Pseudoskeptics and Psychic ability

[polomontana]

I think the pseudoskeptic uses skepticism as a crutch to protect his or her belief system. Skepticism is supposed to help a freethinker find the truth.

Psychic ability is subject to human error because this information is coming through a human medium. The pseudoskeptic expects the psychic to be correct 100% of the time and this is silly. If a psychic helps a detective in 4 cases but gets it wrong in 2 cases the pseudoskeptic will yell fake.

This is because they tie the term supernatural to it and to them supernatural means it has to be perfect. Supernatural means it's information coming from outside of our observation through a natural medium and therefore it will be prone to human error.

If you were to go back 3,000 years ago and clone a sheep, it would be labled as a supernatural event by the people of that time period.

The way you tests psychic ability is you have a control group of people who don't have psychic ability and through guesses they might be right 15% of the time. You then take a group of psychics and if they are correct 40 or 50% of the time on average then more needs to be explored.

You also look at the people vouching for the psychics.

At the end of the day, psychic ability is real beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://veritas.arizona.edu/

http://noreenrenier.com/index.htm

These are just a couple of links and there's many more. Again, psychics will not be correct 100% of the time because it's information coming from outside of our observation through a natural medium.

Science has shown that there are things outside of our observation like virtual particles, dark matter, dark energy. Look at parallel universes and the multiverse along with quantum computing. M-Theory and string theory. All of these things point to energy outside of our observation and psychics say they are connecting to a persons energy.

[wahrheit]

If a psychic helps a detective in 4 cases but gets it wrong in 2 cases the pseudoskeptic will yell fake.

Which four cases are you referring to? I am not aware of any "psychic" ever successfully helping police resolve a crime.

[polomontana]

Have you ever seen the show psychic detective? Police officer after police officer vouch for the psychics who help them with cases. Are they all lying?

Edit to remove Rule 4 breach. Text taken from here:
http://noreenrenier.com/testimonials.htm
Remeber to accredit sources, provide links, and do not quote in full
Here's testimonies from Noreen Renier's website. Are these people lying to? Is the pseudoskeptic saying that these psychics just dupe these professionals? LOL!!

[Czarcasm]

I think it is impolite to expect us to use NewSpeak words like "pseudoskeptic", and I hope no one here responds as if this word means anything, except maybe "someone who believes in everything except the scientific process."

[Loss Leader]

If a psychic helps a detective in 4 cases but gets it wrong in 2 cases the pseudoskeptic will yell fake.


Please list even one confirmed case where a psychic provided useful information to the police.


The way you tests psychic ability is you have a control group of people who don't have psychic ability and through guesses they might be right 15% of the time. You then take a group of psychics and if they are correct 40 or 50% of the time on average then more needs to be explored.


Please list even one properly-controled experiment where a psychic performed three times better than chance.


You also look at the people vouching for the psychics.


Please explain why you would do this. Scientists do not assume that because Hawkings pronounces something true, that it must be true. They do not ask for affidavits from Edward Witten's friends as to whether he's a normally upstanding guy. Nor do they ask other scientists to write in to vouch that some experiment was done properly. Instead, they demand repeatable experiments with consistent results.

So why should parapsychologists be allowed to consider which people are "vouching" for psychics?


At the end of the day, psychic ability is real beyond any reasonable doubt.


If that were the case, it should be no trouble at all to design a proper, repeatable experiment. Yet, so far no one has been able to do so.


Science has shown that there are things outside of our observation like virtual particles, dark matter, dark energy. Look at parallel universes and the multiverse along with quantum computing. M-Theory and string theory. All of these things point to energy outside of our observation and psychics say they are connecting to a persons energy.


Look at all the countries in the world that are islands - Australia, Great Brittain, Taiwan, Japan, etc. There are so many countries in the world that are islands that we can observe. So, when I say that I live in a country that is also an island, you cannot doubt me.

Sorry, but there is no reason why the existence of some things necessitates the existence of your thing.

[Madalch]

The pseudoskeptic expects the psychic to be correct 100% of the time and this is silly. If a psychic helps a detective in 4 cases but gets it wrong in 2 cases the pseudoskeptic will yell fake.

Nope. Any test that I've been aware of has been designed to see if the "psychic" does better than chance, not perfectly.

However, the researchers have to apply an elementary knowledge of statistics. Guessing which Zener card is being held up 5 times out of 5 is better than chance, but doing it only once is statistically possible, and is unimpressive. If someone could get the right card 3 times out of 5 -consistently-, then that would be impressive.

[wahrheit]

Have you ever seen the show psychic detective?
Polomontana, a TV show is _not_ a reliable source for _anything_. TV shows are produced to entertain and have a lot of audience, which will in turn raise profits of advertisement. And that's about it. They do not care in the least if it is "true" or not what they show in such a program.

[... Lots of Noreen Renier stuff and anecdotes ...]

I suggest you start reading about those psychic detective fantasies at these links:

http://www.skepdic.com/psychdet.html
http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_list.html



Are these people lying to?

Nobody in this thread ever accused them of lying. You are making this up.

Is the pseudoskeptic saying that these psychics just dupe these professionals? LOL!!

If you keep referring to people here as "pseudoskeptics" and LOL at them, the discussion might be quickly over.

[polomontana]

Let me get this right,

A skeptic can use words like pseudoscience but they are thin skinned when it comes to the word pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic is not looking for truth, thet are just using skepticism to back their pre-existing belief system.

[Civilized Worm]

Perhaps you could give some examples of these "pseudoskeptics"? Most skeptics I know would be pretty damn impressed by a 50% success rate.

[wahrheit]

Let me get this right,

A skeptic can use words like pseudoscience but they are thin skinned when it comes to the word pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic is not looking for truth, thet are just using skepticism to back their pre-existing belief system.

You failed to address any of the above replies in your thread.

The only thing you did so far was copy & paste an entire web page (http://noreenrenier.com/testimonials.htm) from a self proclaimed "psychic". This will not do it.

