Here is a question that people are concerns and uncertain about the answer, here are some views can help you understand more clearly:
From a scientific point of view, research involving self-described psychics is challenging. In general, experiments are worthless unless they can be repeated. If a specific person was revealed to have psychic abilities, they would have to be willing to repeatedly undergo the same experiment numerous times.
Consequently, serious researchers (and there are serious parapsychological researchers) prefer to test ordinary people. A good example is Gertrude Schmeidler’s sheep-and goat’s experiment, which has been repeated over 30 times. Does this successful repeatable experiment prove the existence of psychic abilities? Not really. It does disprove the hypothesis that the pattern of answers to a question about which the subjects have no knowledge conforms to random chance. By the end of my studies, I concluded that something was going on, but we knew too little to characterize the phenomena or even ask the correct questions. BTW, as part of my research, I talked to scores of people about their psychic experiences. Believers in ESP are frequently criticized as being indifferent to empirical evidence, but I discovered many skeptics were also non-scientific in their approach to this topic. Hard core skeptics freely admitted that they had experiences that could not be explained by conventional means, but this did not alter their beliefs one iota. This was one reason I abandoned this field of study. I realized no matter how much proof parapsychologists gathered, skeptics would never give credence to their evidence.Additionally, Very few people are aware of just how much evidence there is, and those who are least informed are usually skeptics, who heard that there was no scientific evidence and stopped looking.
From a scientific point of view, research involving self-described psychics is challenging. In general, experiments are worthless unless they can be repeated. If a specific person was revealed to have psychic abilities, they would have to be willing to repeatedly undergo the same experiment numerous times.
Consequently, serious researchers (and there are serious parapsychological researchers) prefer to test ordinary people. A good example is Gertrude Schmeidler’s sheep-and goat’s experiment, which has been repeated over 30 times. Does this successful repeatable experiment prove the existence of psychic abilities? Not really. It does disprove the hypothesis that the pattern of answers to a question about which the subjects have no knowledge conforms to random chance. By the end of my studies, I concluded that something was going on, but we knew too little to characterize the phenomena or even ask the correct questions. BTW, as part of my research, I talked to scores of people about their psychic experiences. Believers in ESP are frequently criticized as being indifferent to empirical evidence, but I discovered many skeptics were also non-scientific in their approach to this topic. Hard core skeptics freely admitted that they had experiences that could not be explained by conventional means, but this did not alter their beliefs one iota. This was one reason I abandoned this field of study. I realized no matter how much proof parapsychologists gathered, skeptics would never give credence to their evidence.Additionally, Very few people are aware of just how much evidence there is, and those who are least informed are usually skeptics, who heard that there was no scientific evidence and stopped looking.
It is, of course, not especially easy to test for and skeptics tend to end up practicing pseudoscience when they try. That's because many people, not just skeptics, confuse legitimate experimentation with simply putting in controls. If someone can't cheat, they reason, then it must be a good test.
But that's pseudoscience. You can test whether a seed will grow by putting it on a shelf, and your controls will be perfect, but the test will fail 100% of the time. That's similar to the kind of testing skeptics do on psychics. It's junk science.
To do a proper test, you have to give the phenomena you're testing every chance to succeed. And to do that you have to learn something about it. And that means learning from people who have already had success testing this ability and using their methods. When skeptics have properly followed all the necessary protocols they have often gotten the same positive results as their parapsychologist counterparts.
I absolutely guarantee that the Randi Million Dollar Challenge never followed a single parapsychology protocol in creating their "experiments." It's no surprise that they never got positive results. The tests were bad.