is hardly any point in consulting a palmist who is not going to interpret what he claims to be able to see accurately anyway. Notwithstanding the foregoing, according to an article in the Fiji Times, (a Murdoch publication), Mr Lal can tell among other things, how long you will live; whether you will die soon; the cause of your death; when you will marry; how successful your marriage will be; the number of children you will have; if you will be successful in business, and whether you will travel. With a local sceptic's co-operation I decided to put Mr Lal to the test by giving him a photocopy of the palm of my right hand. A light dusting of talcum powder enhanced the reproduction of not only the main creases, but all the fine featherings, breaks, dents and dots which, according to palmists, are a physiological, psychological and chronographical blueprint of our lives. With strict instructions not to give Mr Lal any information other than my sex, Jan (my confederate) fronted up for a reading. His edited report is as follows:
How accurate was Mr Lal? First the
facts. Jan is a forty-year old expatriate engaged in research for his
PhD. His studies will never finish — such is the life of an academic.
First married in 1974, he was divorced in 1980, and remarried in 1990.
His wife aged thirty-seven, gave birth to her first and most likely
only child in October last year. Jan has one brother and one sister.
Apart from the incorrect guesses, Mr Lal's predictions and pronouncements were fantasy and generally unverifiable. He stated the obvious based on the observation of clearly identifiable and common human traits and relied heavily on probability. It is obvious that he, an Indian living in Fiji, was clearly influenced by, and based his pronouncements on his own cultural and social mores — primarily large families subject to the same passages in life to which we are all more or less subject, and a limited general knowledge of the 'outside' world, However, true to his word and within reason, he did tell his client what he wanted to hear! At the prospects of another quick fiver (the first reading took ten minutes), Mr Lal relented, and asked whether the photocopy was that of a male or female hand (despite the size of the print making the question superfluous), and (significantly), how old the subject was. Jan said that the photocopy was that of a friend, yet aroused no suspicion when unable to tell him even my approximate age. Mr Lal studied the printout, joined Shirley MacLaine out on a limb, and proceeded uncomfortably without that information. His assessment?
1. I have many enemies; 2. will live till I'm eighty-three; 3. will be successful in private business; 4. have had a troubled marriage; 5. have six siblings; 6. suffer from gastrointestinal trouble; 7. have a hot temper; 8. own a car; 9. won't win lotto (that's a twist, but far more likely than winning it!); 10. will travel; 11. have money problems, and 12. will die overseas. Right or wrong,
numbers two and twelve I will never be able to confront Mr Lal with,
and if I have any enemies I'm certainly not aware of them unless that
refers to creationists, clairvoyants, aura readers and two ex-wives! In
any case they can't be too dangerous as according to Mr Lal, I'm going
to live till I'm eighty-three! (This incidentally contradicts two other
predictions I've had from other palmists). To a certain extent I have
been successful in business but then that's an even money chance, you
either are or you are not. Mr Lal's observation was no doubt based on
the assumption that I was probably about the same age as Jan and
successfully engaged in some sort of business in Fiji. One in three
Australians have a troubled marriage ending in divorce, and even the
most harmonious have their ups and downs. Mr Lal made no mention of my
previous two divorces nor that of Jan. This is particularly significant
as Mr Lal made the excuse that the relevant lines on the photocopy
could not be seen, yet in Jan's case they were plainly visible. I have
one brother, a trouble free gut, and a temperament passive to the point
of infuriating those who would provoke me. Owning a car in an affluent
country is hardly a revelation and raises the question whether the
particular line on the palm denoting car owner ship has only appeared
since the turn of the century and the demise of the horse and buggy.
Are there others to indicate yacht, plane and helicopter ownership?
Mr Lal probably
assumed that a friend of Jan's would also be an expatriate in Fiji and
must have travelled from Australia, so yes, I do travel like tens of
thousands of other Australians every year, and like millions more have
money problems. Finally, although the odds of winning lotto are
hundreds of thousands to one against, our palmist got it right, I won't
win lotto—simply because I don't buy tickets!
As an aside, Mr Lal has a premonition of death by drowning. His performance as a palmist suggests that it will be in Taurus excreta! Mr Lal's pronouncements were not based on his interpretation of the flexion folds on the palm but were confined to guesswork and the parochialism of his island environment. To invest one's money in Mr Lal's ability to predict the future would be akin to buying shares in the St Petersburg Municipal Gas Works and waiting for a dividend—they went out of business in 1917! For nearly four
decades I have been an inveterate writer of letters to the editors of
local and national newspapers. In total, approximately nine hundred, of
which six hundred have been published. They have covered a range of
topics, although in recent years they have inevitably dealt with
various aspects of the paranormal. Subject variously to praise,
condemnation, ridicule and flattery, I have been variously described by
some as an ignoramus and a literary dwarf, and complimented by others
on my ability to express my thoughts in concise and readable English.
My efforts have resulted in both praiseworthy and abusive responses, I
have been prayed for, and received threats of physical harm. One
reaction to my opinion that single parents should not be the
responsibility of the taxpayer, solicited an abusive phone call from (I
assumed) a single female parent expressing the wish that my penis (not
the euphemism used) shrivel up and drop off! At the time of writing the
letter I was a single parent raising two teenage kids!
It is difficult to ascertain from the odd and disparate reactions, whether or not, either as a skeptic or a general commentator, I have exerted any influence conducive to promoting critical thinking, particularly where the predilections of editors who favour promoting the weird and wacky are concerned. In the April 26, 1995 edition of the Manly Daily, a suburban newspaper with a claimed readership in excess of one million, an article appeared under the heading 'Flavia foresees "quake",' featuring a 'psychic' prognosticator and her predictions. Among the claims, Flavia lists her past accurate hits as including the assassination of Sydney MP John Newman, the Rwandan civil war and the rise of John Howard. For the future, an earthquake in Sydney by the end of 1995, economic domination of the world by China and contact with aliens by the end of the decade. It appeared from her comments, that the Manly Daily proposed to give Flavia a regular column starting with the following:
Q: What impact will computer technology have on our society?
A: Computer technology will advance so fast it will redefine society on a near yearly basis. By the year 2010 it will seem as if we are living four generations in one: things will be moving forward so fast. Everything from cooking to transport will be revolutionised. Computers will make our lives easier, but they will also take away all our privacy. Increasingly, people will work from home on computer terminals, meaning roads won't be as busy as they are now. Cars will also be extremely computerised; if you wanted to go somewhere you could tell the computer the address, and it would navigate for you as you drive. Computers could prevent accidents by warning you of coming dangers. In about three years there will be gi-normous technical advances made in computing. In eight to ten years the drawbacks of computers will become apparent. The article
concluded with a phone number, and a note that Flavia is available for
psychic readings or private classes. The free advertisement would
conservatively be worth three hundred dollars.
Two letters commenting on the article were subsequently published, one from John Smyrk (a former Australian Skeptics' secretary) and one from me. John (a statistician), observed that Flavia's 'predictions' regarding computer technology were obvious to any who were even vaguely aware of what was going on in the world, and went on to explain why. In a fax to the editor I commented: The
definition of the appellation 'psychic' designates those mental
phenomena which appear to be independent of normal senses, such as
clairvoyance, telepathy and extra sensory perception.
Before we are subject to Flavia's 'amazing paranormal powers' perhaps she should learn to tell the difference between a 'psychic' prognostication as defined above, and predictions based on pragmatic considerations and the projection of current common knowledge. Surveys conducted by sceptical groups in Australia and around the world, show that predictions by so called 'psychics' have a success rate of less that five per cent, and even these were usually based on the laws of probability or prior knowledge. Regarding the three 'accurate' predictions she claims to have made—the assassination of MP John Newman, the Rwandan civil war and the rise of John Howard, would she be kind enough to let Manly Daily readers know whether she can support this with any evidence to show that they were specifically worded and made prior to the event. Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable, they must be in print and verifiable. The ever sceptical, Harry Edwards. The evidence requested has not been forthcoming. While my
endeavours through the print media have, to some extent, been
successful in influencing readers to become subscribers to the Skeptic,
one can only speculate whether or not those letters to the editor have
had any bearing on subsequent events. Suffice it to say Flavia's
proposed prediction column has failed to materialise.
