The Validity of Psychics in Solving Crimes: Evidence or Just Claims?

[hypatia]

About 15 years ago, human remains began showing up in a clean out catch of a cities sewer system. Once the news got out, several psychic's came to the area and had local police driving them all over, no success.
In the town there was a large tree on a very steep turn in the road, after several fatal accidents one family paid the city to have it removed. They claimed there 7 yr old daughter had re-occurring nightmares about the tree. So they cut it down, while drilling out the roots they found they had grown into the sewer lines, which now had to be replaced. When the old section of pipe was removed, the rest of the large bones were found, lodged in place by the roots.
The decedent has never been claimed, and now rests wholly comfortable in a donated plot.

 

[Chronos]

Moo. Anecdotal evidence on rye does not make it a sandwich

 

[PIT2]

Moo. Anecdotal evidence on rye does not make it a sandwich

U must have missed the links i provided on the previous page.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Since it seems unlikely that detectives and Court TV would risk careers and scandal by collaborating to fool the public, and there are no non-psychic explanations (at least at this time) to explain the psychic first-timers' successes, then what objective reason is there to not take a serious look at what’s being reported?

However persuasive the stories seem you can never rule out them having been cherry picked and doctored if they're presented by anyone with something to gain, be it ratings or whatever.

A case in point for me was the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Each and every episode was amazingly persuasive, and I began to seriously entertain conspiracy theories. Then I found a website that took the series apart case by case and I saw how the hard evidence could be mixed with softer evidence and then with fabricated testimony to create just about any picture anyone wanted to create.

The other thing is that, having read about some of the amazingly detailed things FBI profilers have been able to figure out about criminals from crime scene evidence I feel that people who jump to a psychic explanation for these apparent insights are grossly underestimating what people can accomplish with perfectly normal sensory imput. The FBI entertains a lot of imput from "psychics" but they do so because they feel these people may simply be natural, unconscious profilers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

However persuasive the stories seem you can never rule out them having been cherry picked and doctored if they're presented by anyone with something to gain, be it ratings or whatever.

That's true. However, what reason is there for the objective mind to rule out anything at the point? That would include the fact that what is being reported is exactly as it appears.

A case in point for me was the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Each and every episode was amazingly persuasive, and I began to seriously entertain conspiracy theories. Then I found a website that took the series apart case by case and I saw how the hard evidence could be mixed with softer evidence and then with fabricated testimony to create just about any picture anyone wanted to create.

Yes, I too have been suprised by what appears to be real. The McMaster's child molestation case comes to mind. At the time I was sure I could see the evil in the defendents' faces! Afterall, how could the children make all that up? A lot of what seemed totally improbable circumstances were required to explain how the children could come to report such things when none of it happened.

The other thing is that, having read about some of the amazingly detailed things FBI profilers have been able to figure out about criminals from crime scene evidence I feel that people who jump to a psychic explanation for these apparent insights are grossly underestimating what people can accomplish with perfectly normal sensory imput. The FBI entertains a lot of imput from "psychics" but they do so because they feel these people may simply be natural, unconscious profilers.

A regular program on Court TV is one about profilers (one of the Discovery channels offers that sort of program as well), and as a student of psychology I watch all of it with great interest. You are correct that they are often amazingly on target. One reason for this is because we are finding out that what makes a criminal is related to specific psychologies, and those psychologies are revealed by studying the behaviors and situations of past criminals. This is basically solid thinking and nothing out of the ordinary.

But what is going in with the psychics is completely different. It isn't just one case we are talking about, but dozens of cases that "basically solid thinking" doesn't account for. As you suggest, one choice is to suspect Court TV. But why? A problem we are having here is that you and the other skeptics haven't watched the channel. Court TV is very dedicated to law with every bit of its other programming; it seems clear they want to be taken seriously. Why risk that, and why would police detectives collaborate, skeptical themselves when they first try psychics, and risk their careers and reputations?

It is wise not to "believe" or to jump to conclusions about what psychicness really is. I am sure there are people who would love it to be true so they can jump to the conclusion it proves there is a God, or that supernatural stuff can happen. But that's no reason for the objective thinker to be afraid to openly consider what is going on.

Ask yourself why you assume what you do, and why all your guesses about what's happening with psychic abilities are ones that consistently choose "no way." Is it because you are skeptical of anything which has the slightest hint of being supernatural that you reject it out of hand? Yet there might be a perfectly natural explanation which actually confirms psychic ability!

The only solution is to find a way to watch the series. No matter what anyone says those worried physicalness can't explain everything in this universe are going to be suspicious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ask yourself why you assume what you do, and why all your guesses about what's happening with psychic abilities are ones that consistently choose "no way."

Actually, I believe in something like "mental telepathy" which would allow for psychic crime solving as a byproduct.

However, you can't tell what is being presented to you on a television show, or in any situation where the information has been carefully arranged and edited. I don't reject or accept any particular claim because psychic powers are part of the claim, it is because of the editing of info by interested parties, as with the Kennedy programs. I am equally skeptical of many issues in Physics.

I haven't seen the show you're talking about, but I do watch court TV now and then, and find a lot of the shows to be frankly sensationalistic, despite the frequent involvement of law enforcement officers as advisers and in interviews. (One show in particular is always narrated by a very melodramatic voice-over.) If something is on TV, ratings automatically become an issue.

Murder programs, court situations, and crime in general, are inherently sensationalistic subjects. If we add psychic powers to the mix, you have a good recipe for emotion-based reasoning. Once you're whipped into a frenzy, as it were, it gets harder and harder to consider perfectly normal, albeit unusual, explanations for all kinds of things.

 

[PIT2]

All possible of course. And its also possible, like Les said, that what they air on the show is exactly what happened in reality.

Its even possible that they left out details that were too shocking and unbelievable, in the fear of losing part of the audience. I can easily imagine a management meeting outlining the mood of the show, where they decide to keep the 'paranormal' aspect within limits so that Court TVs image doesn't become a joke.

Or a screening with a testaudience, where people say:

"Hmm.. no that bit where the woman teleported herself to the killers bathroom doesn't sound believable. Let's cut that scene"

 

[Les Sleeth]

Actually, I believe in something like "mental telepathy" which would allow for psychic crime solving as a byproduct.

