Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Psychics who solve crimes

  1. Sep 17, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    I have read and seen many interviews with police investigators who swear to the credibility of these claims. To me it seems that some must be genuine as there are well documented cases that seem to leave no doubt. In many cases, the notion of luck is simply not possible by any reasonable measure.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 17, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Did the psychic provide all the details before or after the finding of the body?
    Alleged psychics normally say that the probable victims are underwater or buried in some wooded area, because those are the most probable locations of missing bodies. So, if there is a nearby lake, there is a good probability that a missing person may be there, either by accident, suicide, or because some murderer chose the place to hide the body.
  4. Sep 17, 2005 #3
    You're gonna have to do better than that. And as far as what u mean by reasonable measure, uh, what do u mean? Can we look at all the misses that occur and then compare it to the hits, is it unlikely that out of a huge amount of misses, a few guesses may be correct. And then we can concede that they are not mere guesses, but in retrospect they are educated guesses (something real investigators use all the time.)

    It's probably also not reasonable to assume someone could be lucky enough to win the california lottery, with odds of 1:41,416,353 against them. Are we talking about luck more unreasonable than that?
  5. Sep 18, 2005 #4
    Here is a story with a little more details:

    So it seems she identified a spot in the lake that was 500 feet offshore. Apparently this was such an unlikely place for the corpse to be, that noone else considered it.
  6. Sep 18, 2005 #5
    I believe in psychics. However, being one who understands nirvana, it's a dangerous power which can lead one straight to the underworld. Sometimes I wonder if these people are truly psychics.
  7. Sep 19, 2005 #6
    I often wonder why the police doesn't hire skeptics to find missing persons, since skeptics claim to understand what psychics do better than the psychics themselves. Or, as the other skeptic suggested, just look for the missing person on the internet. :grumpy:

    Why is it that some people seem to have an enormous need to refute that which they don't understand? So the woman had a vision, so what? Why does it have to be something else?
  8. Sep 19, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Police investigators are, in the great majority, skeptics about the powers of psychics and they solve many more cases than the alleged by psychics. So why hire other skeptics?
    Skeptics don't refute what they don't understand. I don't understand string theory, but I don't refute it. I refute things for which there is no evidence except for anecdotal accounts.
  9. Sep 19, 2005 #8
    The problem is not that psychics don't solve a lot of cases, the problem is that they shouldn't be solving any case at all and yet from time to time they do.

    You mean skeptics fully understand everything about every single claim of psi phenomena? Man, those skeptics must be really smart.

    I don't understand clairvoyance, but I don't refute it.

    Nope. You refute ideas simply because you don't like them. Anecdotal evidence is just fine if it doesn't conflict with your beliefs. You are not smarter than anyone else, that is something you can depend upon.
  10. Sep 19, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    There is no evidence that psychics do anything else than providing educated guesses.

    I have never said that. I said that I refute them not because I understand or not, but because there is no strong evidence for them.
    I will not reject a claim for wich there is little evidence, if it does not contradict the accepted laws of Nature. If you present a case that contradicts our understanding of those laws, you must present strong evidence. In this case all skeptics will accept it.
    A good example is the theory of continental drift. When it was presented it was rejected because there was no known mechanism that could fundament it. When the mechanism of plate tectonics was discovered, all scientists accepted the fact of continental drift.

    Good for you!

    See my previous explanation. Anecdotal evidence is just fine if it doesn't conflict with the accepted laws of Nature. My beliefs have not to do with it. And when did I say that I am smarter than anyone?
  11. Sep 19, 2005 #10
    We need more details. So far ive gathered that she actually drew a map and pinpointed the location as being in the lake 500 feet from shore. She has also explained the cause of her death as being "That evening there was a flood, a landslide, there were problems on the road," she said.". Police havent yet found the cause.

    Anyone have more details?

    Btw i saw a similar story on Oprah Winfrey a few months ago. A person had been missing for awhile. A woman dreamt about a car driving off a mountain. In the dream there was a voice telling her to look a bit further. The next day she and her daughter went to the spot on the mountain that she dreamt of. She stopped the car, got out, and looked down the mountain. They didnt see anything. She remembered the voice telling her to look a bit further, so she started walking down the mountainside through the bushes and after a few hundred meters the car was there with the person inside still alive.

    The woman in this case didnt claim to be a psychic and she never experienced this before.

    Just found the story, here it is:

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  12. Sep 19, 2005 #11

    I saw that same story on another show on another show (Inside Edition maybe?). It was a short segment with few details, but they did have some short interviews with the people involved. I'm a skeptic by nature, but I found the people to be very genuine and their story really makes you think. From what I remember, the girl that had the "vision" was just a close friend of the missing girl and does not claim to have psychic abilities. There were no skid marks on the road or anything other evidence that a car had gone off the road there. I suppose that it could have just been "luck"... maybe she was driving on roads where the girl might have traveled and just decided that this was a likely place for an accident. Or maybe there really is something to this and similar cases. However with the limited and sketchy evidence we have it is impossible to make a convincing argument for psychic abilities. For now, I will remain skeptical but intrigued.

    I found it equally remarkable that the girl survived for a week trapped in the car with little or no food and water (they didn’t give any details on this). :bugeye:

  13. Sep 19, 2005 #12
    Here are some more links about the Laura Hatch case:

    http://www.annointed.net/Article699.html [Broken]

    The last link describes the dreams the woman had:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  14. Sep 19, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I only have a few minutes a day for PF right now. It could be up to another week before I can get back into this or the other thread. It looks like you're on your own for awhile PIT2. :biggrin: See you soon

    work work work...
  15. Sep 21, 2005 #14
    But don't you see the inherent potential for bias here? If the media sees the potential for an 'amazing' story you can count on them delivering an amazing story.

    Whether or not the person claims to be a psychic or a prophet is not really an issue. With billions of people having hundreds of dreams per night something seemingly inexplicable is bound to happen. I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate here, the story is amazing, assuming that all of it's true. How likely is it that the woman purposely fudged some details of her dream? And if that doesn't seem likely, how reliable do u find ur recollections of your dreams?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Sep 21, 2005 #15

    That's a good point. I could easily see the media contributing to the exaggeration of the story. Each time the story is told, it gets a little more incredible. Pretty soon it has grown to supernatural proportions and the dreamer isn't able to distinguish between the actual dream and the incredible story she has been telling her friends and the media. Certainly a possibility.
  17. Sep 21, 2005 #16
    In the Laura Hatch case it is however pretty strange how the dream-woman ended up at the exact spot where the car went down the mountain. Was this just luck or was there some kind of proces at work? I think the latter, simply because the odds are against the former. What this proces is remains to be seen.

    The story about her vision may have been exaggerated, and the details of the dream distorted, but the original idea behind it (that the dream brought her to the location of the car) probably was true. Unless she fabricated the dreamstory entirely.

    Btw if i remember correctly, she told her daughter about her dream right after waking up. So the daughter also knew about the dream from that moment. This makes it less likely that both their memories have been distorted by media exaggerations.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2005
  18. Sep 21, 2005 #17
    There are no such thing as people who have extraordinary extrasensory perceptions. It has been proving they are fakes many time over already. They usually predict 1 right thing, then they get all this press attention. And not to mention that it's quite hilarious they always try to be vague. Psychology books have proven again and again that ESP aren't real. If they are, then "psychics" would have won the lottery again and again.
  19. Sep 22, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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. 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.
  20. Sep 22, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  21. Sep 22, 2005 #20
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook