Can psychics really see the past/future?

[marysol2103]

I’m sure everyone has seen the signs for “$5 Psychic Readings” in their town or while traveling elsewhere. What I wanted to discuss here were your thoughts on using psychics for more than just personal entertainment, more specifically in police and detective work.

There’s been documented cases in the past where police haven’t been able to solve a crime, at which point they turn to a psychic for help. What I find the most interesting is when the psychics they hire actually solve the case.

What are your thoughts on this? What about using psychics to help solve some of the current investigations (such as the Peterson or Hacking trials?)

I’m not an expert myself on the topic, but I’ve been learning a bit more from a new show on Court TV called Psychic Detectives. It’s on Wednesday’s at 9:30pm in case you want to watch it too.

~ Marysol

 

[Chronos]

Mary, all the real tests say this is phony. Please stay around and listen to all the people who can explain it better than I. Any real phenomenon requires energy and mass to make things happen. Watch here and learn. There are many nice people who can help. You came to the right place.

 

[JV]

Right, the psychics are frauds. They are however often smart. They are usually good listeners, and can help the police look at the evidents from a different perspective.

But this does not seem to be a topic for this category

 

[daveed]

did miss cleo forsee her being arrested?
=P

 

[turbo]

did miss cleo forsee her being arrested?
=P

Why didn't the psychic network warn us of the 9/11 attack? Certainly, that horrific traumatizing event would have had all "real" psychics screaming. Case closed.

 

[geometer]

Try this idea out. People have all kinds of talents. Some are good at mathematics, some are good at music. I think there are some people who are good at looking current events and extrapolating from them the most probable future. There is nothing magical, or strange here - just a subconscious assessment of the probabilities of various outcomes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi Marysol,

I don't believe in "psychics", esp TV psychics, but I think psychic things may happen. One day these "psychic events" may be explained and given a scientific name. Then we will all agree that there is not and never was such a thing as a psychic event.

In other words, "psychic" implies "magic". Consider that pheromones may in fact explain some of this stuff. And who knows, maybe quantum mechanics will produce other mechanisms for information transfer between two minds; or even a mind and some distant or future event. Also, consider one recent experiment that reportedly shows that people can tell when they are being watched. We do seem to find hints at something real. Your example of police investigations I think is a very good one.

I have seen and read some very compelling "official" police files and reports, and interviews with investigators that definitely imply something real is happening. Still, debunkers will always insists that a psychic event is magic; and there is no such thing as magic. But this is a self fulfilling prophecy. We may find good scientific reasons for peoples experiences that for now only seem like magic; that we call psychic. I think it is painfully obvious that if real, most of these alleged events cannot be produced on demand for science. So I say keep and open mind but not so much that your brains fall out.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

sd

I’m sure everyone has seen the signs for “$5 Psychic Readings” in their town or while traveling elsewhere. What I wanted to discuss here were your thoughts on using psychics for more than just personal entertainment, more specifically in police and detective work.

There’s been documented cases in the past where police haven’t been able to solve a crime, at which point they turn to a psychic for help. What I find the most interesting is when the psychics they hire actually solve the case.

What are your thoughts on this? What about using psychics to help solve some of the current investigations (such as the Peterson or Hacking trials?)

I’m not an expert myself on the topic, but I’ve been learning a bit more from a new show on Court TV called Psychic Detectives. It’s on Wednesday’s at 9:30pm in case you want to watch it too.

~ Marysol

Psychics don't exist

 

[Moonbear]

I think psychics are just very talented at observing human behavior. They use subtle cues in the tones of your voice, your posture, your speech pattern, your mannerisms, etc., to guess at what you're thinking. The psychics you find out for entertainment and such start off with some leading questions, not really telling you anything, just getting a feel for how you react until you start to lead them in the right direction of what you want to hear. This same skill at observing human behavior can also help them predict things about how criminals operate. They probably have a knack for criminal profiling and understanding how other people think to help guess at what they've done.