(just kidding)

(One show in particular is always narrated by a very melodramatic voice-over.) If something is on TV, ratings automatically become an issue.

I wonder if you might be thinking of "City Confidential" on A & E.

Murder programs, court situations, and crime in general, are inherently sensationalistic subjects. If we add psychic powers to the mix, you have a good recipe for emotion-based reasoning. Once you're whipped into a frenzy, as it were, it gets harder and harder to consider perfectly normal, albeit unusual, explanations for all kinds of things.

Well, it seems we agree more than disagree. I think everything that's part of TV programming has to be viewed with tentativeness (in terms of believing it).

However, I think you should watch a few of the programs. What is being reported is extraordinary. I say that as someone who doesn't believe anything supernatural is possible, and who prior to this program held a low opinion of "psychics" although like you I felt some sort of mental telepathy occurred with certain individuals.

 

[Chronos]

I'd be more comfortable if we could replace the word supernatural with unexplained. Some people have a natural ability to sift wheat from chaff - to draw inferences from obscure information and logically connect them in ways beyond most people's ability. To label them 'psychic', IMO, is the modern equivalent of a medieval scientist being called a 'witch'. I like mysteries. I'm all for exploring them so long as magic and mysticism are not introduced into the mix.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(just kidding)

Not that I'm about to start trying to defend it, much less offer a mechanism.

I wonder if you might be thinking of "City Confidential" on A & E.

It's possible I've confused them since I don't watch either station often. I'll try to pay better attention.

Well, it seems we agree more than disagree. I think everything that's part of TV programming has to be viewed with tentativeness (in terms of believing it).

Yes, I have a fair collection of things I keep in a box labelled "intriguing". These are neither accepted nor dismissed.

However, I think you should watch a few of the programs. What is being reported is extraordinary. I say that as someone who doesn't believe anything supernatural is possible, and who prior to this program held a low opinion of "psychics" although like you I felt some sort of mental telepathy occurred with certain individuals.

Yes, I can't say anything for certain about this particular program without having watched it, obviously. All I meant to say was that I am suspicious of anything on TV in general, and that, only after having first been persuaded by things I later saw well dismantled.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'd be more comfortable if we could replace the word supernatural with unexplained. Some people have a natural ability to sift wheat from chaff - to draw inferences from obscure information and logically connect them in ways beyond most people's ability. To label them 'psychic', IMO, is the modern equivalent of a medieval scientist being called a 'witch'. I like mysteries. I'm all for exploring them so long as magic and mysticism are not introduced into the mix.

I agree with this. The main reason being what I've read about people with amazing mental capabilities which aren't considered "psychic", especially the feats of autistic savants.

I read an excellent book about this which explored how it is they develop these abilities, and the answer turns out to be pretty pedestrian: it's all they can do, so they do it all the time, 24/7. It is a matter of making the most of their deprivation in so many other areas of understanding.

One research team decided to try to create savant abilities in a non-savant. A college volunteer who was good at math was taught the basics of calendar calculation ("What day of the week was July 14, 1932?, and that sort of thing). He practised continually, got better and better at it, and finally reached a thresh hold where all of a sudden he could do it almost instantly, just like an autistic-savant. This took a few weeks.

That being the case, I don't feel that I'm being overly skeptical to suspect a lot of what are called "psychic" insights of being anomalous instances of this same sort of ability.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I picked this answer to respond to since it brings up an interesting point. , First of all, I really didn't mean TV psychics. No doubt there are scammers, maybe most, who get all of the media attention. What has impressed me the most are interviews with police investigators who tell amazing stories.

All this psychic stuff seems a lot more amazing after the fact than it does before, doesn't it? I can retrofit just about anything that already happened and show how 'improbable' that event was a lot easier than make a prediction before the event that later turns out to be true. Show me a psychic who correctly predicts the winning powerball lottery numbers - only once per year is just fine - and I will be a believer.

I think this entire notion is applied backwards here. In fact what happens is that the "psychic" finds the body or victim, and then all of the skeptics reverse engineer the answer - which is exactly what you are accusing the psychics of doing.

My bad, the spirits frown upon that... It's a potted meat product. It doesn't look so savory once you read the label. Call me hard core. I won't deny it. I also will not deny that inexplicable events occur in this universe, but, I would wager one scientist will find the correct answer sooner than a dozen psychics.

The police tell a different story. Maybe the scientists need to get out of the lab once in a while.

Footnote: I do, however, subscribe to the notion of 'sensitives'. 'Sensitives' are people who have an uncanny ability to solve puzzles given few clues. Most of us know such people [e.g., that annoying gal who solves almost every Wheel of Fortune phrase after 2 letters]. I believe some 'psychics' fall under that classification. Most of them have no idea how they do it. Few claim it is because they are psychic.

But we don't really know, do we.

I'll be back with a couple of examples later. I started to type it out but I'm too tired... :yuck:

 

[PIT2]

I think this entire notion is applied backwards here. In fact what happens is that the "psychic" finds the body or victim, and then all of the skeptics reverse engineer the answer - which is exactly what you are accusing the psychics of doing.

I noticed the same thing in this video:
http://www.rdfinternational.com/catalogue/video.asp?catalogid=2435&band=0

Its a short video of an episode of psychic detectives.
Somewhere along, a skeptic has his say and he claims:

"If the police had contacted me, and given me a day or a month,
then I would have produced the same results as the psychic did."

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'd be more comfortable if we could replace the word supernatural with unexplained. Some people have a natural ability to sift wheat from chaff - to draw inferences from obscure information and logically connect them in ways beyond most people's ability. To label them 'psychic', IMO, is the modern equivalent of a medieval scientist being called a 'witch'. I like mysteries. I'm all for exploring them so long as magic and mysticism are not introduced into the mix.

I haven't seen anybody here at least, resorting to supernaturalism for an explanation. Do you think it is telling that your abhorrence of that is what brought the subject into this discussion? In things you've said, above and in other posts, I believe the "tell" is that you only want reality to be a specific way, and your assumptions are accordingly such that only allow things to be explained the way you want reality to be.

