In fact, sources of true randomness are hard to come by anywhere... The CIA operates powerful radio dishes that bounce signals off the inside of the atmosphere, from which they then measure the resulting distortion of the original signal. And they STILL aren't sure they're getting a completely random result.

That's not too surprising, since it's impossible to mathematically prove that a sequence of digits is truly random (for much the same reason that one can't prove a universal negative). However, there are quite a few sources of natural randomness that we believe on strong evidentiary grounds to be fundamentally unpredictable. Most of these involve taking advantage of the intrinsically probabilistic phenomena of quantum mechanics. Services like Hotbits, for example, serve up random bitstreams generated by measuring the radioactive decay of atoms. Other hardware random number generators sample thermal or electronic noise in a circuit, also quantum phenomena.

I don't know if the PEAR lab used something like this, but if not, their entire experiment would have been astonishingly pointless. You're absolutely right that the pseudorandom number generators used by computers are completely deterministic. Rerun those experiments with the same seeds, but without people trying to magically will the outcome to be something different, and you'll get exactly the same results as before.

Only six senses? I've got nine or so, and none of them involve the supernatural. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses) But then I am a dog.

And the one about what the unknown parts of the brain do? (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm)

And 'unexplainable' things? What about 'things I can't explain'. We know how tarot cards and astrology work for example; it's called the 'Forer Effect'. (http://skepdic.com/forer.html)

In fact, sources of true randomness are hard to come by anywhere. I've heard that the CIA's cryptology people spent most of the past 5 decades trying to find a source to little avail. The CIA operates powerful radio dishes that bounce signals off the inside of the atmosphere, from which they then measure the resulting distortion of the original signal. And they STILL aren't sure they're getting a completely random result.

So, anytime someone casually mentions a computer-based random number generator as being the crux of an experiment or some such, don't buy it.

They're psychics, but they're using mass mailings? Instead of target mailing those people whom their psychic powers tell them might be potential clients?

Still trying to wrap my head around that one...

I can say that while I believe in no deity, I do believe that most of us have some amount of a "sixth sense" and that it is no less scientifically possible than many other things. We still do not have a great deal of knowledge about the brain and the parts of the brain which have yet to be mapped and understood. I've experienced enough "unexplainable" things to know it's beyond randomness. But I know I would never charge for the use of whatever "gifts" I might have--I have been reading tarot cards for years and never request anything in return.

Regardless, I know enough people who have gladly held out their hands for fees when they have done something with their "gift" to "help" others. Whether they are truly gifted or not is irrelevant--if someone can be helped through such abilities, they should be given freely without regard to reward. It's sad that some people feel that their efforts should be rewarded.

After discussing it a bit with someone else, I decided that a supersensitive torsion balance would be an ideal way to demonstrate psychokinesis; such balances have been used in Eotvos experiments for testing Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

But they haven't even tried. And they've been reluctant to report upper limits on various effects, as mainstream scientists often do. For example, the Particle Data Group reports numerous lower limits on various possible particles' masses and upper limits on various possible decay modes.

I can't imagine how you could single out in some objective way the quick buck artists from those in it for the long haul (some of whom may actually believe).

stop, think and be sceptical - if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.