[Lrrr]

Let me get this right,

A skeptic can use words like pseudoscience but they are thin skinned when it comes to the word pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic is not looking for truth, thet are just using skepticism to back their pre-existing belief system.

Dictionary.com defines pseudoscience as "any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis".

How would you define pseudoskepticism? Any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no skeptical basis???

[Czarcasm]

Please give us one real example of what you consider to be "pseudoskepticism."

[Lrrr]

Have you ever seen the show psychic detective? Police officer after police officer vouch for the psychics who help them with cases. Are they all lying?

the Bureau has used Renier strictly in an academic setting, to expand the thinking of police officers. We have, however, given her name to law enforcement people who want to try a psychic. And some of them have said she's solved cases."
— F.B.I. Special Agent Robert Ressler, New York Post, June 4, 1988

"Noreen's incredible insight helped close our case by providing the macabre details of our victim's murder which, when presented to our suspect, caused him to negotiate a confession. She also identified two other accomplices to the crime."
- Joe Uribe (Montana DCI Agent - Retired)

You definitely opened many eyes to the potential investigative tool of the psychic. Obviously, many a doubting Thomas had to revise his ideas concerning this somewhat esoteric area."
— Daniel Grinnan. Jr. Bureau of Forensic Science Commonwealth of Virginia

"I asked Noreen if she would come and address the Illinois Coroner's and Medical Examiner's Association at their Spring meeting. We had worked with Noreen on a homicide case in our county and she was a great help to us. I felt it was important to let members of the Association know what a valuable tool a Psychic may be in working those troubling cases. She was both informative and entertaining."

— Marlene A. Lantz, Coroner McHenry County. 2007

"Noreen never could have known this stuff beforehand and she was so accurate it was chilling."
— Retired Lt. Commander. R. Krolak, The Times Union, February 11, 1992

"I was skeptical until Noreen said on the phone from almost 1OOO miles away that there was something wrong with my friend's leg. He had been hobbling around on crutches for a week, and there was no way for her to know that."
— David Rogers, National Council of Churches Interreligion Task Force for Criminal Justice

"It was kind of scary when we did find it, and it was almost exactly as she described it. I wouldn't say I'm a total believer, but I don't throw out anything they say."
— Lt. Robert Miller, Port St. Lucie Tribune, May 19, 1991

"In a lot of the cases new information comes forth as a result of Noreen's consultation. She has established a formidable track record for honesty and professionalism..."
— Rod Englert Forensic Consultants April, 1990

...She helped to locate a plane containing the body of a relative of an FBI agent."
— Retired Special Agent, Robert Ressler. Whoever Fights Monsters, St. Martin's Press

"Without Noreen Renier we would not have located Norman Lewis. I'm extremely impressed with her abilities. She told us things that she would have to have been an eyewitness to have known."
— Olin Slaughter, Chief of Police, Williston Police Department Williston Pioneer, June 27, 1996.

"Your presentation on right brain processes as they relate to psychic ability and awareness was germane to our topic of left-brain/right-brain activities, and your discussion and demonstrations contributed to the participants' overall understanding and appreciate of WHOLE-BRAIN processes."
— Clairette T. Murray Training Specialist, Martin Marrietta, Orlando, Florida

Here's testimonies from Noreen Renier's website. Are these people lying to? Is the pseudoskeptic saying that these psychics just dupe these professionals? LOL!!

That page had a lot of testimonials, which makes sense as it is basically an advertisement for her services. What I didn't see was a single example of a case she helped police on - dates, location, people involved, etc. Anecdotes from people that may or may not exist (I'm too lazy to search for all these people and I have no reason not to believe they exist, I' m just saying "maybe") are not evidence.

[polomontana]

Again,

The pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence and that's silly.

Take this one example:

"Noreen's incredible insight helped close our case by providing the macabre details of our victim's murder which, when presented to our suspect, caused him to negotiate a confession. She also identified two other accomplices to the crime."
- Joe Uribe (Montana DCI Agent - Retired)

Now the pseudoskeptic will have you believe that Joe Uribe is either a dummy or he was duped by Noreen. This is the backwards logic of the pseudoskeptic.

Was the skeptic in the in the room when this information was presented to the suspect? Did the skeptic know what information that Joe Uribe knew?

This is just one case out of many but the pseudoskeptic will never accept these things because they are not looking for the truth but they are looking to back up what they already believe.

There is no answer to these things except psychic ability exists and is part of the natural order. Psychics are getting information from outside of our observation and this information is coming thru a human medium.

[MageLite]

Was the skeptic in the in the room when this information was presented to the suspect? Did the skeptic know what information that Joe Uribe knew?

Were you? Did you? How exactly do you know this is reliable evidence?

[Madalch]

Again,

The pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence and that's silly.

Take this one example:

"Noreen's incredible insight helped close our case by providing the macabre details of our victim's murder which, when presented to our suspect, caused him to negotiate a confession. She also identified two other accomplices to the crime."
- Joe Uribe (Montana DCI Agent - Retired)

Now the pseudoskeptic will have you believe that Joe Uribe is either a dummy or he was duped by Noreen. This is the backwards logic of the pseudoskeptic.

Or that Noreen made up the quote and ascribed it to a fictitious person.

[wahrheit]

This is just one case out of many but the pseudoskeptic will never accept these things because they are not looking for the truth but they are looking to back up what they already believe.


1) This is _not_ "one case out of many", it is nothing but a bit of copy & paste from a psychic's web page.

2) I think it is other people here who are ignoring facts and evidence to back up what they already believe.

3) You still did not answer all the replies above.

[polomontana]

If the skeptic is making the claim that Joe Uribe is lying, they have to provide evidence to support this claim.

Just saying it is not evidence. Again, the pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence.

[Civilized Worm]

There is no answer to these things except psychic ability exists and is part of the natural order.


You already gave us two more probable explanations.


Now the pseudoskeptic will have you believe that Joe Uribe is either a dummy or he was duped by Noreen.


Both those possibilities are far more plausible than invoking the supernatural. Ever hear of Ockham's Razor?