This fear that reality might not fit scientists' epistemology, and the intellectual rigidity that results from thinking they know the "Truth," is my only objection to some of the comments here. Being dogmatic is exactly the same problem whether the religious do it or the scientific do it. As long as there are mysteries, nobody gets to claim they have the only path to answering those mysteries.

But let's get specific.

Your theory that psychics "draw inferences from obscure information and logically connect them in ways beyond most people's ability," or that they are "sensitives," indicates you have not studied the phenomenon, or at least the nature of the reports. And this comment, " Show me a psychic who correctly predicts the winning powerball lottery numbers," really gives away that you haven't taken the time to become informed on what we are even talking about. (The subject is solving crimes that have already occurred. Nobody is talking about seeing into the future.)

How would you explain with your inference or sensitive theory someone who never had a psychic experience before, nor knowing any crime has even occurred, suddenly having a vision of exactly what happened? In most of the cases, the established psychics don't want to know anything about the case (and specifically tell the police not to inform them . . . as one of the "regular" detectives on a case commented in a program last night "she [the psychic] told us, she didn't ask us). Also, instead of information, what the psychic typically wants is to touch something that belonged to the victim or that is associated with the case. So don’t you think we should get it straight in our minds what Court TV is reporting, and not substitute misinformation and then argue against our own uninformed opinions? As Zooby hints, it could be that Court TV is scamming us, but after you watch the many law enforcement officers they interview who all confirm what's being reported, it is difficult to believe they are all conspiring.

Keep in mind, if a psychic were to make claims without any way to test them, then I would be as skeptical as I used to be before I started watching the Psychic Detective program. The difference here is that crimes which have gone totally cold are being solved using the specific and detailed information the psychic gives; these are serious, falsifiable predictions, not some vague forecast. They will say things like "I see a knife being tossed under a boat." This was after a woman was murdered in her house. Why would the psychic say something so specific, and so vulnerable to being proved wrong? (It turned out the murderer upon returning home had first thrown the murder weapon under a motorboat that was in his yard.) In some cases the psychic identifies several events and items which seem to contradict one another, and this sometimes makes the police think the psychic has messed up. But as they follow up on the information, it will turn out that the crime involved several aspects, and in the end all the pieces fall into place.

Getting back to why some people are afraid to open up to the possibility of psychic abilities, isn't it what it might imply? Try this example. We have a psychic feeling the shoe of a murdered woman, and into her mind comes this picture of a bolt cutter, and then the face of two men that a sketch artist draws for her. The first drawing no one working the case recognizes, but the second face is one others reported seeing. In the end it turns out the man in the first drawing beat the woman, and thinking he killed her put her in his trunk. He then took her to the man who’d hired him, which was the man in the second drawing. It turns out the victim wasn’t quite dead, so the second man took some bolt cutters that were in the trunk and finished the job.

The question is, how did the psychic, who knew nothing about the case, pick up on all that (and a lot more I am not citing) from the victim’s shoe? If you listen to the psychic’s explanations, it does sound amateurish (in terms of an explanation); they typically say they are feeling the “vibrations” or “energy” of the event and so on. They don’t really know what they are feeling, but their impressions gives them details, without prior knowledge or questioning the police, which is actually solving a previously unsolvable crime.

So isn’t it scary to physicalists that vibrations (or whatever) of a past murder are still present? It could suggest, for example, that the universe is conscious and so a sort of “memory” of events remains intact where things happen. Isn’t that really what the knee-jerk reaction to psychicness is all about? The horrible, gut-wrenching possibility there really might be something going on besides just the physical?

 

[zoobyshoe]

"I haven't seen anybody here at least, resorting to supernaturalism for an explanation. Do you think it is telling that your abhorrence of that is what brought the subject into this discussion? In things you've said, above and in other posts, I believe the "tell" is that you only want reality to be a specific way, and your assumptions are accordingly such that only allow things to be explained the way you want reality to be..."

"...So isn’t it scary to physicalists that vibrations (or whatever) of a past murder are still present? It could suggest, for example, that the universe is conscious and so a sort of “memory” of events remains intact where things happen. Isn’t that really what the knee-jerk reaction to psychicness is all about? The horrible, gut-wrenching possibility there really might be something going on besides just the physical?"

Here again, what I don't like about Les' argument is the underlying emotional reasoning: he is trying to bully Chronos into seeing the matter as a false choice between open mindedness and closed mindedness from fear. He is threatening Chronos with the label of cowardice if Chronos doesn't adopt Les' idea of an open mind. Les' did the same thing earlier, referring to the skeptical view as "gutless".

So, really, Les has given Chronos the choice of being one kind of coward or another: afraid of the unknown, or afraid of his label of him. The intelligent parts of Les' analysis get swept aside by these emotionally intense paragraphs, in which he ascribes all sorts of motivations to other people. This kind of emotional pressure is an automatic red flag.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Here again, what I don't like about Les' argument is the underlying emotional reasoning: he is trying to bully Chronos into seeing the matter as a false choice between open mindedness and closed mindedness from fear. He is threatening Chronos with the label of cowardice if Chronos doesn't adopt Les' idea of an open mind. Les' did the same thing earlier, referring to the skeptical view as "gutless".

So, really, Les has given Chronos the choice of being one kind of coward or another: afraid of the unknown, or afraid of his label of him. The intelligent parts of Les' analysis get swept aside by these emotionally intense paragraphs, in which he ascribes all sorts of motivations to other people. This kind of emotional pressure is an automatic red flag.

You have a point, I was feeling something similar last night when I reflected on what I wrote. You can address me directly if you like, I will listen to legitimate and sincere criticisms. I can get a little emotional about this, and let me tell you why.

I have been debating here for a long time, and have run into a certain attitude again and again. It is an attitude that is disrespectful to anyone who doubts physicalist theory (and it used to be a lot worse before mentors started requiring members to be more polite). The attitude is often scornful, with a pinch of condescension, and a healthy portion of "I know the Truth, and only science reveals it."

