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

[Kerrie]

I think we need to get back on topic. This debate is surely a good enough of one to start a whole new topic, but I don't think we should steer Ivan's initial subject off its course.

 

[PIT2]

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/NS2000.html did research in the field for 30 years, before convincing herself there was nothing to find.

As did Rupert Sheldrake, and he was convinced otherwise.
Back to square one.

On page two i have shown some experiments in which humans could sense what was happening to another human whose brain was being stimulated. They called it:

"Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects."

During such experiments, the human pairs (sender and receiver) felt themselves 'blend into one another'. What kind of mechanism is at work here, and could it relate to what happens to psychic detectives?

I know that psychic detectives sometimes experience the murder through the eyes of the murdered person(or was it through the eye of the murderer?). This definitely sounds like blending into each other, only the other person is dead.

 

[SGT]

As did Rupert Sheldrake, and he was convinced otherwise.
Back to square one.

On page two i have shown some experiments in which humans could sense what was happening to another human whose brain was being stimulated. They called it:

"Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects."

During such experiments, the human pairs (sender and receiver) felt themselves 'blend into one another'. What kind of mechanism is at work here, and could it relate to what happens to psychic detectives?

I know that psychic detectives sometimes experience the murder through the eyes of the murdered person(or was it through the eye of the murderer?). This definitely sounds like blending into each other, only the other person is dead.

As I said in my previous post, many experiments in parapsychology present methodological flaws. Also, in order to be accepted by the scientific community, the experiment must be reproduced by an independent investigator.
In preparation to replicate the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment, Todd L. Richards, PhD, et al. from Bastyr University tested the correlation of EEGs taken from different individuals at different instants and noticed that there exists such a correlation, so the null hypothesis invoked by Grinberg-Zylberbaum that no correlation exists if there is no communication between the brains is nonexistent. This does not prove that such communication does not exist, but shows at least one methodological flaw.
https://www.bastyr.edu/research/projects/abstracts/rsj.asp

 

[PIT2]

In preparation to replicate the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment, Todd L. Richards, PhD, et al. from Bastyr University tested the correlation of EEGs taken from different individuals at different instants and noticed that there exists such a correlation, so the null hypothesis invoked by Grinberg-Zylberbaum that no correlation exists if there is no communication between the brains is nonexistent. This does not prove that such communication does not exist, but shows at least one methodological flaw.
https://www.bastyr.edu/research/projects/abstracts/rsj.asp

So this was a pilot study. They conclude:

The proper statistical model must show that the cross-correlation between EEG activity from two human subjects is statistically different from random correlation that we now know can range from -0.37 to +0.46.

So, after finishing the pilotstudy, did they ever conduct the actual experiment?
Yes they did, and here it is:

CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that in some pairs of human subjects a signal may be detected in the brain of a distant member of the pair when the brain of the other member is visually stimulated. These data support the findings of similar studies performed in seven laboratories reported in the peer-reviewed literature since 1963. Research in this area should now proceed with investigation of its physical and biologic mechanism, its generalizability to varying populations and relationships, and its clinical application.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15165411

On another page on the Bastyr site they talk about these results, and also mention another study they did:

Because Bastyr University—in partnership with University of Washington—has completed some of the most groundbreaking research in this field through the Bastyr/UW Consciousness Science Lab, the producers will be including Bastyr in one of its first episodes.

The Bastyr/UW team tested whether pairs of emotionally bonded participants showed matching (correlated) brain signals even when isolated from each other. While the Neural Energy Transfer study tested pairs who already considered themselves “emotionally bonded,” the SynchroDestiny study recruited experienced meditators trained in a technique called Primordial Sound Meditation, which practitioners say helps to increase a sense of “connectedness” between people, even when physically distant from each other.

Results from both the Neural Energy Transfer and Synchro-Destiny studies showed evidence that correlated EEG and fMRI signals occurred in 15 percent to 30 percent of the participating pairs, depending on the experiment. These results are not only highly significant but also match the results produced in similar experiments at other labs.
http://www.bastyr.edu/development/newsletter/fall04.asp?jump=5

 

[PIT2]

More news from psychicland:

Scottish academics find proof of mediums' ability to use extrasensory perception

Scottish academics claim to have found scientific proof of a 'sixth sense' after completing radical experiments which seek to establish how spiritual mediums obtain information supposedly transmitted from beyond the grave.
The controversial research, led by a University of Glasgow professor, appears to discount the common assumption that mediums are merely picking up signals from body language, or relying on guesswork and prior knowledge.

http://www.sundayherald.com/33398

Unfortunately there isn't much said about the actual experiments.

 

[PIT2]

A Brazilian psychic found Saddam Hussein.

Brazil psychic seeks $25 mln US reward for Saddam

The U.S. government offered the award for Saddam in July 2003 after the U.S.-led forces occupied the country. He was captured in December of the same year.

The court said Da Luz sent letters to the U.S. government from September 2001, describing Saddam's future hiding place -- a tiny cellar at a farmhouse near Tikrit. He never received a reply.

"His lawyers attest that the author has an uncommon gift of having visions of things that will come to pass. ... Via dreams, he sees situations, facts that will happen in the future," a court statement said.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06220016.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should finally have some time to dig around for sources soon, but for the moment, if anyone knows a source for this case, I find it to be one of the more compelling that I’ve heard.

In or near Los Angeles around about 1975-1980 IIRC, a woman claimed to see the murder of another woman in a dream. She was so convinced that this was real that she not only drove all around looking for familiar landmarks [as seen in her dream], she eventually went to the police and told her story, at which time she was politely dismissed. A little later, with her kids in the car, she saw something in the hills that border the northern end of the city, or perhaps she remembered something from her dream, but in either case she began driving through the local hills until she saw something definitive – I think a rock formation of some kind. She also allegedly found the body as she had seen it in her dream. When she went to the police and then took them to the body she was promptly arrested. Soon thereafter it was shown that she had absolutely no connection to the crime and was released. The police involved were total believers. The crux of the story hinges on whether she could have been a witness to the crime, or somehow, knowingly or not acquired information about the murder, but the victim and various details of the crime seemed to rule out any possibility that she could have known anything other than what she said.

 

[PIT2]

In or near Los Angeles around about 1975-1980 IIRC, a woman claimed to see the murder of another woman in a dream.

Ill see if i can find the story. U don't happen to have a name do u?
I also found this one which seems odd:

When Mary Cowset disappeared from Missouri in the company of her boyfriend, Stanley Holiday, her family feared the worst. As explored in the A&E video, "Psychic Sleuths," Holiday was arrested in New Jersey and he called his sister and told her he'd killed Cowset, stabbing her 10 times and dumping her in the weeds in Illinois. Police needed a body, but he wouldn't reveal the information, so they turned to a psychic, Greta Alexander. She said that a body had been dumped where there was a dog barking. The letter "s" would play an important role and there was hair separated from the body. She felt certain the body was in a specific area, although searchers found only a dead animal. She asked to see a palm print of the suspect—her specialty—and the detective brought one. She said that a man with a bad hand would find the body. Then searchers found a headless corpse, with the head and a wig nearby. The man who found it had a deformed left hand. There was water nearby.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/7.html

 

[PIT2]

I have a video here of a psychic which predicted some planecrashes here in Holland:

http://www.sdnl.nl/video/helderziende.wmv (unfortunately, its all dutch)

The story is as follows.
13 hours before a plane crashes into an apartment building in Amsterdam, she sees a vision that a plane is going to crash that night. A voice tells her what time the plane will take off, as well as the name of the pilot. She reported this to the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines), however, she omits the name of the pilots because it sounded like f*ck and is afraid they won't take her seriously. (his name was focks or fuchs or something). The KLM does nothing, and the plane crashes. They send the KLM psychologist to talk with the woman. The woman mentions all kinds of technical details about what happened inside the cockpit, and claims the pilot is sitting next to her on the couch. At the end of this interview, she predicts another planecrash on december 21st. The guy doesn't take it very serious because she also does other predictions that didnt happen. On dec. 21st, a dutch plane crashes. A few days later she has another vision of a plane crashing on dec. 27th and mentions it to the KLM, which this time decides to act upon it. They halt the plane and check for any technical problems, which they find and match the technical problems she saw in her vision.

Later during the investigation of the Bijlmer crash, she is invited to the KLM and asked to go inside a flightsimulator to reconstruct (while in some kind of trance)what the pilot did. The psychologist was also present here, and he mentions that she was able to 'read' a panel with numbers and said the numbers were wrong. She then entered new numbers, which matched exactly the direction and speed of the wind at the time the plane was going down. The psychologist mentions that she could not have known that, and that this shocked him.

Half a year later she predicts another planecrash. She is allowed in the plane that she identifies and points out the exact spot in the wiring where a problem will occur. Transavia does confirm that this incident happened, but does not say if there was indeed a problem in the wiring. All they said was that they took her warning seriously.

All in all she had some 'hits' but also some misses.

All of the bove is confirmed btw by the airliners, phone conversations and interviews that were recorded. She mentions that sometimes she sees things, sometimes she hears things, and sometimes she just knows things. She is also able to actively ask questions and receive answers while such an event occurs.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I should finally have some time to dig around for sources soon, but for the moment, if anyone knows a source for this case, I find it to be one of the more compelling that I’ve heard.
In or near Los Angeles around about 1975-1980 IIRC, a woman claimed to see the murder of another woman in a dream. She was so convinced that this was real that she not only drove all around looking for familiar landmarks [as seen in her dream], she eventually went to the police and told her story, at which time she was politely dismissed. A little later, with her kids in the car, she saw something in the hills that border the northern end of the city, or perhaps she remembered something from her dream, but in either case she began driving through the local hills until she saw something definitive – I think a rock formation of some kind. She also allegedly found the body as she had seen it in her dream. When she went to the police and then took them to the body she was promptly arrested. Soon thereafter it was shown that she had absolutely no connection to the crime and was released. The police involved were total believers. The crux of the story hinges on whether she could have been a witness to the crime, or somehow, knowingly or not acquired information about the murder, but the victim and various details of the crime seemed to rule out any possibility that she could have known anything other than what she said.

Do you ever get that feeling like no one is paying any attention to you? Dude, I have cited this case twice, once a couple of months ago, and earlier in this very thread. (Just kidding about my outrage. )

Not only was she vindicated when they found the real murderer, she later won a lawsuit against LA County for the arrest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you ever get that feeling like no one is paying any attention to you? Dude, I have cited this case twice, once a couple of months ago, and earlier in this very thread. (Just kidding about my outrage. )
Not only was she vindicated when they found the real murderer, she later won a lawsuit against LA County for the arrest.

Sorry. I got buried by work and only have managed a little hit and miss here at PF for some time now. At least I don't have to find the story! In fact, imagine my surprise had I done a search and landed back here. :rofl:

 

[PIT2]

2 new psychic crimesolver stories this week:

Number 1:
(link should work the first time, but when i reloaded the page it asked me to register)

In the days after Yvonne was found beaten to death June 9, 2004, in the hair salon she ran on Route 9w in Newburgh, Torch racked his brain. Customers she had quarreled with. Employees with a grudge. Anyone. He also went through weeks of scrutiny by state police and even took a polygraph. But months went by, and there was no answer. A month ago, Torch was contacted by a television show producer. Would he come on "The Montel Williams Show" and discuss his case with a psychic? "I've never known how much stock to put in this stuff," said Torch, who admitted visiting two local psychics in recent months. "But I do believe some people are gifted like that. But probably 99 out of 100 of them are hoaxes." The psychic is Sylvia Browne, who has made her name assisting police in cases that had seemingly gone stone cold. Torch went to the taping in New York City. And he got what he wanted. Browne gave him a name and a motive.
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/11/29/torch29.htm

Number 2:

LEBANON - Lebanon County detectives thought they knew who killed Mark Arnold in 1993, but they didn't know where to find the perpetrator.

Jan Helen McGee told them the killer was at a beach, probably Ocean City, Md., or Rehoboth Beach, Del. Detective Paul Zechman called the police departments there and, sure enough, they found Robert Wise living in Arnold's stolen car at a shopping mall near Rehoboth.

Wise is serving a life sentence in state prison for the murder.

As a result of her help in finding the killer, McGee, who said she has had psychic abilities since childhood, will be featured on The Learning Channel program "Psychic Witness" on Thursday.

District Attorney Deirdre Eshleman said she's not sure she believes in psychics, but she can't dispute the results.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1133173245280510.xml&coll=1

 

[JJbrigham]

I know the thread is dead. And most of the original posters are not here. But I felt it was never completed.

I wanted to point out the name of the “psychic who was arrested and her onetime vision.

Their was also a great deal of discussion On the popular show Psychic Detectives.

Read about one of the stars of the show. Carla Baron http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/carla_baron/carla_report.html

Etta Louise SmithOne of the most unusual “psychic” cases I ever investigated was that of Etta Louise Smith. Actually Smith never claimed to be a psychic sleuth, but she allegedly had a one-time “vision” of a murder victim’s body. This was so accurate that it led to her arrest by Los Angeles police, although she was subsequently “vindicated” by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury. The case occurred in 1980, but was featured on a Larry King Live program in 2004, hosted by Nancy Grace.

Smith’s alleged vision was of the location of the body of a missing nurse, Melanie Uribe, at an area in rural Lopez Canyon. Indeed, after Smith had gone to the police and pinpointed the location on a map, she decided to drive to the site with two of her children. They had located the body and were en route to a telephone when she met the arriving police!

She was later questioned about her precise knowledge and was given a lie detector test, which she failed. According to a detective’s sworn testimony, “the polygraphist indicated that she was being deceptive,” even “trying to control her breathing” (Guarino 1987, 5, 10). She was jailed for four days on suspicion of having some connection with the crime or criminals.

Smith subsequently sued the police for the trauma she had suffered, asking $750,000 in damages. She won her case, but the jury, some of whom were apparently suspicious of Smith’s “psychic” vision, awarded her a mere $26,184— sufficient to reimburse her for lost wages and attorney’s fees, but providing little for pain and suffering (Varenchik 1987).

Forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I looked into the intriguing case, obtaining court transcripts and other materials, and concluded that it was possible to be skeptical of Smith’s psychic powers without suspecting her of being an accessory (Nickell 1994, 161–162). We recalled an earlier case in which police concealed an informant’s identity by means of a cover story attributing the information to a psychic. Is it not possible that an acquaintance of Smith, privy to information about the crime, sought her help in revealing the information? Could Smith not merely have been protecting her source? The possibility gains credibility from the fact that the killers were uncovered because one of them had boasted of the crime to people in his Pacoima neighborhood and, at the time, Smith lived in Pacoima! Interestingly, as Smith went searching for the nurse’s body, her psychic powers seemed to wane, and it was one of her children who actually spied the white-clad corpse (Klunder 1987; Varenchik 1987, 44–45).
That Smith could locate the canyon site on a map is revealing. She was clearly not employing a technique of divination (such as map dowsing, which usually involves the use of a pendulum) to locate something hidden (Guiley 1991; Nickell 1994, 163–164). Instead, she seemed already to know the location and was merely seeking to identify it on a map for police. Smith appears to have given conflicting accounts of her “vision.” She said on a television program, “It was as if someone had put a picture right in front of me” (Sightings 1992). Yet the book Psychic Murder Hunters assures us, “Strangely Etta didn’t have a vision of any kind—she described it as a feeling rather than a vision” (Boot 1994, 348).

That her alleged vision was a onetime occurrence would appear to support police suspicions, as would the failed polygraph test, especially the allegation that she was trying to control her breathing. Revealingly, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children cautions against completely ignoring such “psychic” tips, since the purported visions may be a cover for someone who is afraid or otherwise unwilling to become directly involved (Henetz 2002).

 

[JJbrigham]

There is not one proven case in which a psychic, using special powers or abilities not given to the typical person, has located a missing person, whether dead or alive. It may be possible that some persons have an ability that defies science and logic, but there is no known scientific evidence of this.

Please also note that the FBI and NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) maintain that psychics have never solved a single missing person's case.

 

[_Mayday_]

I think what we have to look at here is the accuracy of what is being said. Firstly a psychic is more than likely to exagerate his ability, added on top of that a police officer who maybe also exagerates, as it is an attractive thought, to have discovered something amazing, and then to that a bit of luck and vagueness and you have an extroadinary claim.

On top of that add the fact that the media make money by telling good stories and the odd tweak here and there is probable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is not one proven case in which a psychic, using special powers or abilities not given to the typical person, has located a missing person, whether dead or alive. It may be possible that some persons have an ability that defies science and logic, but there is no known scientific evidence of this.

Please also note that the FBI and NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) maintain that psychics have never solved a single missing person's case.

A number of cases have already been cited. Of course no one can prove that psychic abilities were involved, but there is no way to test for this either. What has been shown is that there are cases that apparently defy any known explanations.

If you demand proof that the phenomenon was a psychic event, then you must offer a test that would satisfy this demand or yours is nothing but a religious statement - ie faith based beliefs.

 

[JJbrigham]

A number of cases have already been cited. Of course no one can prove that psychic abilities were involved, but there is no way to test for this either. What has been shown is that there are cases that apparently defy any known explanations.

If you demand proof that the phenomenon was a psychic event, then you must offer a test that would satisfy this demand or yours is nothing but a religious statement - ie faith based beliefs.

Name One Case. Not a media version. They all can be explained. There is not one proven case in which a psychic, using special powers or abilities not given to the typical person, has located a missing person, whether dead or alive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They have already been cited in this thread beginning with the first post.

Also, your challenge is completely bogus. There is no conclusive test for psychic phenomena. But so called psychics have found bodies. To simply deny the facts is dishonest.

 

[lilrex]

I think that an investigation of this kind needs to be brought into perspective. Anecdotal or not, statistical occurrence is defiantly noteworthy! How many people have seen an atom? Yet we believe it to exist because we have observed things that allow us to deduce its existence. Many things are like that in our universe we know it because it tests with predictability and the like. And those that do the tests and have done the work to observe every facet of proving the existence of the atom are few... do we believe them? Do we believe the evidence? This investigation is like this. And the learned people in these cases are professional investigators. And anyone with the ability to calculate probability of these occurrences can say without doubt that they are possible but very highly unlikely let's look at the facts:

Many investigative professionals have given testimony of witnessing these occurrences as before mentioned in this thread.

How many times would it take to convince these professionals that ESP is bogus and give up that direction of investigation? It can therefore be assumed that a psychic has only one shot of success.