[polomontana]

The case was on Psychic Detectives but if the skeptic is making the claim that Joe Uribe is lying, then they have to provide evidence to support their claim.

[wahrheit]

The case was on Psychic Detectives but if the psychic is making the claim that Joe Uribe is lying, then they have to provide evidence to support their claim.

Huh?

Ah, Edith says you fixed that. Yet, don't you think the onus is on the psychic to provide evidence in the first place? Apparently, this has never happened to date. Some random quotes of anecdotal character are not evidence.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not making any claim, I'm saying you have to rule out all the more likely explanations before accepting such an improbable one.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Again,

The pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence and that's silly.

Take this one example:

"Noreen's incredible insight helped close our case by providing the macabre details of our victim's murder which, when presented to our suspect, caused him to negotiate a confession. She also identified two other accomplices to the crime."
- Joe Uribe (Montana DCI Agent - Retired)

Now the pseudoskeptic will have you believe that Joe Uribe is either a dummy or he was duped by Noreen. This is the backwards logic of the pseudoskeptic.


Can you give us a real example of a "pseudoskeptic", rather than this hypothetical situation? Your attempt at a straw man isn't really working for me.

~GGEP

[Moochie]

I don't know any pseudo skeptics, since almost everyone is skeptical about something. There are apparently thousands of pseudo psychics, though. Like, all of them, even.


M.

[polomontana]

I'm not making any claim, I'm saying you have to rule out all the more likely explanations before accepting such an improbable one.

An improbable explanation is a subjective opinion and this is my point.

The skeptic substitutes their opinion for evidence.

Why is it an improbable explanation? It's improbable because of your pre-existing belief about psychic ability. This is the fallacy of the pseudoskeptic.

[Madalch]

If the skeptic is making the claim that Joe Uribe is lying, they have to provide evidence to support this claim.

Just saying it is not evidence. Again, the pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence.

And what of your claims that psychics are real, and that these pages of testimonials are something other than pure fiction created as an advertisement for a fraud? Are you going to provide any evidence to support your claim, or do you expect that you should be considered correct until proven otherwise?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The case was on Psychic Detectives but if the skeptic is making the claim that Joe Uribe is lying, then they have to provide evidence to support their claim.
I just checked carefully through the thread, and nobody here said that Joe Uribe is lying.

If you are making the claim that psychics have helped police solve crimes by means of psychic abilities, it is up to you to provide evidence.

Copying testimonials from a psychic's website simply isn't sufficient for such an extraordinary claim. I'd at least want links to new stories, and then I'd want to be able to verify those stories with the police and other records.

[Civilized Worm]

An improbable explanation is a subjective opinion and this is my point.

The skeptic substitutes their opinion for evidence.

Why is it an improbable explanation? It's improbable because of your pre-existing belief about psychic ability. This is the fallacy of the pseudoskeptic.


No it is improbable because there is no prior evidence to suggest the existence of such things.

If I claimed to own a unicorn would you consider that probable? Would it be because of your pre-existing belief about unicorns? Or would you be skeptical of my claim do to the lack of pre existing evidence of unicorns?

[polomontana]

No it is improbable because there is no prior evidence to suggest the existence of such things.

If I claimed to own a unicorn would you consider that probable? Would it be because of your pre-existing belief about unicorns? Or would you be skeptical of my claim do to the lack of pre existing evidence of unicorns?


Sorry but your analogy with unicorns doesn't make sense.

Unicorns don't have 20 year police veterans vouching for them.

It's called reason and we use it to weigh the evidence.

So pink unicorns flying in my backyard could not be compared to psychic ability because psychic ability has police officer after police officer vouching for the psychic and that has to be taken into consideration as the evidence is being weighed.

Bad analogy.

[Civilized Worm]

OK lets pretend I had a bunch of police officers who seemed to think I had a unicorn, would you then accept it? Or you think maybe there is still a more probable explanation?

[fingersmith]

Sorry but your analogy with unicorns doesn't make sense.

Unicorns don't have 20 year police veterans vouching for them.

It's called reason and we use it to weigh the evidence.

So pink unicorns flying in my backyard could not be compared to psychic ability because psychic ability has police officer after police officer vouching for the psychic and that has to be taken into consideration as the evidence is being weighed.

Bad analogy.

How about if I have Nessie, or Bigfoot or some aliens in my garden would that analogy suit you better? There are years of people willing to vouch for these.
Evidence is what is required here.

[polomontana]

OK lets pretend I had a bunch of police officers who seemed to think I had a unicorn, would you then accept it? Or you think maybe there is still a more probable explanation?

Now your asking me to "pretend." In a hypothetical like that, I'm not sure what I would accept until the evidence is in front of me.

With psychic ability, we don't have to "pretend." Police officer after police officer is vouching for the psychic now and the evidence is in front of me.

Here's another case to chew on:

In 1989, Rachel Lombera was murdered in her apartment in Selma, California. She was beaten to death with a boombox and a chair. The police investigated the scene, and found no evidence of forced entry. Rachel new her killer and willingly let the person inside. The police found fingerprints but were never able to match them to a suspect.
She was last scene at a local bar dancing with a man the night before her murder. A witness was able to provide the police with a composite sketch of the man. The sketch was publicised, but the leads that came into the police were all dead ends.

Rachel's family convinced the police to seek the help of a psychic. The police called psychic Kay Rhea. Kay only asked for a photograph of Rachel, nothing more. From the photograph, she was able to determine that the suspect worked in a "big factory," and was also romanticaly linked to Rachel. Kay called a sketch artist friend and was able to provide a sketch of her own.

The police were skeptical, and set the sketch aside. Twelve years pass. In 2002, the unsolved case was given to Detectives Brandon Shoemaker and Gary Gass.

While looking through the case file, the dectectives find Kay's sketch and decide to contact her. Kay remembers the case, and tells them that the suspect has left the area and is probably somewhere south, like San Diego or San Bernadino. The detectives decide to publisize Kay's sketch, and two months later they get a break in the case. They recieved a tip about a man who used to live in Selma who matches Kay's sketch. As the detectives investigate their new suspect, they discover that he worked at the same plant as Rachel, and moved to San Diego shortly after the murder. They interrogate him, and he admits to the crime.

Kay Rhea also said he killed her because she was about to spill the beans. When he admitted to the crime he said he killed her because she threatened to tell his wife about their affair.

The article even contacted a skeptical police officer and this is what he said:

We tried to contact Detective Shoemaker, which was a task in itself. After being redirected several times, We finally talked to a secratary who said that he was currently serving in Iraq. However, she gave me the number of his partner, Detective Gass.

We first asked Detective Gass if he believed in psychics, and he told us he did not. We asked him about how Kay could have easily rationalized that the suspect was "angry" while killing Rachel, due to the fact that he beat her to death with a boombox and a chair. He told us that "she could have easily guessed that he was angry, it wasn't something new to us."

However, the thing that stunned him was the sketch. When we asked him about the sketch, he said, "Damn, if it wasn't just so close." He said that it was "scary". He told us that he had no idea how Kay could have gotten that information so accuretly. He went on to talk about the purpose of sketches, that they were used to "eliminate everyone else." Kay's sketch wasn't used like that, it was a direct hit. We finally asked him if they could have solved the case without Kay, and he told us that, "without using the psychic, we probably would have never solved the case."

Now is everyone lying in this case also?

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce2/psych/PortraitofthePast.html

[wahrheit]

<------

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Now your asking me to "pretend." In a hypothetical like that, I'm not sure what I would accept until the evidence is in front of me.

With psychic ability, we don't have to "pretend." Police officer after police officer is vouching for the psychic now and the evidence is in front of me.


So, are you saying that in our hypothetical case, you would want evidence in front of you, but that in your case, anecdotes suffice?

Evidence for psychic ability is something that should at least: be examinable by everyone (including skeptics), be consistently reproducible (by means other than trickery), should have a success rate that well exceeds that which is achievable by chance, and have more than some psychic's website or somebody's angelfire page to support it. Until the psychics give us this, I say: *yawn*

~ggep

[Frankenstyle]

It drives me up the wall every time I see a Unicorn hugger pouting about how skeptics are all closed minded fairy slayers bent on robbing the world of magic and beauty. In their minds these people twist the act of requiring a reasonable measure of proof, into some sort of "denial of the greater reality" due to fear of the unknown.

OP, I'll step out on a limb here and say that there is not a single person reading this thread that wouldn't love to be the individual that finally discovers absolute proof of the supernatural. Anyone to prove the existence of ghosts, aliens, ESP, or even dowsing, would be credited with the greatest discovery in human history. Who wouldn't want to be remembered throughout time in the company of names like Einstein and Edison?

Requiring evidence of a claim is not denial, it's simply reason. And if any evidence existed that this "psychic detective" could live up to her own promotional material, she'd be a bigger household name than Jesus.

[NobbyNobbs]

However, the thing that stunned him was the sketch. When we asked him about the sketch, he said, "Damn, if it wasn't just so close." He said that it was "scary". He told us that he had no idea how Kay could have gotten that information so accuretly.

Now scroll up a few paragraphs....

A witness was able to provide the police with a composite sketch of the man. The sketch was publicised, but the leads that came into the police were all dead ends.



Gee, I wonder how she managed to get her sketch so close......

[Locknar]

Claptrap. If you (polomontana) want to convince folks you need more then just hearsay stories. Until the/a psychic submits to a controlled test as proof, that is all it will ever be - hearsay stories.

Now...just why, I wonder, don't these psychics ever submit to controlled tests...hummmmm.

[Jimbo07]

Unicorns don't have 20 year police veterans vouching for them...

psychic ability has police officer after police officer vouching for the psychic and that has to be taken into consideration as the evidence is being weighed...



You should really stop maligning police officers...

:mad:

[Frankenstyle]

Now is everyone lying in this case also?


No, the person who wrote the article you quoted is the only one who needs to be lying. Do a little digging using the names of the victims or detectives in this thinly veiled advertisement. You'll find that the only instances that tie this crime to "psychic powers" either point right back to the article at hand, this very thread, and a couple of other sites which are referencing this same piece. Nowhere is there an instance of some small town reporter who gets wind of a history making scoop jumping on the story. There isn't even a substantial body of unreliable anecdotal evidence to prop up the claims being presented.

If you're putting this forth as evidence, then you're asking us to believe that the article is true because the author claims it is. That's not much of a case.

[sgf8]

Have you read any of the articles on www.stopsylviabrowne.com?

He has asked over and over for just one person to stand up and say that Browne was correct, and 18 months later no one has come forward. Yet person after person is writing to Lancaster with evidence that she is a fraud. That does not keep people from throwing money at her though.

If the woman you quoted earlier about solving a case is a true psychic, why didn't she give some solid details like a last name? An address? A phone number? Something that could really be checked?

Polomontana - I sense that you want to be a believer, you are up on all the current TV shows, and are swayed by them. Maybe you are a clever person and something is gnawing at the back of your brain, you sense something isn't right with these TV shows but you can't see where the problem lies. Taunt some skeptics and maybe they can see the problem, you could have asked nicely and you would get a polite response.

Sometimes things are simpler than they seem at first. People write all kinds of things on the Internet, just because it looks official (listing names and dates) you know doesn't mean it is real. What does the psychic get out of listing all these claims on her site? Fame maybe? Money surely? Who knows? But it is easy to make claims, almost no one will ever check up on these stories, names and dates.

If there is one story out there that has been checked please let us know, most if not all the skeptics on the JREF would love to find out physics are real.

Susan

[Rodney]

If there is one story out there that has been checked please let us know, most if not all the skeptics on the JREF would love to find out physics are real.

Susan
Both physics and psychics are real, but physics is more of an exact science. ;) Consider this testimonial that former police detective and polygraph expert Jerry Lewis sent me about a 1988 murder case, which involved psychic Nancy Weber:

"Some of the cases in the book [Psychic Detective] I had worked on. One was the murder of a woman in Mt. Olive. She was stabbed in the throat while she slept. The apartment was locked, with no apparent forced entry. The knife which was used was taken out of the kitchen. The only other person in the apartment at the time of the murder was the victim's daughter, who was apparently sleeping. Due to the lack of forced entry and the murder weapon being taken from within the home, the daughter was definitely a suspect. On the advice of an attorney, she refused to submit to the polygraph. I polygraphed twelve other possible suspects and cleared them. Nancy's book states that she had met with the police and told them a stranger had watched from outside the building, then removed a screen from the kitchen window, entered through the window, and killed the woman. She was adamant that the daughter was not involved. In fact, she was mad that the police were treating her as a suspect. What she did not know was that about 6 months after the murder, the daughter wanted to come in and take the polygraph to prove her innocence. She also hoped that she might remember something during the intensive interview that would aid the investigation. I called her truthful and recommended that she be cleared as a suspect. I remember that on one of the days I was conducting a polygraph on this case, the detectives told me that they had been in contact with a psychic (Nancy Weber) who gave them the initials of the murderer. I remember asking them what the initials were. They were 'N.M.' I remember this because I then went through my files of all the people I had tested on the case to see if any of them had those initials. None did. Months after that, and 9 months after the murder, I picked up the paper and read that a man from Netcong was arrested for the murder. He was being arrested for burglary and a subsequent search of his apartment revealed a stack of articles about the Mt. Olive murder. His fingerprints were checked against an unidentified print on the kitchen window and matched. He was arrested for the murder and is currently serving his time in prison for it. His name is Nicholas Muscio. He was a stranger to the victim. He had just been watching her through the window. He removed the screen, entered through the window, took the knife out of the sink there and stabbed her." See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2955608&postcount=251

[Babbylonian]

Polo, every single piece of "evidence" you provide is simply an appeal to authority (assuming, of course, that said authority exists apart from blurbs on a psychic's website).

If a veteran police officer told me that there was strong evidence that leprechauns had robbed my house, how should I take that? By your reasoning, it seems that I should accept it because, well, after all, it's a veteran police officer and he must know all about crime, evidence and leprechauns.

There's got to be a better way to prove that one has psychic powers than by short quotes from people who might not know a cold reading from a hot one...

[polomontana]

Both physics and psychics are real, but physics is more of an exact science. ;) Consider this testimonial that former police detective and polygraph expert Jerry Lewis sent me about a 1988 murder case, which involved psychic Nancy Weber:

"Some of the cases in the book [Psychic Detective] I had worked on. One was the murder of a woman in Mt. Olive. She was stabbed in the throat while she slept. The apartment was locked, with no apparent forced entry. The knife which was used was taken out of the kitchen. The only other person in the apartment at the time of the murder was the victim's daughter, who was apparently sleeping. Due to the lack of forced entry and the murder weapon being taken from within the home, the daughter was definitely a suspect. On the advice of an attorney, she refused to submit to the polygraph. I polygraphed twelve other possible suspects and cleared them. Nancy's book states that she had met with the police and told them a stranger had watched from outside the building, then removed a screen from the kitchen window, entered through the window, and killed the woman. She was adamant that the daughter was not involved. In fact, she was mad that the police were treating her as a suspect. What she did not know was that about 6 months after the murder, the daughter wanted to come in and take the polygraph to prove her innocence. She also hoped that she might remember something during the intensive interview that would aid the investigation. I called her truthful and recommended that she be cleared as a suspect. I remember that on one of the days I was conducting a polygraph on this case, the detectives told me that they had been in contact with a psychic (Nancy Weber) who gave them the initials of the murderer. I remember asking them what the initials were. They were 'N.M.' I remember this because I then went through my files of all the people I had tested on the case to see if any of them had those initials. None did. Months after that, and 9 months after the murder, I picked up the paper and read that a man from Netcong was arrested for the murder. He was being arrested for burglary and a subsequent search of his apartment revealed a stack of articles about the Mt. Olive murder. His fingerprints were checked against an unidentified print on the kitchen window and matched. He was arrested for the murder and is currently serving his time in prison for it. His name is Nicholas Muscio. He was a stranger to the victim. He had just been watching her through the window. He removed the screen, entered through the window, took the knife out of the sink there and stabbed her." See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2955608&postcount=251


Good post Rodney.

Psychic ability is not fully understood but there's plenty of evidence to support it.

Science tells us that there's a natural order that's outside of our local observation and we can't directly observe it because of decoherence.

This in a sense would be supernatural to us because it's beyond our perception but it still exists.

We are connected to the supernatural or the natural order that's outside of our local perception because of things like entanglement and non locality.

Some of us will have a stronger connection to these things and they are psychics.

The zero point energy that's contained within every particle that makes up your body doesn't die when you die and your energy states don't die when you die.

When you get married, thats an energy state. When you travel to Cancun, that's an energy state. These energy states still exists even when you die. This is why psychics say they are connecting to a person's energy.

[JoeEllison]

Another sad person attacking reality in order to bolster their stupid belief in psychics? Really? And, then you branch out into other stupid and unsubstantiated beliefs? Sweet!

You might as well have painted a giant "kick me" sign on your back.

[Frankenstyle]

Good post Rodney.

Psychic ability...natural order...local observation...decoherence.

supernatural...natural order...local perception...entanglement...non locality.

zero point...particle...energy states...energy state....energy state...energy states...a person's energy.



Just because they says it's a discongurity in the harmonic vibrational frequency modulation dissonance, it dosen't make it true.

But seriously, that post is a meaningless string of largely unrelated words with little in common beyond their proximity to each other. Are you slyly admitting that you've just been kidding around, or were you trying to say something?

[slyjoe]

I believe the man who was embroiled in a lawsuit with Noreen Reiner and her books is a member here (John Merrill). I just can't remember his screen name off the top of my head. Go to http://www.amindformurder.com/ to see how well some of her claims hold up.

That would be the skeptical thing to do.

[Madalch]

The zero point energy that's contained within every particle that makes up your body doesn't die when you die and your energy states don't die when you die.