Under the guise of being informed and objective, individuals give evaluations of potentially (i.e., not necessarily) non-physical aspects of reality. Many times the argument is made "in the name of science," when really it is in the name of physicalism. So the points are made with an ontological assumption in place that hasn't been shown to be true yet.

Why should I let that bother me? Because you can't get anyone to admit they are selecting information which supports their belief system while ignoring and distorting information which is contrary to their belief system. So seldom is there a fair debate. That is how Chronos argued here.

You say I gave him a false choice between "being one kind of coward or another: afraid of the unknown, or afraid of his label of him." That wasn't the choice I offered at all. What I did was confront, albeit too emotionally, his dogmatic, uninformed evaluation of the subject under discussion. BTW, I think highly of Chronos, and you too Zooby (and most of the excellent thinkers that populate this site). It is just one attitude that disturbs me, which I recognize as exactly the same attitude I endured from the religious fundamentalists I grew up around. And I mean, EXACTLY . . . the tactic of assuming something is true, exaggerating the significance of the facts you have supporting your belief system, and then filtering and distorting contrary facts.

Tell me, should there be a standard for opinions from PF representatives? In fact, in a science forum dedicated to educating people, shouldn't there be (and isn't there already) a standard for all participants? Why is it that crackpot physics theories are mercilessly ridiculed and banned, but the science side gets to spout misinformation about anything that doesn't fit their ontology? It is a double standard, and yes, it tends to piss me off every time I see it, and I see it often.

I agree I should learn to keep my frustration out of my arguments, but what is wrong with insisting on unbiased, informed opinions in a public forum?

 

[Moonbear]

I've never heard the term "sensitive" applied like that, but I agree with the notion. The successful crime solving "psychics" are really just excellent detectives who know how to interpret facts that seem vague and ambiguous to other people with great accuracy.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I was almost wondering the opposite. What if so-called psychics are successful because they aren't limited by the training and experience detectives have? In the example of the vehicle submerged 500 ft into a lake, the detectives hadn't searched that far because of how improbable the location would be. But, the psychic, not being concerned with probabilities, could have guessed that location simply because it hadn't been searched yet, and the detectives who were initially reluctant to search there were now prompted to keep going despite their training telling them they shouldn't. Usually, psychics get called in as a last resort, so it really could be as simple as looking at what has already been searched and picking the improbable locations...when all the probably locations have been exhausted, that's what you have left. If they get it right, they get lauded as a great psychic, and if they get it wrong, the detectives brush them off as yet another fraud and you never hear about them again.

So, could "psychic detectives" really just be people who think outside the box on investigations? If you brought them in on more cases right from the beginning rather than only on the ones where all the detectives ideas have been exhausted, would they do as well or seem as impressive?

On the other hand, you could be right, that they are good detectives who can put together subtle clues or view things with a fresh perspective rather than following a formula.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think there is a failure to recognize the odds in these cases. One person mentioned the lottery. But that analogy fails since, yes, someone nearly always wins the lottery, but there are also millsions or even tens of millions of people playing. In some of the cases that I know about, and I promise to get back to this soon, the odds of someone getting lucky are really beyond anything reasonable. And it's not like we have millions of psychics out doing police work. In many cases the person who provides "psychic" insights isn't even recognized as a psychic. They are just people who had visions, or dreams, etc.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I was almost wondering the opposite. What if so-called psychics are successful because they aren't limited by the training and experience detectives have? In the example of the vehicle submerged 500 ft into a lake, the detectives hadn't searched that far because of how improbable the location would be. But, the psychic, not being concerned with probabilities, could have guessed that location simply because it hadn't been searched yet, and the detectives who were initially reluctant to search there were now prompted to keep going despite their training telling them they shouldn't. Usually, psychics get called in as a last resort, so it really could be as simple as looking at what has already been searched and picking the improbable locations...when all the probably locations have been exhausted, that's what you have left. If they get it right, they get lauded as a great psychic, and if they get it wrong, the detectives brush them off as yet another fraud and you never hear about them again.

So, could "psychic detectives" really just be people who think outside the box on investigations? If you brought them in on more cases right from the beginning rather than only on the ones where all the detectives ideas have been exhausted, would they do as well or seem as impressive?

On the other hand, you could be right, that they are good detectives who can put together subtle clues or view things with a fresh perspective rather than following a formula.

The biggest obstacle in this discussion is the fact that few people making comments here have been able to watch the program. Your theory would be a perfectly reasonable one if it fit the facts, but it isn't really what is is being reported on the program. From what is presented on the program, either there is something to psychic ability (and I'm not saying it there isn't a natural explanation for psychicness), or the program "Psychic Detectives" is misrepresenting the facts.

As Ivan points out, the odds that the psychic could get so many things correct without prior knowledge of the case make lucky guesses, mere intuition, "sensitives" and thinking out of the box inadequate explanations for what is being reported. In the case of the truck under water, the woman had that vision without knowing the landscape. She only knew the man was missing and that it was unlike the man not to show up where he said he would. If it were just this one case, we could imagine the woman might have lied and actually did know the landscape, did have facts of the case, or maybe even drove by where the truck went off the road and saw tire tracks, etc. (IOW, did have more info that was reported).

But using that as an explanation for all the cases reported doesn't work because there are a number of instances where people without any prior psychic experience, and who know nothing about the crime or accident, just have a vision of the event and are so disturbed by it feel they have to follow up.

Also, there are many cases (and these are the ones I think are hardest to explain) where the psychic knows nothing of the case (and insists detective tell him/her nothing but what the crime was), who want to feel an article of clothing or a picture. In one case, detectives at first thought they knew a grandson had killed his grandparents, but his alibi was tight. They'd matched up some information to another man, but he didn't know the grandparents and had no motive to kill them.

Completely confused by conflicting facts in the case, the detectives flew to another city to try out a psychic they'd heard of. They took six pictures with them (of which two were the grandson and the other person they had info on). When they handed the pics in an envelope to the woman to look at (who knew nothing about the case except it was a murder), she told them she didn't want to see the faces and had them place the pictures face down. After feeling them, she said of the grandson picture "he planned it, he was there when it happened," and then of the other man she said, "he did the murder." When the police said the grandson had an airtight alibli, the psychic said, "he did it, I am certain, check his alibi again." Back in their home town, when they pressed the issue, the dectives found out friends were lying for the grandson to give him an alibi, and he'd hired the other man to commit the actual murders after he used his key to get the man in.