So what are the odds of success (this, suffice it to say, is difficult to determine) but maybe we can look at a simpler case: as before mentioned there was a case that a girl found a still alive person in a car off of the road that she had to leave the road to find. She was not solving a case but the rules still apply, how many times would she have checked before giving up? We will call that as one chance. Since I am throwing this together to make a point the numbers are only meant to be realistic not exactly reprehensive of the actual case in point but rather an approximation. But on the highway that I live near Colorado State Highway 12 there are only "off of memory" 45 distinct places that match the description of her story. So right away that is 45 chances in 1, next the average lifetime of an individual is what 80 for a female? And there was a week window there so let's multiply that by 4171 chances in her lifetime to decide to look for that accident and find it which brings it to 1 in 187695 now, on this highway I believe that only one accident like that happened in 10 years so the chances of finding that car is multiplied by yet another 521 fallowing the math (10 * 356 / 7) and that yields 1 in 97789095, now I have not gone very far into it and could never think of everything that could apply and figure the correct odds for an occurrence like this but in this simplistic analysis I can show that even in making it easy to come to a match it is still better odds playing the lottery.

Deduced reasoning is still valid scientific study and overwhelming evidence even anecdotal cannot be ignored truthfully.

Oh and one more thing, that old question, “If psychics really existed, wouldn’t they divine the lottery?” You will find while digging that credible accounts are rarely that specific as to discern a complex number, most will describe things as premonitions and distant memory. I am not a psychic but I don’t think by what I have seen that it is like watching television.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think that an investigation of this kind needs to be brought into perspective. Anecdotal or not, statistical occurrence is defiantly noteworthy! How many people have seen an atom? Yet we believe it to exist because we have observed things that allow us to deduce its existence. Many things are like that in our universe we know it because it tests with predictability and the like. And those that do the tests and have done the work to observe every facet of proving the existence of the atom are few... do we believe them? Do we believe the evidence? This investigation is like this. And the learned people in these cases are professional investigators. And anyone with the ability to calculate probability of these occurrences can say without doubt that they are possible but very highly unlikely let's look at the facts:

I would not have entered into this if you had not brought this up. Comparing this to verifying the existence of atoms is faulty, and clearly shows why in survey after survey, many people simply cannot tell the difference between a scientific evidence versus anecdotal, or weaker evidence like this.

You are forgetting that in verifying the existence of an atom, there are more than one quantitative and qualitative measurement that was made. An "atom" is a series of properties and behavior that not only have some qualitative description of it, but also quantitative values in how properties depends on various parameters. ALL of these properties must agree to what we describe at an atom. And that is the key here, that there is an underlying mathematical description of it that allows for an unambiguous, and more importantly, repeated tests. Reproducibility is the key aspect of such tests.

Now, can you say the same about this sort of things? If you can, James Randi has only a few months left to award his $1 million prize. Note that I'm not arguing the the validity (or not) of such a thing. I simply dislike this blurring of the nature of the evidence of hard science with something that still, after all these years, can't establish its existence.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

What has been shown is that there are cases that apparently defy any known explanations.

This is the same crackpot conundrum that propels flying saucers. "Unknown" simply means unknown. It does not, on its own, imply something exotic is going on. So really, you are agreeing with JJbrigham:

Of course no one can prove that psychic abilities were involved...

Yes. So that's it.

If you demand proof that the phenomenon was a psychic event, then you must offer a test that would satisfy this demand.

Tests of ESP phenomena are easy. Lots have been performed. All fail.

There is no conclusive test for psychic phenomena. But so called psychics have found bodies. To simply deny the facts is dishonest.

To imply that this fact implies that their "psychic powers" were involved is unscientific.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the same crackpot conundrum that propels flying saucers. "Unknown" simply means unknown. It does not, on its own, imply something exotic is going on.

It is evidence to support their claims. The first claim make by crackpot debunkers is that there is no evidence for any of this when in fact there is.

So really, you are agreeing with JJbrigham: Yes. So that's it.

It is a crackpot claim to say that no proof exist as a form of argumentation when we don't have a test. The only real test for cases like this is whether or not a body was found.

Tests of ESP phenomena are easy.

If you feel that finding a body proves that psychic phenomena exist, that's your business. I personally don't consider that to be proof; just evidence for a claim.

Or were you trying to change the subject in order to obscure the facts?

 

[bassplayer142]

First of all I have heard of this, and secondly I'm not about to read 5 pages so I don't know what has been said. I was watching ripleys believe it or not and some guy on there had vivid dreams that kept coming true. He consulted the police and they didn't believe him until it came true. I guess he knew something about a terrorist plot and a huge airplane crash at a local air show. They say they trust him if he calls them about a dream.

 

[Gokul43201]

The only real test for cases like this is whether or not a body was found.