The energy may not die, but that doesn't mean that it remembers you, or contains your spirit.

I've heard people claim that an afterlife is basically proven by the law of conservation of energy- the "life-energy" can't be destroyed, so it must live on. This is claptrap- energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be transformed into other forms (and the second law of thermodynamics mandates that it get transformed into less useful forms of energy).

If a singer sings the world's most beautiful song, the energy contained in that song will continue to exist, but the song won't. The energy gets dissipated, and eventually converted into random thermal energy. You cannot resurrect the song, or reincarnate it, or listen to it again. It will be gone, and will exist only in memory.

And so will we.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I believe the man who was embroiled in a lawsuit with Noreen Reiner and her books is a member here (John Merrill). I just can't remember his screen name off the top of my head. Go to http://www.amindformurder.com/ to see how well some of her claims hold up.

That would be the skeptical thing to do.

And if you don't believe John and the US court system, how about Marie Parker, friend of and advocate for missing Audrey May Herron?

See: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=182132273

As for Kay Rhea...We had done a taped session with her by phone. She gave us various details in which we all had thought would help Audrey's case. We paid a $300 fee and were waiting desperately for the tapes to arrive....They came, and to my horror they were blank! When I called her to obtain another, she scrambled to even recall our session. She did not know anything she did before, and in fact gave a totally different "vision". She did not refund our money, and from that point on I believe that was the beginning of the end for me as far as psychics go. I no longer was going to "pay" to have my hope of finding Audrey fulfilled with people who make a living by playing with my emotions.

So Kay Rhea has some faint excuse for existing -- she is so bad that she can disconvince a believer.
:mad:

[polomontana]

Just because they says it's a discongurity in the harmonic vibrational frequency modulation dissonance, it dosen't make it true.

But seriously, that post is a meaningless string of largely unrelated words with little in common beyond their proximity to each other. Are you slyly admitting that you've just been kidding around, or were you trying to say something?

Let me break down what I'm saying a little more.

Science has discovered things that our beyond our local perception.

Dark energy would be "supernatural" because it's energy outside of our perception and we don't fully understand it.

When you look at things like parallel universes, quantum computing, quantum entanglement and the multiverse, these are things that show energy can exist outside of our 3 dimensional perception yet we are still connected to these things.

Psychics are connecting to energy that is beyond our local perception and we get a glimpse of it and can sense it through ghost sightings, near death experiences and psychic ability.

It's like Plato and the Allegory of the Cave. People within our 3-dimensional cave are blinded and they believe their local perception is all that there is because of decoherence.

When an enlightened person tries to help the blind see so to speak, the people in the cave insist the cave is all that there is.

[JoeEllison]

Let me break down what I'm saying a little more.

Science has discovered things that our beyond our local perception.

Dark energy would be "supernatural" because it's energy outside of our perception and we don't fully understand it.

When you look at things like parallel universes, quantum computing, quantum entanglement and the multiverse, these are things that show energy can exist outside of our 3 dimensional perception yet we are still connected to these things.

Psychics are connecting to energy that is beyond our local perception and we get a glimpse of it and can sense it through ghost sightings, near death experiences and psychic ability.

It's like Plato and the Allegory of the Cave. People within our 3-dimensional cave are blinded and they believe their local perception is all that there is because of decoherence.

When an enlightened person tries to help the blind see so to speak, the people in the cave insist the cave is all that there is.

No. Incredibly no. You can't just make things up, even though that is what you're attempting to do. There's no substance to your ridiculous and unfounded claims.

[gelatin]

What? Cops don't lie?

[blutoski]

I think it is impolite to expect us to use NewSpeak words like "pseudoskeptic", and I hope no one here responds as if this word means anything, except maybe "someone who believes in everything except the scientific process."

Not to defend polomontana's goofy ideas about the paranormal, but 'pseudoskeptic' (and [pseudoskepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism)] is not newspeak. The word was actually coined by [Marcello Truzzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi)] when he was a member of CSICOP, and they are an element that genuine skeptics need to consciously defend against.

Basically, pseudoskeptics are people who say they're skeptics, but don't use skeptical methodology to weigh evidence objectively and fairly from an initial position of neutrality. They always seem start with the conclusion and work their way backwards.

polomontana is a classic pseudosckeptic in the Truzzi sense. For example, (s)he quotes testimony of police as superior evidence of the paranormal. A true skeptic would recognize fallacy of argument from questionable authority, neglect of memory plasticity, &c.

[schlitt]

Once you put aside your desire for psychic ability to be real, and look at the situation objectively it is extremely apparent psychic ability does not exist.

For starters, if psychic ability existed there would be no doubt. After the 100,000 – 200,000 years humans have walked this planet, the general consensus among those who have studied the area, remains that it contradicts what is possible within the laws of nature, and does not exist. This would not be the case if genuine psychic ability did exist, there would be reasonable proof and verifiable evidence. However no respected scientific study, independently verified has ever conclusively given evidence of psychic ability.

Watching a supposedly psychic medium operate is identical to watching a magician give a psychic reading, now if you think about why that is, the answer is obvious. They are both using the same, non psychic techniques.

Those who believe in psychic ability generally have not taken the time to look at the situation objectively, and educate themselves.

Believers incorrectly think that skeptics of psychic ability do not have the same desire as themselves for the phenomena to exist. Most skeptics would love it if psychic powers had supporting evidence, however this is sadly not the case. Until the evidence transcends the category of dubious anecdotal accounts, or fails to elevate itself above other plausible explanations, then it will be correctly met with a conclusion of low probability of being real.

If psychic ability existed, even in the shakiest and most unreliable of sense, it would still after continual testing show results above chance. However this does not happen, and indeed has never happened in a respected, controlled scientific study. In spite of this fact, believers still insist it exists, because of a few unverifiable personal accounts.
Imagine if we used this type of logic with other facets in life:
“Scientific testing of this particular pharmaceutical product shows no effective results… Oh well… lets use it anyway”
“Science tells us that gravity will pull us towards the earth if we jump off a 100 foot high building, Oh well, lets ignore science and do it anyway, I want to float…”

People are not willing to use this kind of logic when it comes to things which carry immediately recognisable negative consequences, yet they so readily throw away common sense when it comes to magical beliefs which they have a desire to be true, and do not carry negative consequence if the belief is wrong.