Now, that could be pure luck it is true, but pure luck doesn't account for this sort of thing happening in so many cases. That's why I say everyone who wants an informed opinion about this needs to watch the program. It is example after example of accurate information provided via the psychic's visions and feelings that is proven accurate because it solves the crime or mystery. In most of the cases, the information is NOT acquired by studying the facts of the case. So if it isn't a scam by Court TV, the only thing I myself can conclude is that there isn't yet a reasonable alternative explanation to the claim that psychicness (whatever that is) is really occurring.

BTW, the new season of "Psychic Detectives" starts this Wednesday.

 

[Ersby]

WIth refernce to the story in the opening post, this was quite a big story here in Italy for a few days. The explanation given for the psychic medium's success is that there was only a stretch of road a few kilometres long where she could have gone in, and fewer places where she could have crashed without damaging riverside structures (four, if I remember right). The police had searched three of those locations in 2003, but not this bit because it was too deep.

And someone earlier said she drew a map. I heard she was being driven along the lakeside road when she said "this is the place" (or words to that effect).

 

[Moonbear]

Les, I didn't know this thread was about that program named "Psychic Detectives." I saw part of one show and turned it off. You're basing a lot about "odds" on a show that is obviously picking only the success stories and not looking any deeper into why they were successful. From the brief bit I watched (there was a murder in some house and in the part I saw, a detective was taking the psychic to the murder scene and they asked to just walk along the street to pick out the house themself, claiming to "feel" the murder happened there), it was obvious the so-called psychic was picking up clues from the detective. When you walk down a street and know one house had something special about it, you tend to look at it more and you could see that's what the detective was doing, giving away subtle, and probably unintentional, cues as to which house it was, and the so-called psychic picked right up on that (if they were serious about showing the psychics were legitimately experiencing something rather than just putting on a dog and pony show for the cameras, they'd have sent her down the street alone without the detective who was giving away the non-verbal cues...or for that matter, who knows where the camera crew was set up and whether she noticed them panning more often toward the house in question).

Anyway, I'm not going to base much of anything on a show that can use creative editing that leaves us with the incomplete picture of all the information the so-called psychic had available, including their interactions with detectives, seeing the full landscape around the murder scene. We can miss vital information of how the so-called psychic is making their decisions simply due to the camera panning to a close-up of their face instead of that of the person they're talking to.

I'm not saying they can't be really psychic, just that there are still plenty of alternative explanations, and unless you're present to observe everything the so-called psychic is able to observe from the moment they learn of the case to the conclusion, there is no way you can make a determination of whether there is a natural explanation for their success when you're viewing a TV show from your armchair where days/weeks/months of investigation are condensed into a highly edited 30 minutes of airtime.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Les, I didn't know this thread was about that program named "Psychic Detectives."

Strictly speaking it's not, though obviously this plays into the discussion.

What motivates my interests are many cases that predate the show by years or decades.

 

[Moonbear]

Hmm...I decided to start looking for more information online. I first was just planning to find examples of cases solved by psychics to see if there were any more ordinary explanations that presented themselves for the results, but as I was hitting the Google "pavement," I came across something different. I have not verified any of these sources yet, but it seems to present some interesting food for thought along the lines of this topic.

From: http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html

"These guys don't solve cases, and the media consistently gets it wrong," says Michael Corn, an investigative producer for "Inside Edition" who produced a story last May debunking psychic detectives. Moreover, the FBI and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children maintain that to their knowledge, psychic detectives have never helped solve a single missing-person case.

And further down in the same article, this statement really caught my attention...I never even considered this angle before!

While it is true that some cops believe in psychics, many simply use them for their own purposes...
Cops are more likely to use psychics to cover up their real sources of information, to protect an informant, or to conceal the fact that information was obtained illegally. Finally, some cops use psychics, or even pretend to be psychic, to psych out superstitious suspects.

If that's true, then we can't even use the word of the cops on the case as verification that the information the psychic provided wasn't previously known to them.

Another source with explanations of "how they do it."
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html

And one specifically debunking a publicized case:
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm

I'm just finding page after page of articles explaining the same thing; the psychics aren't psychic, the stories are their own self-proclaimed stories, they hinder more than help investigations and send police on wild goose chases on faulty leads they are obligated to check out, which wastes resources and detracts from their focus on the real leads.

This one is a two-part story written by a former FBI profiler.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295650/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7320305/

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, I didn't know this thread was about that program named "Psychic Detectives." I saw part of one show and turned it off. You're basing a lot about "odds" on a show that is obviously picking only the success stories and not looking any deeper into why they were successful.

I jumped into the middle of this and mistakenly thought it was based on the program "Psychic Detectives." Apparently it isn't, but the program is currently making the most cases available for public scrutiny. That scrutiny will include all the anti-psychic detectives around the world who will no doubt be trying to discredit anyone they can (as the writer in your link did with Ms. Renier). So if you ask me, this is a good thing for Court TV to be offering; at least we are being given access to the claims.

And why shouldn't they pick the successes? My interest is when/if it really happens, and particularly to someone who's never had such experiences before. I am far less impressed with people who claim to do the work professionally, even though that isn't a reason to automatically discount them. And I don't think one has to believe that people who might have psychic experiences necessarily can control when they have them.

I'm not saying they can't be really psychic, just that there are still plenty of alternative explanations, and unless you're present to observe everything the so-called psychic is able to observe from the moment they learn of the case to the conclusion, there is no way you can make a determination of whether there is a natural explanation for their success when you're viewing a TV show from your armchair where days/weeks/months of investigation are condensed into a highly edited 30 minutes of airtime.

That's true. But you also can't overlook the picture a skeptic and dedicated debunker can paint with carefully selected information. Are there fraudulent psychics? Of course, lots and lots of them . . . so many that the field is utterly muddy from the fakes. The skeptic will quite deliberately pick out every fraud he can find and put him/her in the spotlight, while not even coming close to applying the same rigor in finding anything legitimate.