That is anything but a test. Specifically, whether or not a body was found says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the method involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I never said anything about method. But when they produce a body, esp when done in front of police investigators, the evidence can't be denied. That is clearly a test of their claim. How that might have happened and the credibility of that test is where we properly begin. My only objection in any of this is when people deny the facts. So called psychics do sometimes produce physical evidence to support their claims.

To my knowledge, no debunker has ever duplicated such an event by finding a body when the police have been unable to do so. So the way that I see it, it is the debunkers who are making crackpot claims that they refuse to or are unable support with similar evidence.

 

[Gokul43201]

I never said anything about method.

The thread is all about the method, i.e., whether or not psychic means were used to arrive at the location. So, I repeat: the actual finding of the body is essentially irrelevant to the substantiation of claims of psychic ability so long as the method of the finding is untested.

 

[ZapperZ]

I never said anything about method. But when they produce a body, esp when done in front of police investigators, the evidence can't be denied. That is clearly a test of their claim. How that might have happened and the credibility of that test is where we properly begin. My only objection in any of this is when people deny the facts. So called psychics do sometimes produce physical evidence to support their claims.

To my knowledge, no debunker has ever duplicated such an event by finding a body when the police have been unable to do so. So the way that I see it, it is the debunkers who are making crackpot claims that they refuse to or are unable support with similar evidence.

I think it is important here to illustrate what I had mentioned before on here on the nature of an "evidence". I mentioned a while back on a study conducted to verify that some people can "feel" certainly EM radiation from a cell phone transmitter.

So consider the following. You have a lot of white marbles in a closed, container. One marble is black. Now, you have many of these containers (say, a million), each containing the same thing : lots of white marbles, one black marble). You give the containers to a million people. You ask them to randomly select just ONE marble without looking into the container.

Now, there's a statistical probability that a few will select the black marble. Now, this is the "evidence" that is being used here in this thread. Can the person/s who found the black marble claim that he/she is psychic, that he/she knows where the black marble exactly were without even looking? This is what you are asking us to "debunk". A psychic finding a body isn't an evidence for psychic phenomena. That isn't a sufficient criteria. So what is?

Give that person the same marble container and ask him/her to repeatedly find the black marble. His/her success rate must be significantly greater than the statistical rate of finding the marble randomly. In other words, repeat the experiment with the million people, and that psychic's rate of success must be significantly greater (in high energy physics, it is usually a 5 sigma event) than the rate of success of people who know that they're not psychic. The latter, in physics, is considered as background noise signals.

The point here is that the so-called crime-scene "evidence" that a psychic found isn't a sufficient evidence for psychic phenomena. There's no way to separate that out from either random chance, or simply clever guesswork. The criteria for reproducibility is paramount for something to be credible. This is what is severely lacking.

Zz.

 

[siddharth]

Coincidentally, the latest xkcd comic seems to be germane to the topic.

http://xkcd.com/373/

:)

 

[lilrex]

You are forgetting that in verifying the existence of an atom, there are more than one quantitative and qualitative measurement that was made. An "atom" is a series of properties and behavior that not only have some qualitative description of it, but also quantitative values in how properties depends on various parameters. ALL of these properties must agree to what we describe at an atom. And that is the key here, that there is an underlying mathematical description of it that allows for an unambiguous, and more importantly, repeated tests. Reproducibility is the key aspect of such tests.

Zz.

ZZ,
I am sorry if you dislike the comparison but it was intended to show the fact that people often have faith in things they cannot understand such as atomism Everything that you said in the post is covered by the statement "we know it because it tests with predictability and the like" and if these occurrences were as tested as the atom I am sure that they would be better accepted, but again how long ago was it that Democritus who was insightful in the concepts of atomism was thought to be a crackpot! And it wasn’t until very much later that the idea was accepted as more then just pure speculation. And that just goes to show absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I hope I made my comparison more clear, and show that I was not saying that the concept of the atom was paranormal. And to show that like atomism psychic phenomena may require an open mind before it can be proved.

Further in the post I made an attempt to show a logical analytical approach as to determine the validity of psychic phenomena with the assumption that the witnessed occurrences were considered at least truthful, and that statistics can put pressure on the balance of truth in the direction that they are not simply chance happenings that were witnessed. Or at least should be enough to prompt a more thorough investigation.

Also in my previous post I did mention that an investigator will only rely on a psychics ranting once, if at all, before ignoring it altogether. So if you take all of the occurrences together and compare it to the chances, is it beyond background noise? I don’t know, I don’t have enough data to say, but it wouldn’t take much for it to be so.

As ever, I wish I was more eloquent in my descriptions as to promote understanding of the points I try to make, but alas, that is a skill I don’t have.