It would seem therefore, that the sole criterion necessary to qualify as a psychic is self-nomination.
Scepticism.
An unabashed
sceptic, with the tendency towards the maverick, I had the inclination
to prove the point that anyone who aspired to the revered and exalted
position of 'acclaimed' psychic could easily do so.
A copy of The Sun (Sydney) dated February 24, 1987, provided the opportunity when it devoted a full page to one Rosemary Brown, an English psychic who claimed that she had been receiving dictation from the spirit of John Lennon over the past two years, and had written seven songs at his behest. She further claimed to have been in touch with famous and long dead composers, as well as Einstein and George Bernard Shaw. The concluding paragraph, however, blurred red before my eyes—'no-one has proved me wrong'. Here was a golden opportunity to prove my point and at the same time strike a blow in the name of rationality.
Cognizant of the defamation laws which preclude one calling a liar a liar, 1 concocted a letter to the editor of The Sun over the name 'psychic' Harry Edwards, in an endeavour to discredit the outlandish claims with an equally absurd albeit more plausible postulation: I
refer to the article on London psychic Rosemary Brown, and her claim to
have written songs dictated to her by the spirit of John Lennon.
Specifically, she claims that contact with him has been in the last two years; that a conversation with Lennon took place in the presence of your correspondent; and that nobody has yet proved her wrong. That is just about to change. I too am psychic, but do not advertise my powers. John Lennon first contacted me at 1am on February 1, 1981. Almost translucent, thin, dishevelled and badly in need of a shave, he appeared before me and explained that he was waiting to be picked up by a UFO spirit transport to be taken to Octavia, a small planet on the far side of Pluto where the spirits of departed musicians dwell. Octavia's orbit is such that it is only visible from Earth between February 21 to 23 once every three years, and only then is communication possible subject to ionospheric conditions. In view of this and Rosemary Brown's claim that the dictation took place in the last two years, it could not possibly have been with John Lennon. Further, conversation as we know it is not possible due to the time lapse; it takes approximately six hours for thoughts to reach Octavia and six more to get a response. A series of questions must be put therefore, and the answers, usually grossly distorted, come back twelve hours later. Conditions being exceptionally favourable last night, I addressed a series of questions to John Lennon and read him the article. His response came through at 5am this morning. He said, 'I do not know, nor have I contacted a Rosemary Brown. Further, I no longer compose music or write lyrics'. He also added that he was learning to play the harp, and had teamed up with Elvis Presley, now an accomplished flautist, and both hoped to be chosen for an angels choir in the process of being formed to herald the second coming of the Messiah. The coming, by the way, is still in the committee planning stage. There's your proof — now try and prove me wrong' The letter was
not published; but instead, an interview with a Sun reporter ensued in
which I embellished my story with concomitant flights of fancy:
my ability to
communicate with the spirit world had manifested itself after I had
received a heavy radio frequency discharge between the eyes; a
convoluted pseudo-scientific explanation of how my brain had been
're-arranged', and further claims of contact with Einstein, Locke,
Hume, Plato, Bertrand Russell and other departed luminaries, now
resident on (fictitious planets) Zetetica, Philos, Thestos, Dioxas and
Dirunas far out in space.
My vivid
description of the invisible UFO transport hovering over my patio into
which John Lennon had levitated would have made Von Däniken blush
with envy. The reporter demurely recorded all this nonsense, part of
which appeared with a photograph, of 'psychic' Harry Edwards in the
March 11 issue of the Sydney Sun.
Further publicity was in the offing, when Channel 7's Willessee
program, eager to out do Rosemary Brown's claims, contacted me to
appear in a TV interview during which I would communicate with selected
spirits.
Sensing that
this section of the media was becoming more inclined to view claims of
the paranormal more objectively, I declined, confessing that the whole
thing was a fabrication, and that had my original letter been
published, any thinking person would have perceived its intent—to
discredit an outlandish claim with satire. People
magazine, however, was another matter. Fed on a diet of unperceptive
pabulum, its readers have been conditioned to accept anything written
on the paranormal as inviolable, no matter how ludicrous, inane or far
fetched.