The attitude of some here, and of the writers found at your links, seems that of the uberskeptic (as opposed to the healthy skeptic, which I consider myself to be ). A comment in one of the articles gives us a clue as to what the problem is: supernaturalism. You can see that's the assumption when evaluating psychic ability, plus the predilection of the scientific mind to want things neatly packaged in physical principles. It just might be that everything which is real can't be explained scientifically, and also isn't supernatural. Scientism devotees only think science answers all, they don't really know it can answer all.

I haven't said that psychicness is a fact, I have argued for a more open look at the claims. Your brief look at "Psychic Detectives" hardly qualifies as thorough. I don't know what you saw, but I do know most of what the skeptics in the links you gave are complaining about with fakes isn't what's being reported on that program. I've already acknowledged that the program may be sensationalizing or even scamming us, and they certainly might in good faith trust someone's account who is lying or concealing facts. But for now, not knowing any of that, and with a mind open to the possibility that psychicness can happen, I don't see a reason to insist in public forums that it's most likely fake, like some here have no hesitation to say.

I say, it is only a good thing to bring the claims out into the open, and hope that it contributes, one way or another, to finding out what is really going on.

 

[Moonbear]

It just might be that everything which is real can't be explained scientifically, and also isn't supernatural. Scientism devotees only think science answers all, they don't really know it can answer all.

Huh? Science is a method of inquiry. The answers are either there or not, science is the way we seek the answers and test the claims.

Your brief look at "Psychic Detectives" hardly qualifies as thorough.

I didn't claim it was thorough, just that I decided it wasn't worth my time to watch.

I don't know what you saw, but I do know most of what the skeptics in the links you gave are complaining about with fakes isn't what's being reported on that program.

How do you know that? That sort of program is precisely what they are discussing, that the information that would allow a person to debunk the so-called psychic is conveniently left out in the interest of ratings. The audience is only given what the producer wants to show us, and if they themselves have fallen for the ruse, their view is biased. Who wants to see the edits and scenes cut that show the so-called psychic rattling off 10 wrong locations and 20 different names they acquired from another detective? I'd like to see a skeptic given full access to the information of those televised cases and see if they come to the same conclusions.

I've continued reading (all I entered in my google search was "psychic detectives" nothing about skepticism or debunking, and other than the articles on the show itself, I just got article after article debunking various claims), and it seems the odds aren't so far off for psychics. Detectives were claiming that for high profile cases, 100s of people will call in saying they are psychic and have information, and the vast majority is completely wrong...all it takes is one of them to guess right, or guess vaguely, to then claim they helped solve the case. Then a TV show can recreate the case with the so-called psychic filling in details that were not included in reality.

Regarding the TV show, from an episode called "Mental Maps", they talk about the case of a little boy lost and the psychic help of Phil Jordan (I just got this from the episode blurb on the Court TV website, here: http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/psychic_detectives/mental.html ). So, since you're claiming that show is different than the other examples I provided, I looked up Phil Jordan to see if this case has been debunked (I just picked the first episode in the drop down menu to decide who to look up first).

Here's my first hit:

Unfortunately, the story has become "mythologized," according to Kenneth L. Feder and Michael Alan Park, who investigated the Kennedy case for my book Psychic Sleuths (Nickell 1994). They demonstrated how facts have been exaggerated and the story subjected to various embellishments. For example, the psychic's own accounts (Jordan 1977, 1999) fail to mention the T-shirt, a detail given in Arthur Lyons and Marcello Truzzi's The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime (1991, 74), citing Fate magazine and the tabloid National Enquirer. It is repeated by Jenny Randles and Peter Hough in their credulous Psychic Detectives (2001, 86-88), which, astonishingly, ascribes the Kennedy case to 1982!

Moreover, Jordan's map was vague and contained erroneous details. It was apparently of little use in the search, during which Jordan supposedly received vibrations telling him "to go here, to go there" (Feder and Park 1994). Jordan had, by his own admission, chosen an area of the woods that "no one had searched" (although Randles and Hough [2001] report otherwise). "Just as I was ready to give up, he says, "I looked down and saw the footprint of a young barefoot human headed up the trail." Even with such good luck, Jordan happened to be elsewhere--in a ravine--when other searchers in the party actually located the lost child. They had heard him "yelling for help" (Jordan 1999, 58-63).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_28/ai_n6090290

 

[Moonbear]

I should also point out that when I saw that one episode of "Psychic Detectives," I was under the impression it was a reality TV type show, where camera crews follow psychics on active investigations. As I'm reading more on the Court TV site, I realize these are actually re-creations of old cases, which, for me, lowers the credibility factor even further. It would be hard enough to determine if there are body cues or other information being given to the psychics in just an edited live version, but when the show is re-enactments of old cases, there's no way to take it as anything more than entertainment. I'll have to withdraw my criticism of the body cues being given by the detective, since obviously it was a re-enactment...I don't even know if it was an actor or the real detective in the part.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Detectives were claiming that for high profile cases, 100s of people will call in saying they are psychic and have information, and the vast majority is completely wrong...all it takes is one of them to guess right, or guess vaguely, to then claim they helped solve the case.

Well, first of all, I don't even recall a high profile case that impressed me so I don't even know what they would be referring to here. But more importantly, how many of those hundreds of calls made by psychics get investigated? The key cases involve one person leading the police directly to the body, not hundreds of haphazard guesses that would have the police running in all directions. And keep in mind that in some cases, the "psychic" was arrested until their alibi was confirmed.

Btw, I don't know the first thing about the show. I've seen it a couple of times and then only by chance. So I don't mean to defend that as a source.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, first of all, I don't even recall a high profile case that impressed me so I don't even know what they would be referring to here. But more importantly, how many of those hundreds of calls made by psychics get investigated? The key cases involve one person leading the police directly to the body, not hundreds of haphazard guesses that would have the police running in all directions. And keep in mind that in some cases, the "psychic" was arrested until their alibi was confirmed.

According to what I've read (and I still admit that I don't know if any of these sources are any more reputable than the psychics' claims), the police have to follow up on every lead (how far they go with it, I don't know).

