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

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.