Prior to an
interview arranged for April 1, 1987 (significant?), I was asked by the
magazine to contact the spirits of some well known and departed film
stars and pop idols. This assignment was dutifully carried out by the
simple expedient of jotting down a few comments under each of the
nominees' names, expressing some pragmatic opinions of a retrospective
and recriminative nature. Thus, Rock Hudson, for example, was ashamed
of himself, regretted the legacy he had left behind, and advised youth
against homosexuality. Marilyn Monroe warned young girls that while a
life of glamour and fame may seem desirable the price it sometimes
exacts is too high. These being typical of the messages passed on by
mediums supposedly in contact with the spirits of the dead.
On May 18, the hoax appeared as a three page spread in People under the heading 'Harry's Spirited Chats'. Credit however to the young female reporter who covered the story. Although astute, observant and perceptive, she unable to determine whether she was having one of her legs pulled and was too reticent (or too polite) to call my bluff. Conscious of the old journo's maxim, 'Never let the facts spoil a good story', perhaps she didn't really care, and therein lies the sceptic's lament. While the mystical may make good entertaining reading, it does nothing to encourage a rational view of the world; a lamentable situation of concern to all thinking people, and an indictment of some sections of the print media with a propensity to propagate uncritical accounts of the paranormal. Clairvoyance
Finally we come to one of those rare individuals who was prepared to put his clairvoyant claims to the test, or at least so it seemed at the time. Clairvoyance is defined as: having the power to see objects or actions beyond the natural range of the senses. Trying to entice a psychic to accept the Australian Skeptics' challenge to prove their claimed psychic abilities is rather like fishing in the Pacific Ocean for rainbow trout—the chances of hooking one are, to say the least, extremely rare. So when one claiming to be 'one of the three greatest world psychics living' nibbles at the bait, it is indeed a time to rejoice. My bait was a letter to the Sydney Sunday Telegraph (Sept. 10, 1995) which read: Re: Stuart Snell's article 'Licensed to spell' (ST p.53, Aug. 27. 1995)
As a sceptic, I wholeheartedly support the proposition to license 'psychics', provided they are tested by an independent scientific group to ascertain whether or not they possess extraordinary abilities. This would sound the death knell for any pretentious parasite ripping off the public, as nobody, I repeat nobody, has ever produced any scientific evidence to support the claim that 'psychic' powers even exist. The title of Mr Fenton-Smith's organisation 'Academy of Psychic Sciences' is in itself a contradiction in terms, and I question whether any member of Simon Turnbull's 'Australian Psychics Association' can produce any scientific evidence in support of their claim to possess any kind of psychic power. For fifteen years the Australian Skeptics have had on offer thirty thousand dollars and international fame for any person who can substantiate their claim to possess any form of paranormal ability. Why therefore, do psychics and clairvoyants never come forth to prove their claims? While there was
no response from Mr Fenton-Smith or Simon Turnbull, my comments
evidently ruffled the psychic feathers of one Rodney G. Hixon, who
calls himself Swami Ramananda, and who wrote to the Sunday Telegraph, (Sept. 15, 1995), and also sent me a copy, saying inter alia,
'I
take strong exception to this statement as he (Mr Edwards), suggests
that no-one has come forward or can do it, and no-one has this power ... I hereby challenge Mr Edwards to place his money where his mouth is'.
Enclosed with the letter were newspaper cuttings from the Eastern suburbs Wentworth Courier
(circ.50,000) which, Mr Hixon claimed, 'spoke for themselves'. They
certainly did, although not in the way the Swami evidently thinks.
Of the eight
clippings, one was a testimonial from a satisfied client; one was a
paid advertisement (he advertises as 'a celebrated clairvoyant'); three
were items in which there was no mention of Mr Hixon or Swami
Ramananda, and three were very short versions of the same interview in
which the Swami recounts all of his alleged 'amazing' clairvoyant
predictions. Among the Swami's 1994 astoundingly accurate revelations
were gems such as, 'a major breakthrough in the 'Back-packer murders',
'Prince Charles future role in the Monarchy', 'new light being cast
upon AIDS research', and 'a light-coloured horse to win the Melbourne
Cup!' He also claims to have personally advised many show-biz
personalities, and is confident that the Australian dollar will be more
healthy as confidence returns in the economy. The piece de resistance
however, is his forecast in the June 1988 issue of Women's Weekly, in
which he said, 'On or about June 15, I can see a major oil strike in
the East Timor Sea which will confirm that there's a big field there.'