 

[Kerrie]

i think the term "psychic" is just a fancy word for intuition. take for example, yesterday my husband and i were driving down a busy street to get the grocery store...i remembered a friend telling me he had an accident in the exact spot we were passing through, and then i became a little panicked...i kept saying to my husband who was driving to slow down through all this chaos (he's got a bit of a lead foot)...suddenly, a van pulls in front of us and my husband has to literally slam on the breaks to not hit the van, which left some tire tracks on the road. do you call that being psychic, or just a good intuition?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think psychics are just very talented at observing human behavior. They use subtle cues in the tones of your voice, your posture, your speech pattern, your mannerisms, etc., to guess at what you're thinking. The psychics you find out for entertainment and such start off with some leading questions, not really telling you anything, just getting a feel for how you react until you start to lead them in the right direction of what you want to hear. This same skill at observing human behavior can also help them predict things about how criminals operate. They probably have a knack for criminal profiling and understanding how other people think to help guess at what they've done.

People can be trained to do it. Look up "cold reading".

 

[Overdose]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented, someone mentioned no one foreseeing the 9/11 attacks, well infact many people did, and one man in england even went so far as to paint a picture of the planes hitting the twin towers, and to get the picture dated and verifed at his local bank, and put in storage (to proove that there was no cheating involved).
The guy actually did this on a regular basis and had many premonitions which came to pass; so i learned from an interesting documentry a year or so ago...

 

[radagast]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented, someone mentioned no one foreseeing the 9/11 attacks, well infact many people did, and one man in england even went so far as to paint a picture of the planes hitting the twin towers, and to get the picture dated and verifed at his local bank, and put in storage (to proove that there was no cheating involved).
The guy actually did this on a regular basis and had many premonitions which came to pass; so i learned from an interesting documentry a year or so ago...

Can you provide a source of documentation for this?

 

[Locrian]

It would seem safe to say that he cannot.

 

[Overdose]

His name is David Mandell, there's unfortunately not much information about him on the web, although i did find the following links...
http://www.trioptimum.co.uk/archives/000262.html
http://www.geocities.com/hairybobby2000/dreammandell.html

 

[Overdose]

Mary, all the real tests say this is phony. Please stay around and listen to all the people who can explain it better than I. Any real phenomenon requires energy and mass to make things happen. Watch here and learn. There are many nice people who can help. You came to the right place.

Not so atall, this is either disinformation or someone whos just misinformed, there's plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.

 

[Locrian]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented

And on the web link,

The bottom line was inconclusive: there was no strong evidence that the man’s gifts were real and not imaginary, but there was also no success in uncovering a deliberate hoax or a falsehood.

Your definition of well documented is aparently more lenient than mine. Much, much more lenient. There is no evidence this person saw this specific event prior to its occurence; descriptions of his painting make it abundantly clear that he captured none of the particular details.

 

[Chronos]

Not so atall, this is either disinformation or someone whos just misinformed, there's plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.

That would explain why James Randi still has that $1,000,000 in escrow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I want to see proof of the money.

 

[Overdose]

And on the web link,
Your definition of well documented is aparently more lenient than mine. Much, much more lenient.

First of all when i talk about documented evidence bare in mind that I am not just talking about this case, this case is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is no evidence this person saw this specific event prior to its occurence; descriptions of his painting make it abundantly clear that he captured none of the particular details.

Well this is the crunch, how much detail needs to be there to be a 'direct hit' ? At what point do you say...right, this is just too much of a coincidence, this person has seen the future; no question. The problem is there never comes a point like this, you can always invoke coincidence...
This is the problem of researching ESP, the separation of prediction from chance. All you can do is try to statistically work out how likely or unlikey it is that someone could get a prediction right. This in essense is what was done in the Mandell's case, and the conclusion was that he was certainly 'over the odds'.

 

[Overdose]

That would explain why James Randi still has that $1,000,000 in escrow.

Ah yes a 'test' that has a million dollars at stake if the researcher 'looses'.
I try to keep an eye on research which isn't so odviously biased myself...