Best regards

 

[ZapperZ]

ZZ,
I am sorry if you dislike the comparison but it was intended to show the fact that people often have faith in things they cannot understand such as atomism Everything that you said in the post is covered by the statement "we know it because it tests with predictability and the like" and if these occurrences were as tested as the atom I am sure that they would be better accepted, but again how long ago was it that Democritus who was insightful in the concepts of atomism was thought to be a crackpot! And it wasn’t until very much later that the idea was accepted as more then just pure speculation. And that just goes to show absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I hope I made my comparison more clear, and show that I was not saying that the concept of the atom was paranormal. And to show that like atomism psychic phenomena may require an open mind before it can be proved.

Further in the post I made an attempt to show a logical analytical approach as to determine the validity of psychic phenomena with the assumption that the witnessed occurrences were considered at least truthful, and that statistics can put pressure on the balance of truth in the direction that they are not simply chance happenings that were witnessed. Or at least should be enough to prompt a more thorough investigation.

Also in my previous post I did mention that an investigator will only rely on a psychics ranting once, if at all, before ignoring it altogether. So if you take all of the occurrences together and compare it to the chances, is it beyond background noise? I don’t know, I don’t have enough data to say, but it wouldn’t take much for it to be so.

As ever, I wish I was more eloquent in my descriptions as to promote understanding of the points I try to make, but alas, that is a skill I don’t have.

Best regards

I'm sorry, but it appears that you haven't done any type of experiment at all based on what you just said.

Nothing even remotely close has been done in terms of the nature of the evidence of psychic phenomenon versus the properties of atoms. I mean, the fact that there is not even anything coming close to a quantitative measurement of a psychic phenomenon is my proof that there's no comparison. It is not even in the same galaxy.

The nature of a valid phenomenon is very clear. You start with showing that it exists, and as more and more studies are done, the properties and behavior of that phenomenon is known more and more. That is why something that started out to be something most people find skeptical later on gets accepted. This is common in science. What is NOT common is for something that goes on for years and years and still cannot make out of first base. For something that has been claimed to exists for that long of a time, psychic phenomenon is still battling the idea to proof that it exists. Forget about trying to study the behavior or trying to quantify any kind of parameters here. It is still trying to be convincing enough for people to accept that it exists.

Now show me how this is similar to the concept of atoms and how the knowledge in that field has evolved? Are we still stuck in trying to convince people that the atom is a valid concept? People who don't accept that can stop taking medicine and forgo all medical procedures. Considering that psychic phenomenon even predates the idea of atoms, and it STILL cannot prove itself to exist, that should ring plenty of warning bells for people who want to accept it. The fact that there are still people who think that it is as valid as any scientifically accepted phenomenon makes it even sadder.

Zz.

 

[lilrex]

I'm sorry, but it appears that you haven't done any type of experiment at all based on what you just said.

Nothing even remotely close has been done in terms of the nature of the evidence of psychic phenomenon versus the properties of atoms. I mean, the fact that there is not even anything coming close to a quantitative measurement of a psychic phenomenon is my proof that there's no comparison. It is not even in the same galaxy.

The nature of a valid phenomenon is very clear. You start with showing that it exists, and as more and more studies are done, the properties and behavior of that phenomenon is known more and more. That is why something that started out to be something most people find skeptical later on gets accepted. This is common in science. What is NOT common is for something that goes on for years and years and still cannot make out of first base. For something that has been claimed to exists for that long of a time, psychic phenomenon is still battling the idea to proof that it exists. Forget about trying to study the behavior or trying to quantify any kind of parameters here. It is still trying to be convincing enough for people to accept that it exists.

Now show me how this is similar to the concept of atoms and how the knowledge in that field has evolved? Are we still stuck in trying to convince people that the atom is a valid concept? People who don't accept that can stop taking medicine and forgo all medical procedures. Considering that psychic phenomenon even predates the idea of atoms, and it STILL cannot prove itself to exist, that should ring plenty of warning bells for people who want to accept it. The fact that there are still people who think that it is as valid as any scientifically accepted phenomenon makes it even sadder.

Zz.

I feel like I am defending my self, and at this rate all that I am saying is getting lost in translation so I will attempt it one more time so that I don’t steal the subject matter away from the OP

I will try and answer in order of the post quoted,

I have done one experiment with numbers, statistic occurrence has been the most tangible thing sited so far and thus is the only thing at this time that one can do at this forum. Also the purpose of the experiment was not to prove psychic phenomena but to test the arguments against it. So in short I am not saying it exists I am just saying it cannot be so easily denied either.

The connection to the atom is in a philosophical sense to illustrate the population’s ignorance to reality and that it is based more on popular opinion then fact. To illustrate what I mean I did a short survey of 25 people here at work, they ranged in background from mechanics to petroleum engineers, none of them were qualified to profess on the existence of the atom yet all of them did. Why? Because they were told they exist and there for to them, it was based on popular belief not on fact. So in short I agree that PP cannot be compared to Atomism in terms of their ambiguity because as you stated there is no contest, but I wasn’t comparing them that way anyway.

As for the next point, you start with showing that it exists, and that is exactly what this thread is about, nothing more.

Here is a direct historical comparison to atomism (by labeling the knowledge of the atom atomism I in no way say it is unproven or ambiguous):

The philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the paranormal as we hold it today is very old. like today with the atom if you ask 25 people 700 years ago if psychic phenomena is valid they would laugh at you and say it was (if they weren’t to scared to acknowledge the question).so for many thousands of years mankind has known the paranormal to exist beyond question, even the early scientific philosophers were not willing to drop the idea. It was not until recently that the widespread disbelief set in.

The idea of the atom was very contradicting to the current philosophies of science that were strictly based on observable evidence much like today. Aristotle being one that vehemently denied its existence based on the character of void. After Democritus did his work on the subject in the late 5th century B.C. it faded into the background as nothing but speculation. It remained until the 16th century nothing but unfounded speculation, so it took around 2000 years for the idea of atomism to even start to fruit and produce what we have today. The history is very truncated here and is more complicated but should give an idea of what I am talking about.

Atomism was in doubt and lacked any shred of (what we would call today) evidence for around 2000 years (if I am thinking right)

Psychic phenomena has only been in doubt for a few hundred years at most.

And finally never once did I even suggest that me or anyone I know did not believe that the atom exists, and if you have that mixed up then reread the post that I brought it up in. and try to understand the context in which it was used. Which was not in comparing our level of collective understanding or challenging the existence of atoms.

Does this satisfy your request to a comparison? I tried to make the comparison as close to possible to the nature of this thread. But I feel that further discussion of Atomism vs Psychic phenomena is counter productive to the thread. And respectfully ask that any further debate on this matter be handled via PM. of which if you find it interesting I would be glad to continue it there.



The references that I used for ease of fallow up can all be found on Wikipedia under witchcraft, Democritus, Atomism, Darwin, Gassendi and Descartes

 

[JJbrigham]

Ivan wrote:
They have already been cited in this thread beginning with the first post.

Name one, and we'll examine the evidence. If you do find any evidence. Perhaps we can have a lovely discussion about evaluating evidence.


Ivan wrote:
Also, your challenge is completely bogus.

A challenge is questioning a statement and demanding an explanation. I made no such claims.
I quoted a credible article which has merit. FBI and NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) maintain that psychics have never solved a single missing person's case. There is nothing Bogus. I made a humble quote issued by a government agency. I find my quotes to be more reliable then your statement.



Ivan wrote:
There is no conclusive test for psychic phenomena.

There is no test period. Mental phenomena are outside natural or scientific knowledge.
If science can’t test something or duplicate it, it does not exist.


Ivan wrote:
But so called psychics have found bodies.

That’s asserting the truth. Prove it. Name the person found dead or alive.
Cable TV shows seem to be documenting such world-shattering news Odd there's no mention of this stuff in the scientific community. Do you think there's a conspiracy to silence the truth maybe?


Ivan wrote:
To simply deny the facts is dishonest.

I posted an article on Etta Louise, I quoted a Government statement. Are you saying the articles are in fact deceptive or fraudulent?



Ivan wrote:
It is evidence to support their claims. The first claim make by crackpot debunkers is that there is no evidence for any of this when in fact there is.

Crackpot Debunkers do not make claims. Crackpot Psychics make extraordinary claims. It is the psychics who make the claims, and it must be the psychics who must support the claims.
To make a claim is to assert the truth. Information that helps form a conclusion; A supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
To believe a Psychic is to suspend, principles of reasoning, all logic and common sense. You imply there is evidence to support a Psychic claim. Provide some evidence to support that claim.

Ivan wrote:
It is a crackpot claim to say that no proof exist as a form of argumentation when we don't have a test. The only real test for cases like this is whether or not a body was found.


Proof is evidence, evidence of proof. An argument is to determine who made the initial claim and is responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance. Explain why argumentation is not a form to provide proof.

Ivan wrote:
If you feel that finding a body proves that psychic phenomena exist, that's your business. I personally don't consider that to be proof; just evidence for a claim.


The topic of this thread is Psychics who solve crimes. A psychic who finds a body with no prior knowledge of any information concerning intimate facts or details can only be defined as empirical To support the hypothesis that psychic ability exist. But you don’t think that’s important. You think it would just go to the weight of argument. And you don’t consider that proof, just evidence. So you’re saying, if someone makes a claim and provides evidence of that claim you don’t consider that proof. Can you clean this up for me?