The Daily Telegraph
reported on June 17, that BHP's Challis 6 well in the Timor Sea has
flowed oil at three thousand one hundred barrels a day. Anyone reading
the financial and business sections of the Sydney Morning Herald,
would be well aware that given the potential, oil strikes over a vast
area of the Timor Sea are inevitable. In this instance, it would appear
that Mr Hixon made a lucky guess or was an avid reader of the business
section of the Sydney Morning Herald, but doesn't say whether he had sufficient confidence in his prediction to buy a few shares!
Mr Hixon
claimed to have had thirty-five years experience as a clairvoyant, and
was chosen as one of the greatest three world psychics living. Despite
this thirty-five year career as a clairvoyant, Mr Hixon lists only a
dozen or so 'hits', but what percentage of his total predictions does
this represent?
It appeared from the little information to hand that the Swami's predictions were the same as those we have come to expect from other clairvoyant prognosticators, they were simple projections based on common knowledge. However, as I seemed to have hooked a live one, I decided to pay out the line and responded on September 21, as follows: Dear Mr Hixon,
Thank you for your letter, clippings and a copy of your letter to the editor of the Sunday Telegraph. As indicated in my letter to the Sunday Telegraph, Australian Skeptics Inc. have on offer thirty thousand dollars for anyone who can prove under mutually agreed upon controlled conditions, that they possess any form of paranormal ability, including clairvoyance and the ability to psychically predict the future. The latter, according to your clippings, being your claimed forte. If you are seriously interested in challenging us in a test of your alleged prescience, we would be pleased to discuss the details. In anticipation of your acceptance however, we would appreciate more information on your background including: 1. The names of the other two 'greatest world psychics living' as designated by the Secretary of the World Psychics Association, London, in 1975 2. Some more evidence in the form of newspaper or magazine clippings to show that your predictions were made prior to the events you claim as hits. 3. The name of the organisation at which you were guest speaker at the United Nations Headquarters in 1985. Mr Hixon' s
response dated October 6, was a little evasive and more or less an
exercise in self-aggrandizement. If I wanted to know what his standing
was with the World Psychics Association (no address given) and who the
other two psychics were, I would have to ask them. (Why could he not
just name the other two?) His speech at the U.N. was at the invitation
of the United Nations Recreation Council, so I doubt very much whether
there was much in the way of scientific evaluation. I was informed that
posters advertising his lecture were plastered all over the place, and
a video dealing with the interpretation of dreams can be seen at the
... wait for it Edgar Cayce Institute at Virginia Beach, USA. He
reiterated his successful predictions but did not give any indication
of the precise wording, so they could not be examined to see whether
they were specifically worded. No further newspaper cuttings were
forthcoming.
Mr Hixon also
claimed to have helped one lady win half a million dollars with his
psychic powers, and twelve girls to win the Opera House lottery.
Typical of all those who claim to have financially benefited others, he
doesn't mention any personal winnings through his facility. The swami
ended by saying:
'I
regard myself as a genuine psychic and clairvoyant but I have grave
misgivings about your personal standing as a scientist ... (Fair
enough, I've never claimed to be one!) I would like a public debate
with you in the media, and adjudication by three independent scientists
of world standing because I do not think you can venture into a
scientific investigation of genuine psychics as any remarks you make
might be based on 19th century ideas of science. In order to be fair to
me and my reputation, which I have acquired over thirty-five years, I
would like this to be done under conditions which are fully forthright.
Therefore I hope to hear from you in the near future.'
While I hardly
think it necessary to engage three scientists of world standing to
adjudicate a debate that has nothing to do with science, I responded
with enthusiasm as follows on October 29.