Btw, I don't know the first thing about the show. I've seen it a couple of times and then only by chance. So I don't mean to defend that as a source.

I don't know much either. I looked at the description of other episodes, but they don't all list the psychic by name in the little blurb about the episode. Another one that did came up with no hits debunking the psychic. I don't know if that's because nobody bothered to do so yet, or if so far no alternative explanations have come to light and maybe she's one to consider as a potentially credible one.

Another common theme I came across were the warnings of how many so-called psychics show up that are only there to take advantage of the victim's family and to try to con them out of a lot of money by giving them false hope. This certainly doesn't rule out that some people could have a true gift, but just that it's not as common as some might hope to believe when distraught.

 

[SGT]

The attitude of some here, and of the writers found at your links, seems that of the uberskeptic (as opposed to the healthy skeptic, which I consider myself to be ). A comment in one of the articles gives us a clue as to what the problem is: supernaturalism. You can see that's the assumption when evaluating psychic ability, plus the predilection of the scientific mind to want things neatly packaged in physical principles. It just might be that everything which is real can't be explained scientifically, and also isn't supernatural. Scientism devotees only think science answers all, they don't really know it can answer all.

From your posts I would classify you as a true believer, not as a healthy skeptic (Zoobieshoe could be classified as one).
If you don't want scientific opinions you should not be in a forum named physicsforums , where it is conceivable that the majority of the posters have scientific knowledge or, at least, scientific curiosity. Your concept that scientists claim to know the truth is also a total misunderstanding of the scientific mind. Truth is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. No scientist would claim to know the truth. What scientists know is the best actual understanding of a phenomenon. And this understanding is based on evidences obtained by methodical investigation, not by anecdotes.
Of course, a great number of anecdotes in a certain field can encourage some scientists to investigate it. Psychic phenomena are object of investigation by scientists for more then a century. The few positive results reported, that show a reasonable evidence above chance, are of a nature that cannot exclude fraud or flawed methodology. One of the leading scientists that investigated the field, Dr. Susan Blackmore, after years of search without founding any convincing evidence, turned in what you call a uberskeptic, so if you want to call me that, I am honoured to be in such a respected company.

 

[Kerrie]

So, could "psychic detectives" really just be people who think outside the box on investigations? If you brought them in on more cases right from the beginning rather than only on the ones where all the detectives ideas have been exhausted, would they do as well or seem as impressive?

On the other hand, you could be right, that they are good detectives who can put together subtle clues or view things with a fresh perspective rather than following a formula.

I haven't read this entire thread either, but I agree with this blurb. Those referred to as "gifted psychics" I believe do utilize a skill that is outside of the mainstream methods of understanding situations. Perhaps it's another form of human intelligence many of us lack, and don't have a way to test for the existence of this intelligence.

 

[PIT2]

I encourage people to be skeptical of both sides. Its easy to just assume that psychic phenomena are the result of fraud, flawed methodologies, or rare coincidences but that isn't really objective thinking anymore.

I find it refreshing that Les Sleeth is skeptical of both views. Les has pointed out that if these things occur, then of course they are not supernatural, but natural. I completely agree with that. The exact properties of human consciousness are not known, so it is not strange to think that this may be some unknown capability of consciousness to collect information through an unknown mechanism.

We need to find out what that mechanism is. We don't need assumptions here, we need a critical look at the data, wherever it leads us to.

 

[xPAGANx]

Maybe some of these "psychics" are simply lucky, or statistics/probablity majors. ;)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Huh? Science is a method of inquiry. The answers are either there or not, science is the way we seek the answers and test the claims.

Science is a method of inquiry that reveals physical facts, and only physical facts. So if there are facts other than physical ones, science won't reveal them. The "scientism" mind, however is convinced of two things. First, only science gives us real knowledge. Second, because science practitioners only find physical facts, it means all is physical.

What's wrong with that logic? They don't think to consider that what they are exclusively finding is due to how they are looking. Only if you assume the senses and reason are the sole legitimate epistemological avenues will you conclude that "the answers are either there or not" on every subject under the sun.

There is a 3000 year history of people, for instance, learning to develop another type of perception skill by withdrawing from the senses and turning their attention inward. One of the results of that practice is increased consciousness sensitivity, which in turn, practitioners report, reveals information more subtle than the senses alone perceive.

The scientism devotee, certain he/she has the only path to knowledge, may subject that inner practitioner to scientific scrutiny, which of course is 100% dependent on sense data, and then confidently state there is no basis for the inner practitioners' claims of, say, some sense of an omnipresent consciousness.

It's rather arrogant if you ask me; the scientism devotee may have a PhD in his/her field, but it doesn't mean other's haven't acquired another type of epistemological expertise through just as much (or more) dedicated work.

I didn't claim it was thorough, just that I decided it wasn't worth my time to watch.

That's fine. But then you won’t have much of an opinion since it is uninformed. Yet it doesn't stop people who are already convinced that psychicness is bogus from venturing one uninformed opinion after another, and then citing all the fellow uberskeptic research one can find to support their a priori belief, while quite obviously failing to look for, or at, anything which might challenge their (uninformed) opinion.

As I have said several times, the ONLY objection I am making in this thread is the pretense of being objective and scientific by people who are anything but.

How do you know that? That sort of program is precisely what they are discussing, that the information that would allow a person to debunk the so-called psychic is conveniently left out in the interest of ratings.

How do you know what “sort” of program it is? I know that because I at least watch the program before venturing my opinion about the program. That program may have instances of "precisely what they [skeptics] are discussing," but I am stating that skeptic’s points don't cover all the instances being reported. I carefully qualified earlier what I saw as most interesting. Yet you are focusing on, just as I said you were doing, only those cases that can be debunked. I admitted there's a lot of fakes, and specifically said I was interested in what seemed to stand out as worthy of a look.

Yet after watching half a program, you feel qualified to characterize the entire series. Is this the objective, informed opinion of a scientific mind?

My own impression is that the producers use a broad net looking for program material. If so, it seems possible that, if psychicness is possible, then they may catch something real.

The audience is only given what the producer wants to show us . . .