 

[Chronos]

Ah yes a 'test' that has a million dollars at stake if the researcher 'looses'. I try to keep an eye on research which isn't so odviously biased myself...

How is that biased? A free million for anyone who can show proof of their paranormal 'powers'? That does not sound very biased to me. The 'Amazing Randi' tossed down the gauntlet and no one has survived the challenge. As far as I know, the offer still stands.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Money talks and crap walks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where is the money? Frankly, I don't trust Randi any more than I trust Sylvia Brown. I have doubts that the money even exists. I keep asking for proof but none of his devotees ever produce any.

 

[Chronos]

Verification in progress, hopefully. Your dual skepticism is acknowledged.

 

[Overdose]

How is that biased? A free million for anyone who can show proof of their paranormal 'powers'? That does not sound very biased to me. The 'Amazing Randi' tossed down the gauntlet and no one has survived the challenge. As far as I know, the offer still stands.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Money talks and crap walks.

You don't understand how that's biased? let me break it down for you..
if esp is proven true then Randi looses a million dollars, and more
than that he would have so much egg on his face he would never be
able to show himself in public again.
Randi does not believe in anything paranormal, he doesn't even leave room for the fact that there may be something in esp. He thinks it's all complete nonsense. Well, that's about as biased as your going to get i think.

Oh and did you know Rhandi can turn away any potentional subjects for any reason and doesn't have to give an explanation, so if he meets someone who he knows will pass all his tests, he can simply tell them to go away.
Randi is a complete charlatan.

 

[Chronos]

Where is the money? Frankly, I don't trust Randi any more than I trust Sylvia Brown. I have doubts that the money even exists. I keep asking for proof but none of his devotees ever produce any.

I retrieved this quote from Wikipedia

The money is known to exist and is held in a Goldman, Sachs & Company account, and withholding payment would legally constitute fraud on Randi's behalf.

Of course, I cannot vouch for the credibility of this assertion. But, I consider Wikipedia a generally reliable source. For full article see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

The rules for entering the challenge are posted here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
The rules appear to be quite reasonable. There is no application fee. The only 'catch' is the challenger is responsible for the costs incurred in pursuit of the reward.

I messaged the Randi website for confirmation and received this reply

From : Linda <linda@randi.org>
Reply-To : <linda@randi.org>
Sent : Monday, September 27, 2004 9:43 PM

Subject : Does the reward offer still stand?

yes, it still stands.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it interesting that Randi's followers demand so little proof - like none at all. A copy of the banknote doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for considering that he accepts donations and makes a living this way.

Considering that this information is obviously not readily available, doesn't it seem odd that "debunkers" and "skeptics" wave Randi [former magician]around like a flag?

So much for objectivity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also that allegely [publicly claimed as such by Ms Brown] Sylvia agreed to accept Randi's challenge IF the money is put into a common trust first. Allegedly Randi either never responded, or he would not agree to her terms. Maybe you can ask him about this.

What caught my attention is that, for the first time to my knowledge, this posed the genuine threat that he might lose control of the money.

 

[russ_watters]

First of all when i talk about documented evidence bare in mind that I am not just talking about this case, this case is just the tip of the iceberg.

Well apparently, this case was worth nothing at all. Are all the cases you know of this compelling? Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me...

...but if you do actually have something unequivocal/conclusive, by all means, post it. I'll make it easy too - you only need one conclusive/unequivocal example to convince me that its real. So why don't you just get right down to it and post only the best one you have. If its as conclusive/unequivocal as you say, it should be more than enough to convince me.

...one caveat though: when I say unequivocal/conclusive, I mean it. Asserting it to be true doesn't make it true. I want to see the actual evidence.

 

[Overdose]

Sorry, ignore this post i atempted to edit a post and got my tags all mixed up etc...

 

[Overdose]

Well apparently, this case was worth nothing at all. Are all the cases you know of this compelling? Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me...

In what way was it worth nothing? any study that doesn't come to a concrete conclusion is worthless?