Dear Mr Hixon,
Thank you for your letter dated October 6. I do not doubt the truth of the predictions you have made, only the means by which you claim to have made them. The Australian Skeptics offer of thirty thousand dollars still stands for anyone who can, by using their alleged psychic or clairvoyant ability, accurately predict future events. If you wish to take up the challenge, we would be pleased to formulate a preliminary test to determine whether or not an official mutually agreed upon test protocol is warranted. Regarding your suggestion that we debate, I would be delighted to accept. I can arrange a public forum in Sydney, early in the new year, with prominent scientists to adjudicate, and to which the media would be invited. Trusting you will find the above to your satisfaction. Yours sincerely, There being no response by November 25, I wrote again. Dear Mr Hixon,
Further to my unanswered letter dated October 29, 1995. We have just been informed by James 'the Amazing' Randi in the USA, that a universal prize of three hundred thousand dollars US will shortly be available for any person who can prove the truth of any paranormal claim under controlled test conditions. This of course includes the forecasting of future events by clairvoyance—your alleged ability. Implicit in any reticence by one claiming to be clairvoyant to take up such a generous offer, would be the inference that they are making a false claim. In your letter to the Sunday Telegraph, you asked the editor to 'arrange for Mr Edwards to prove that he can place his money where his mouth is'. I believe I have complied with that request, and falling any positive response to this letter intend publicising the matter in the Sunday Telegraph, the Australian Skeptics' journal, and other magazines. Readers can then decide for themselves whether or not any credence can be had in your claim to be clairvoyant. Yours sceptically, Three days
later I received a telephone call from one identifying himself as
Rodney Hixon—Swami. He acknowledged the receipt of my two letters and
said that he would reply on Friday (December 1).
Mr Hixon spoke in a wavering voice and as though he was reading from a written script. This, together with the handwriting on the envelopes of our previous correspondence, gave the impression that the allotted span of three score years and ten have long passed him by. He stated that he was confident of his clairvoyant ability and was not afraid to be tested. On December 6, I received Swami's reply and it is reproduced below verbatim, less a few lines considered irrelevant. Dear Sir,
I am and was most sincere when I contacted your organisation and endeavoured to impress upon you that I am not making any false claims, as you infer ... In any dealings with your association and Mr Randi of the USA I must be explicit and say that any dealings will be conducted by an independent body of noted scientists and any debate will be organised by an independent body, not by the association sceptics. I wish to make this very clear as in no way would I be satisfied with the results if conducted perhaps on a pseudo basis by your association or anyone connected with Mr Randi. I remember his sudden departure from The Don Lane Show when he was in Australia, and for good reason. Therefore I want to make it perfectly clear that the independent body should be of scientists of repute above the standards of the sceptics and Mr Randi for whom, I am sorry to say, I have not much regard. If you are satisfied with this criteria please let me know. (Having implied that the Skeptics' scientists and James Randi are not above repute, he later asks for information to find out what we are all about). In thirty—five years of being a clairvoyant I have satisfied hundreds and thousands of people who will no doubt rise to the occasion to speak on my behalf when your offer is publicised ... I am willing to confront you on any occasion because I take umbrage to what you say ... In all the years of my experience as a person (sic! a reincarnation?) I find that the ideas of your association are an anthema (sic!) to me (yet he needs some information on the Australian Skeptics) and so I will gladly speak up against you on any occasion as I think that the state of public affairs demands that people speak up for the truth on proper occasions and I think that this may well be one. (Hear hear!) Would you send me any literature you have on Australian Sceptics Inc. and on Mr Randi so that I may be well informed on your reasoning and your attitude to society. Yours sincerely, not sceptically. I had intended to simply reply 'put up or shut up', however I decided to let Mr Swami down gently.
Dear Mr Hixon, Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1995.