The typical believer takes dubious evidence into account, and ignores what science, rigorous study, logic and reason have to say. They take one account from a police officer that can in no way be verified as not being corrupted by memory fallibility, retrofitting, lying or even coincidence. Yet they ignore the thousands of other times supposed psychics have meddled with police affairs and been wrong (the psychic circus surrounding Madeline McCann a good recent example). They ignore the thousands of man hours, science has spent on evaluating psychic claims, and the fact there has never been any conclusive evidence for psychic ability. They fail to educate themselves in both sides, reading only what they think confirms their precious belief, and ignore the other side of the argument. They fail to educate themselves in the sciences to try and understand how what they claim exists, would exist, and they blatantly ignore the fact their claims contradict the very laws of nature themselves.
Then they have the audacity to claim those who are interested in actual repeatable, verifiable, conclusive evidence are the ones being unreasonable. What a sad state of affairs the human species is in that so many of these flawed thinkers abound.

We are at the forum of a foundation dedicated to offering a one million dollar prize to those why can design a test to show the paranormal exists. No one has successfully done so, and so many have failed. It is not hard to understand why.

[Tricky]

I wonder why none of these psychics who have solved crimes for the police ever apply for the Randi Million Dollar Challenge. It is apparent from their websites that they sell their services, so it can't be that they don't need money. Even if they didn't, they could give the money away. Even if Randi somehow weasled out of paying them, they would have the satisfaction and publicity reward of proving Randi wrong. Yet they don't even apply. Solving a crimes would be such an easy test too.

Instead, they rely on testemonials, rumors and a vast number of credulous people who will give them money for doing nothing.

Why don't you aske them, polomontana? Why won't any of the psychics agree to show their skills under properly controlled conditions? Can you answer this question without telling lies about James Randi?

[buzz lightyear]

It's like Plato and the Allegory of the Cave. People within our 3-dimensional cave are blinded and they believe their local perception is all that there is because of decoherence.

When an enlightened person tries to help the blind see so to speak, the people in the cave insist the cave is all that there is.

Good analogy polomontana, although I doubt if you will have any luck with this crew.

Its a bit like discussing the bronze age with Neanderthals, its comming but they will never see it

[Frankenstyle]

Science has discovered things that our beyond our local perception.


No. Science hasn't discovered anything that cannot be directly or indirectly measured. (Science does often discover things previously unobserved, but theoretically predicted, which is still pretty much the same thing.) Basically, science can't discover something that doesn't exist.


Dark energy would be "supernatural" because it's energy outside of our perception and we don't fully understand it.


Dark energy is a theoretical cause to explain an observable effect. Where's the supernatural in that?


When you look at things like parallel universes, quantum computing, quantum entanglement and the multiverse, these are things that show energy can exist outside of our 3 dimensional perception yet we are still connected to these things.


You've invoked a potpourri of subjects that range from neat ideas to mathematical possibilities, and that would take more time than I want to spend clarifying. So I'll cut to the chase and What you've got here is a some sort of multi layered non sequitur lasagna.


Psychics are connecting to energy that is beyond our local perception and we get a glimpse of it and can sense it through ghost sightings, near death experiences and psychic ability.


Well, if there's energy there then we can either directly or indirectly detect it. Or we can observe an effect which could be caused by this theoretical (but as yet undetected) energy. Hey! That's a lot like your point about dark energy, but in reverse! Since there is no observable effect, then there is no need to postulate the existence of a hypothetical cause (which you have inspired me to dub "Dark Thought"). Parsimony totally rocks, dude!



It's like Plato and the Allegory of the Cave. People within our 3-dimensional cave are blinded and they believe their local perception is all that there is because of decoherence.


Decoherence is all about quantum systems interacting in a thermodynamically irreversible way and causing the appearance of wave function collapse. It does not apply to Plato's cave people not having night vision goggles. Or more simply, "A drop of water does this, an ocean does that".


When an enlightened person tries to help the blind see so to speak, the people in the cave insist the cave is all that there is.


Amen, brother.

Look though, reading back over this, I know it seems to reek of hubris. But that's not my point here, I've just got a bad habit of sounding like a jerk. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice and sincere guy. What my point actually is, is that you seem to have absorbed a lot of misinformation along the way. Which is why I picked your post apart like I did, to show you that the concepts you're invoking don't actually apply like you've been told they do. No one here is trying to shoot you down, or make you feel stupid. Not even me, believe it or not. What people are doing is providing examples of how to examine claims in a critical light, so as to be as well informed as possible and therefor be in a position to make the most informed life decisions as possible.

Anyway, I'm going to stop because I'm starting to sound like a hippie.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Claptrap. If you (polomontana) want to convince folks you need more then just hearsay stories. Until the/a psychic submits to a controlled test as proof, that is all it will ever be - hearsay stories.

Now...just why, I wonder, don't these psychics ever submit to controlled tests...hummmmm.

Getting back to the claim about how police are being helped by psychics, I'd be satisfied - as a base level - with seeing, instead of anecdotes about how police were help by a psychic, a press release by a law enforcement entity stating that the case was cracked by the psychic or that the psychic provided the key evidence for solving the case.

Once it's established that police actually are being helped by psychics, we can start putting those claims to the test.

As yet, I'm not satisfied that the claims about psychics helping solve cases is anything more than anecdote and hearsay.

[Jimbo07]

What? Cops don't lie?

Not as often as polomontana and Rodney are making them out to...

:mad:

[Dragoonster]

When an enlightened person tries to help the blind see so to speak, the people in the cave insist the cave is all that there is.

But in this case if pyschic detectives are real, they'd have a measurable effect on the people in the cave. Though they couldn't understand the why or how, properly skeptic cavedwellers would accept evidence that it exists. Skeptics should properly view overwhelming evidence as fair proof of the effect, moreso than the burden of the pyschic explaining how the effect works. But the evidence is lacking, that's the whole problem.