The double standard . . . the skeptics are only citing what they want to show us, but you don’t have a problem with that do you?

Who wants to see the edits and scenes cut that show the so-called psychic rattling off 10 wrong locations and 20 different names they acquired from another detective?

More speculation. How do you know any of this? Why would you put forward something you don’t know is true if you weren’t biased to begin with?

I'd like to see a skeptic given full access to the information of those televised cases and see if they come to the same conclusions.

This is so revealing! Why would you want a skeptic given full access? Why not give objective minds full access? Is it mere coincidence that all your speculations and suggestions for evaluation are designed to cast doubt?

I wonder, do you think I believe in psychicness at this point? If you think so you are wrong. I am interested because I see the universe in a certain way that would allow it, so I would REALLY LIKE TO KNOW, and not have the idea squelched by uninformed, dogmatic, know-it-all attitudes which, rather than being open to something real amongst the fakes, are so afraid of anything which science can't explain they automatically go into uberskeptic mode from the word go.

Zooby has criticized me for letting my frustration show. Well, how would you feel if a highly educated, socially powerful group were affecting what we can and can't openly consider by using dubious, self-serving methods to cast doubt on something merely because it might be outside the realm of their competence? Grrrrrrrr. :grumpy:

 

[Les Sleeth]

If you don't want scientific opinions you should not be in a forum named physicsforums , where it is conceivable that the majority of the posters have scientific knowledge or, at least, scientific curiosity.

So far I haven’t heard a scientific opinion. All I’ve heard is uninformed opinions. Nobody yet knows if psychic ability is possible, so why all the skepticism before the fact? Exactly how is that “scientific”?

I have both scientific knowledge and scientific curiosity, as well as a great respect for what science, real science, can actually do. I just don’t believe science necessarily is able to answer all questions. My objection isn’t to science. My objection is to dogmatism cloaked in science.

Your concept that scientists claim to know the truth is also a total misunderstanding of the scientific mind. Truth is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. No scientist would claim to know the truth. What scientists know is the best actual understanding of a phenomenon. And this understanding is based on evidences obtained by methodical investigation, not by anecdotes.

I haven’t misunderstood anything. I doubt there is such a thing as a purely scientific mind because before being a scientist one is human, raised among influences that have helped determine what he/she is and isn’t open to. The ideal standard may be as you say, but I am not objecting to the ideal . . . I am objecting to what human part is doing.

Truth is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. No scientist would claim to know the truth

You are right, the “scientist” I am complaining about never “claims” (read: admits) they are ontologizing or have a metaphysical belief system firmly in place. They almost always claim they are 1000000000% objective. After all, they are working in the objective field of science aren’t they, and when one does that, it cleanses one of all bias. Right?

What scientists know is the best actual understanding of a phenomenon. And this understanding is based on evidences obtained by methodical investigation, not by anecdotes.

What they know, and test for, are physical phenomena. Do you see what I am saying yet?

It’s funny because I have often heard either a scientist or a someone who thinks science can answer all answerable questions say, “that’s beyond the abilities of science to answer.” But in another area of their book, or science TV special, or debate here at PF they give away that they also believe it can’t be real if it is beyond the realm of science. So I’ve come to see the statement “that’s beyond the abilities of science to answer” most often as sham piety.

As I said above, if you ask me it’s arrogant to believe one has the only avenue to the truth, and it’s a bit nauseating to hear that same person pretend to be humble.

 

[SGT]

So far I haven’t heard a scientific opinion. All I’ve heard is uninformed opinions. Nobody yet knows if psychic ability is possible, so why all the skepticism before the fact? Exactly how is that “scientific”?

If by uninformed opinion you mean that the persons that post arguments contrary to your cherished beliefs are not experts in the field, I must confess that this is true in my case. I am an engineer, not a parapsychologist (by the way, are you one, or just another uninformed person?). I don't know about the other posters, but if you want an informed opinion, http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/NS2000.html did research in the field for 30 years, before convincing herself there was nothing to find.

I have both scientific knowledge and scientific curiosity, as well as a great respect for what science, real science, can actually do. I just don’t believe science necessarily is able to answer all questions. My objection isn’t to science. My objection is to dogmatism cloaked in science.

And who said science is able to answer all questions? In my previous post I already said it is not true and no scientist would claim that.

I haven’t misunderstood anything. I doubt there is such a thing as a purely scientific mind because before being a scientist one is human, raised among influences that have helped determine what he/she is and isn’t open to. The ideal standard may be as you say, but I am not objecting to the ideal . . . I am objecting to what human part is doing.

Of course scientists are human beings and subject to mistakes and biases. That is why a scientific paper must pass through a peer reviewing before publication. And even after publication, a scientific work must be independently reproduced by other scientists before being accepted as the actual understanding of the truth (not the Truth).

You are right, the “scientist” I am complaining about never “claims” (read: admits) they are ontologizing or have a metaphysical belief system firmly in place. They almost always claim they are 1000000000% objective. After all, they are working in the objective field of science aren’t they, and when one does that, it cleanses one of all bias. Right?

If the "scientists"you know claim that, I am sorry to say you are in very bad company. The ones I know are fully aware of their fallibility and are never sure of anything. That is why one uses statistics in experimental sciences.

What they know, and test for, are physical phenomena. Do you see what I am saying yet?

You say that paranormal phenomena are not physical, but you also reject the supernormal hypothesis. What is the nature of those phenomena in your opinion?

It’s funny because I have often heard either a scientist or a someone who thinks science can answer all answerable questions say, “that’s beyond the abilities of science to answer.” But in another area of their book, or science TV special, or debate here at PF they give away that they also believe it can’t be real if it is beyond the realm of science. So I’ve come to see the statement “that’s beyond the abilities of science to answer” most often as sham piety.

Any natural phenomena are answerable by science. May be they cannot be answered by our present knowledge, but someday they will. supernormal phenomena are beyond science. They belong to metaphysics or religion.

As I said above, if you ask me it’s arrogant to believe one has the only avenue to the truth, and it’s a bit nauseating to hear that same person pretend to be humble.

You seem the one that has the only avenue to the Truth.