I was surprised to read your disparaging remarks regarding the repute of James Randi and the scientific members of our association. Particularly as you request information on both in your final paragraph which would indicate that you know nothing of either. How can one so uninformed be so judgmental. Contrary to your recall of the Don Lane Show, it was Don Lane who walked out not Randi. Furthermore, Doris Stokes, the principal entertainer on the show, was subsequently exposed as a fraud by Ian Wilson in 1987, thus confirming Randi's suspicions. In the matter under consideration however, James Randi is in no way involved and I doubt very much that the simple test of clairvoyance envisaged for you by Australian Skeptics would be worthy of his attention. Your allusion to a proposed test being conducted on a pseudo basis is unfounded. A prerequisite of any test conducted by the Australian Skeptics is that the conditions be 'mutually agreed upon as fair', in other words, both parties must be satisfied and agreeable to the conditions laid down. I have already accepted your challenge to debate, but it appears when you say 'thousands of people will no doubt rise to the occasion to speak on my behalf' that you are not conversant with debating forums. For your information, a debate can be one on one, the outcome to be adjudicated by one or more adjudicators, or parliamentary style, where there is audience participation and a popular vote to decide the issue. The former would be preferred, but if adjudicated in accordance with recognised debating criteria, i.e. marks for — manner, method and material, then the better debater would be declared the winner regardless of whether his case was soundly based or not. The second option would decide nothing, as the result would merely reflect the beliefs of the audience and would not be judged on the merits of scientific argument. Despite the
shortcomings, I advise that we have booked a room for 7 pm on Friday,
February 16th. at the Crow's Nest Club, 33 Hayberry St., Crow's Nest,
in which to hold a debate. It will be a dinner meeting with speakers
and entertainment, at which you will be a guest, and to which the
public and the media will be invited. Should you wish to invite some of
the hundreds who will speak on your behalf, please do so. However, the
cost of the dinner is twenty-five dollars per head, and needs to be
paid in advance for catering purposes.
As you are of the opinion that science can confirm your clairvoyant claims, may I suggest as the title of the topic, 'That there is scientific evidence in support of clairvoyance.' Regarding your preference for three 'independent scientists of world standing' to adjudicate the debate, perhaps you would care to nominate them and obtain their services for the evening. In the event that you are unsuccessful, may I presume to nominate three of lesser standing albeit with appropriate qualifications? They will of course all have been born in the 20th. century and therefore unlikely to base their remarks on 19th century science. In the first instance, I would need to know the names and contact numbers of your nominees before the end of this month to enable me to issue formal invitations. I assume you are familiar with the rules of debating; speaking order and times can be mutually agreed upon at a later date Notwithstanding the foregoing, I would point out that any debate is peripheral to your claim to be clairvoyant, the outcome of any debate is not evidence of the truth of that claim. In summary, You challenged me to put my money where my mouth is and I have done so. A simple test is all that is required to prove or disprove my statement that, 'nobody has ever produced any scientific evidence that psychic powers even exist.' As confirmation of this statement, it has recently been announced that in the 1970s the American CIA spent seventeen million dollars on testing alleged ESP and remote viewing abilities with uniform negative results. For your further information, the prize money on offer for anyone who can provide evidence of paranormal powers (including clairvoyance) now stands at five hundred thousand dollars US. You are not eligible to compete of course until such time as you agree to submit to and pass the Australian Skeptics' simple preliminary test. Finally, our official address is as stated on our letterhead, it is neither Barco, Baca, or Bacas Road, Roseville. Trusting the above is to your satisfaction, yours sincerely, PS Enclosed for your information is a copy of the aims of Australian Skeptics Inc. In the absence
of a reply and given Mr Hixon's procrastination, I decided any further
communication would also be non productive.
Summarising the
correspondence. Mr Rodney 'Swami' Hixon claimed to have had thirty-five
years experience as a clairvoyant and to be one of the world's top
three psychics. The only evidence of these claims was the title of an
organisation with no address, and photocopies of a few predictions in a
local newspaper. He regarded himself as a genuine psychic and
clairvoyant, had a poor opinion of James Randi and of scientists
generally below the rank of 'world standing'. He challenged me to 'put
my money where my mouth is' then backed out of the debate he challenged
me to. He also declined to undertake a simple test of clairvoyance
which could have led to him winning over half a million dollars. I
concluded therefore, that perhaps he IS clairvoyant—he must have foreseen the results!
From: Edwards, H. 1997 A Skeptic's Casebook, Australian Skeptics Inc.
Hundreds of articles about religion, the supernatural and the paranormal,
from skeptical investigator Harry Edwards, on this website: |