...but if you do actually have something unequivocal/conclusive, by all means, post it. I'll make it easy too - you only need one conclusive/unequivocal example to convince me that its real. So why don't you just get right down to it and post only the best one you have. If its as conclusive/unequivocal as you say, it should be more than enough to convince me.

...one caveat though: when I say unequivocal/conclusive, I mean it. Asserting it to be true doesn't make it true. I want to see the actual evidence.

I don't know where you got the idea that i said that there existed experimental proof of esp that was conclusive, i never said anything of the kind. Compelling evidence yes, conclusive 'experimental' evidence no.

Im not even sure i know what criteria would have to be reached for esp to be willingly accepted by the scientific community.

But yes when i get round to it i'll be sure to post up some more esp research that resides (somewhere) in my 1000+ favourites folder.

 

[Overdose]

Note also that allegely [publicly claimed as such by Ms Brown] Sylvia agreed to accept Randi's challenge IF the money is put into a common trust first. Allegedly Randi either never responded, or he would not agree to her terms. Maybe you can ask him about this.

What caught my attention is that, for the first time to my knowledge, this posed the genuine threat that he might lose control of the money.

Yep I've read Randi's list of conditions, one of which if i remember correctly is the right to refuse anyone the undergoing of tests without having to give a reason for it.

 

[Locrian]

This in essense is what was done in the Mandell's case, and the conclusion was that he was certainly 'over the odds'.

Really? You must read "inconclusive" to mean something different than I do? Since you can't post a reference to the actual picture, we'll just have to go on their descriptions, which suggest an extremely vague production.

As for the evidence required to accept him, I understand your worry about a moving bar. However, enough information to act on is hardly too much to ask.

 

[russ_watters]

In what way was it worth nothing? any study that doesn't come to a concrete conclusion is worthless?[emphasis added]

Of course it is worthless in supporting this:

...theres plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.[emphasis added]

Or are you saying that the only compelling evidence available is inconclusive? :rofl: [/irony]

I don't know where you got the idea that i said that there existed experimental proof of esp that was conclusive, i never said anything of the kind. Compelling evidence yes, conclusive 'experimental' evidence no.

Sorry, but that's a contradiction. This is a science site, so when you say you have "compelling evidence" you need to be able to provide evidence that is compelling under scientific critereon. To be more blunt: "compelling evidence" is "experimental evidence." If you can't provide something that will stand up to the critereon of scientific investigation, you need to drop the claim that you have "compelling evidence" (or, perhaps, take that claim somewhere where the constraints of science aren't important).

Im not even sure i know what criteria would have to be reached for esp to be willingly accepted by the scientific community.

Overdose, the way you are approaching this right now is almost by definition psuedoscience: you are citing papers, using scientific sounding words, but when it comes down to it, you are refusing to apply real scientific standards to what you are discussing. You're pretending to be scientific.

Huh? You don't know how scientific investigation would work for ESP? Its not that hard - experimentation with ESP is junior high school science fair simple. In fact, a junior high school girl got a paper on "touch therapy" published in the New England Journal of Medicine (it was conclusive and compelling).

 

[Overdose]

If you can't provide something that will stand up to the critereon of scientific investigation, you need to drop the claim that you have "compelling evidence" (or, perhaps, take that claim somewhere where the constraints of science aren't important).

You must be the only person on this board with as many posts as you
have that believes that compelling evidence has to be conclusive and irrefutable. It doesn't all it has to do is support a claim well enough to force you to take notice.
Ive tried to break it down as simply as i can..THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR
ESP WHICH MAKES IT WORTHY OF FURTHER STUDY AND ATTENTION.
While i can provide evidence, what i can't do is provide an experiment
which concludes that esp has occurred without one shadow of a doubt
or with any room for error or chance.
Or at the very least i do not know of an experiment that conforms to
these expectations.
Russ i will more than happily post evidence which has been compiled
by universities and research centres and which has appeared in nature magazine.
What i won't do is pander to unrealistic requests.

Note: i haven't quoted your whole posts as there were too many paragraphs to 'chop up' most of which were just re-stating the same point over and over.