The government is not as tight with their wallet as they should be, remember we pushed ourselves into a race to get to the moon, a seemingly impossible feat, because Russia was doing it. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many things we researched and put millions into for fear of losing ground.

No psychic detective has ever been praised or given official recognition by the F.B.I. or US national news for solving a crime, preventing a crime, or finding a kidnap victim or corpse - wikipedia

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can cure cancer or any other disease. Even the "miraculous" cures at the French shrine of Lourdes, after careful study by the Catholic Church, do not outnumber the historical percentage of spontaneous remissions seen among people with cancer. However, faith healing may promote peace of mind, reduce stress, relieve pain and anxiety, and strengthen the will to live - American Cancer Society

Synchronicity is explainable through Littlewood's Law: that since billions of people are seeking it, eventually there will be one instance that seems to prove it. But why are these instances so rare? Shouldn't one person be so adept, so powerful that they can do it more frequently, even at will? Imagine the billions of conversations that start "I dreamt about a bug" immediately ended with "there's no such bug". One of those will eventually be the right bug.

Let's start with one thing as several people have referenced it--Wikipedia is not a definitive reference, it can be edited to reflect different points of view. Everybody thinks science is some kind of Holy Grail and is infallible. You want to say prove something mystical is real? Prove global warming is real. Even when scientists battle over science you can find strong data for opposite theories.

The "Establishment" of science is famous throughout history for ridiculing new, advanced theories that average scientists couldn't wrap their minds around. Now that science is the new dogma that we worship, perhaps you could tell me what threshold we passed in time that now scientific methods are infallible when they never have been.

Take any "scientific" study that we constantly hear about. WIne is good for you... wine is bad for you... coffee is good for you... coffee is bad for you, ad infinitum. So called science is about as fickle as the fashion business. Its pretty much established now, when most "science" is controlled by corporate special interests, that you can buy science off if you are the highest bidder. Take the drug business for example, everyone knows that new unproven drugs are shoved down our throats even though "science" says they are OK, until people start dropping dead and they are recalled.

Everyday we get propaganda from science, telling us yeah nuclear power is safe and efficient. They can't even dispose of the waste safely, and many "scientifically" designed storage solutions are ticking time bombs. But huge military industrial corporations can bribe politicians with junkets and hookers and have their way, with plenty of "scientific" studies showing us how great it is.

I could go on for days, but others have written books about this. You laugh at homeopathy, but it's well known that many herbs can do a better, safer job than most synthetic drugs loaded with side effects, and yet "science" tells us they are no good or "fake" because the billion dollar drug cartels (no not the Columbian ones) can buy "science" and use patented drugs that produce huge profits, when herbal or generic chemical discoveries can not be patented.

But since hot looking babes in tight clothes visit your doctor with briefcases full of expensive samples and "studies" that show how great the new expensive wonder drug is, you won't get prescribed a generic or some peppermint tea for your cold.

Blah blah blah--the scientific establishment is so full of itself and crap, they will be the last ones to find out about anything advanced or esoteric, but look at the scientific underground: scalar technology, free energy, Tesla type inventions that "science" still laughs at.

You people are never on the cutting edge of anything unless it can be bought for billions of dollars.

To really get a grip on this question--one must read the FAQ at the website. To quote one snippet: "And there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science..." --unquote.

Ahhh--do a little research people! Lets jump back to science and look from a layman's view of some of the current theories. It's now a major vogue therein to assume, when looking at an experiment in particle physics, that the observer's psyche, and process of observing, can effect the outcome of the experiment.

I'm not an expert here, but its pretty much recognized that there is an energy system in the human consciousness, that everything in the universe is pretty much connected by the same underlying forces, and that they can interact over a distance, even when no measurable signal is present.

And there are double blind psychic experiments that show above "average" responses. Period. Look it up.

Just reading the FAQs which mention some of the rules, and you realize this is just a magician's circus PR stunt that even those two goofy science guys on cable, always shooting some gelatin torso with bullets coming out of an airgun or whatever, could do better.

Scientists can't precisely explain how the universe started, or come to agreement on what the underlying forces are at the smallest levels, despite billion dollar accelerators, etc. and there is no way to verify lots of psychic events for the same reason. They are random and often trivial, though sometimes of great meaning.

Read some books on unexplained anomalies, there are holes in almost every branch of science. And anything too futuristic or esoteric will just be called magic anyway.

PS. And when I say you, I don't mean any individual, just skeptics that won't do any basic research on the subjects they are criticizing. Of course the average person accepts the physics of science. It takes a little more work to go to a library or do a Google search and ACTUALLY read up on metaphysical and parapsychological experiments.

When wiki is edited to reflect the new view, it is put to the side, debated over and eventually the truth is distilled. It's as definitive a reference as you can get.
Sure you can find opposing data in science, but over time you distill out the bad surveys and data, and are left with the good ones.
Science doesn't say something is good or bad, science says this chemical advances this trait this percentage of time. The good and bad classifications you get are opinion, often from the media.
Please don't insist that established science is evil and corrupt but individuals pretending they have special powers is fine. It doesn't matter what you've heard about drug companies, or how unsafe you've heard nuclear power is.
If homeopathy were well known and safe, it would be covered by insurance companies as legitimate. You'd think they would want to minimize their cost by not having to pay for the expensive fake-science and only pay 30 cents for a common herb.
Again, you can't buy science. You can buy opinion.
While it is true the observer changes the observed, this is in reference to shining light on a particle to affect it's trajectory and therefore you cannot know it's position simultaneously with its speed. This does not mean CERN employees must always be happy for the quantum physics experiment to succeed.
It is also possible things are connected faster than light - science hasn't ruled that out. But the question was about psychic ability, esp, faith healing, which have all been debunked time and time again.

Is the challenge proof that there is no paranormal activity? Not at all. By reading the rules and FAQs its obvious that it is not the end of the question. I could offer one million dollars to anyone could prove that the universe started with the big bang, but by any rational standard there will never be a way to ABSOLUTELY prove this one way or another, so the question will always be open.

One cannot read the accounts in thousands of books on the paranormal, on ghosts, on UFO's, on metaphysics, or even advanced physics theories, and ABSOLUTELY prove anything one way or another. Everyday all kinds of scientific theories that have been accepted are proven wrong by new information.

Science is just a consensual reality based on what a majority of people in power think at any second. Even science postulates that there are other dimensions we can't observe.

To give an example of healing phenomena that disproves the challenge, take herbal remedies used by primitive tribes. Science accepts that many plants have healing abilities, see a book called "Medical Botany" used in college courses.

Primitive tribes, without written histories or scientific communication have discovered, independently all over the world, plants in their environments that can heal specific illnesses. Science later studied these shamans and witch doctor remedies, and often find chemicals they can use for modern drugs.

A tree bark contains the same ingredients as aspirin, cherry juice can alleviate gout, the type of herbs in popular cold remedies like Ricola alleviate cold symptoms. There are hundreds of similar cures discovered long before science was established, let alone civilization came into being.

There is no rational explanation from science to explain how these primitive healers can diagnose the illnesses, or yet then locate a plant out of thousands in their environment that cures or alleviates the illness. Often times these diagnosis and prescriptions are made in a trance state brought about by psychedelic plants, where the shaman deals with spiritual entities.

Usually an isolated tribe might have one or two older shamans that might pass their accumulated wisdom down to apprentices, but I challenge any scientist to explain how the original discoverer of these cures matched the plant to the illness, without clinical trials, written notes, dozens of patients with similar symptoms to try dozens of plants on, etc.

This is proof of healing by "faith" in the sense that by their primitive religious, spiritual based practices, they cure illnesses, and there is no rational explanation for this, but it is probably related to instinctual knowledge animals have to find herbal cures in nature.

I'll take that million now...

The challenge isn't asking for proof of something from the past that cannot be documented. This is people that are claiming to be able to do something, this challenge asks for them to do it, under mutually agreed rules. It has drastically narrowed the window of what paranormal activity can be. No longer are psychics considered real, or telekinesis, or faith healing, because they've never gone about a rigourous scientific investigation that both parties agree upon. This list shows how challengers claim a feat, the rules are written and agreed on by both parties to prevent cheating, then the challenger either drops the challenge or the test is performed and they acheive results no better than random chance. Repeatedly this has been going on since 1964. Celebrity and noted super-psychic Sylvia Browne has accepted the challenge on tv multiple times and never followed through. Psychics have also never claimed the testing was unfair.

Faith Healing is not simply taking a drug and believing you will be healed, it is rather the absence of any provable cause of the recovery beyond what is known of as "spontaneous remission". The rational explanation you would like for these primitive tribes is what is known as trial and error. One patient goes to their friend, friend says "try this tree", patient dies. New patient, new friend, says "try this different tree". Eventually one is correct and becomes the tribal doctor. Saying a spirit or mystic force led them to the drug is forcing paranormal activity on a trait common to all forms of life - experimentation. When passed down from generation to generation through song, like they do, if the song forgets to use the proper herb the tribe dies out or re-learns the correct herb.

I think the core problem is the scope of the question: "Is James Randi's $1 million challenge proof there is no such thing as paranormal activity" and while I am no expert in logic or mathematics I think the question is flawed and can only be answered "No."

A more scientific and broad question would be: "Have paranormal events or abilities even been proven scientifically," but even that would not produce an absolute answer, because there is no way to rule out all the possibilities or exceptions.

The trouble with the challenge? (1) Probably less than a few percent of the world's population would hear about it or have a chance to respond. (2) Many of the best psychics, that history shows have helped solve crime cases or locate missing people or objects, don't seek fame, money or publicity. In many of the recorded cases of the above, even the police are reluctant to acknowledge using a psychic. This is due to several reasons, adverse publicity, ridicule, superstition, etc. and similar to why many military and professional pilots won't report and/or publicize UFO encounters. (3) In the cases where psychics help investigations or individuals, it's a cooperative, mutually beneficial environment. By definition psychics are 'sensitives' and any with real abilities would feel oppressed in a situation surrounded by skeptics with a goal of humiliating them. (4) Many psychics also have a religious or spiritual background and it goes against their honest beliefs to 'cast their pearls before swine' and here I'm reminded of stories of Jesus repudiating his critics, that asked for 'demos' of his abilities. Many in this field feel the same way, they aren't out to prove anything to those more concerned with money or materialism.

Are there fake psychics and medium types that balk at this type of thing? Of course, just like there are scientists that fake results or skew data, or produce results for the highest bidder.

The question as stated asks "Is... proof" which indicates an absolute value. Just by the semantics of the words, and the rules of logic (again which I don't claim to be an expert, but have heard about) the answer HAS TO BE no... That would stand whether or not one believes the opposite as I do, or believes in the Holy Cow of science.

For hundreds of years nobody could prove the sun didn't revolve around the earth, and even the scientific establishment didn't accept this. That didn't prove this belief was true.