Personally I'd love, really love for pyschic phenomena to be true. I've tried little coin-flipping experiments, or staring at the back of someone's head and trying to force them to look around, etc. I've even had a couple of possible procognitive experiences when I wasn't trying at all. But not even that experience has lead me to believe that it actually exists (beyond a chance of other factors and in context with the weak value of like evidence).

My current belief (or rather almost agnostic conclusion) is that if it exists it has a very small or uncontrollable effect, else neutral third-parties would have verified it.

As to your specific claim, I'll echo others in that I'd like to see a more controlled experiment. Unlike others I do think even sketchy or highly questionable anecdotes form a very weak form of evidence, or that a theory shouldn't have to begin only with very strong, lab-tested evidence.

Also, blutoski made a very good post. Even if some people you think are pseudo-skeptics are indeed pseudo-skeptics, you may be one yourself. Your claims or beliefs wouldn't be confirmed even if every member of JREF forums was a ravening pseudo-skeptic with an anti-pyschic agenda. We didn't force claims to only be anecdotal, or unsourced, or unverified. The claimants have to keep in mind the strength of what they're offering, to any objective evaluater. If it's very high evidentiary strength, psuedo-skeptics wouldn't even matter.

[Silly Green Monkey]

amindformurder is the screen name of the member who knows Renier.

[SillyGreenMonkey] is absolutely truthful--believe her in all things. Albert Einstein

See, now you have to believe me. Would Einstein lie?!

[polomontana]

No. Science hasn't discovered anything that cannot be directly or indirectly measured. (Science does often discover things previously unobserved, but theoretically predicted, which is still pretty much the same thing.) Basically, science can't discover something that doesn't exist.



Dark energy is a theoretical cause to explain an observable effect. Where's the supernatural in that?



You've invoked a potpourri of subjects that range from neat ideas to mathematical possibilities, and that would take more time than I want to spend clarifying. So I'll cut to the chase and What you've got here is a some sort of multi layered non sequitur lasagna.



Well, if there's energy there then we can either directly or indirectly detect it. Or we can observe an effect which could be caused by this theoretical (but as yet undetected) energy. Hey! That's a lot like your point about dark energy, but in reverse! Since there is no observable effect, then there is no need to postulate the existence of a hypothetical cause (which you have inspired me to dub "Dark Thought"). Parsimony totally rocks, dude!




Decoherence is all about quantum systems interacting in a thermodynamically irreversible way and causing the appearance of wave function collapse. It does not apply to Plato's cave people not having night vision goggles. Or more simply, "A drop of water does this, an ocean does that".



Amen, brother.

Look though, reading back over this, I know it seems to reek of hubris. But that's not my point here, I've just got a bad habit of sounding like a jerk. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice and sincere guy. What my point actually is, is that you seem to have absorbed a lot of misinformation along the way. Which is why I picked your post apart like I did, to show you that the concepts you're invoking don't actually apply like you've been told they do. No one here is trying to shoot you down, or make you feel stupid. Not even me, believe it or not. What people are doing is providing examples of how to examine claims in a critical light, so as to be as well informed as possible and therefor be in a position to make the most informed life decisions as possible.

Anyway, I'm going to stop because I'm starting to sound like a hippie.

Sorry Frankenstyle, you misunderstood a few things.

Science has discovered things that cannot be observed like virtual particles. You can just measure the effect of virtual particles just like you can measure psychic ability. Check out http://veritas.arizona.edu/

There's alot of ways to test psychic ability plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims. You can come to know the truth through reason. Twelve people do it everyday in court.

Dark energy is energy that cannot be directly observed. This is energy beyond our perception. The supernatural is just things we don't fully understand and they are beyond observation from the view of our 3-dimensional cave.

I don't think you understand decoherence, it sounds like you have learned to repeat a professor but you don't know what it means.

In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior—a feature of classical physics—and give the appearance of wave function collapse. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment, or any complex external system, in a thermodynamically irreversible way that ensures different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction can no longer interfere with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research for the last two decades.

Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for an actual wave function collapse; rather it provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists beyond the realm of measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

The key points:

1. in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction can no longer interfere with each other

2. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists beyond the realm of measurement.

Again, the Allegory of the Cave does apply.

Decoherence means part of the total superpositition of the wave function is beyond the realm of measurement. This is the whole crux behind quantum computing. Part of the superposition of the wave function of a sub atomic particle is in parallel universes and we will use this increased computation to solve things like Shor's algorithm.

So because of decoherence, people are blinded to other parts of the wave function that can be found in parallel universes and other dimensions. So some people in the cave think the cave is all that there is.

Frankenstyle let me suggest you read up on these things:

M-Theory
String Theory
Inflation
The Multiverse
Many Worlds Interpretation
Quantum Cosmology and imaginary time vs. real time
Holographic Principle
Quantum Computing

I could suggest some books for you to read as well.

Then study:

The Bible
Tao Te Ching
Metaphysics

You will began to take a step out of the cave and realize there's more to us and this universe than our perception of our local reality.

[yairhol]

Polomontana,

There is this guy. Maybe you've heard of him. His name is Uri Geller. He has been giving 'evidence' of his supernatural abilities for 20+ years. There are thousands who have seen him perform his 'miracles' live and will swear that he is genuine.
That is their opinion. Yet you say:


The pseudoskeptic subsitutes their opinion for evidence and that's silly.


I expect you to say the same regarding believers of psychics and their anecdotal evidence made up of people's opinions regarding the psychic ability.
If you doubt Uri Geller regardless of the anecdotal evidence, why would you not doubt the psychics? Uri Geller has much more evidence than do the psychics. Or maybe you think Geller is genuine?

Regarding the existence of Unicorns from the previous page (post by Civilized Worm). It is an excellent analogy to your psychic story in my opinion. But you say it isn't:

Sorry but your analogy with unicorns doesn't make sense.
Unicorns don't have 20 year police veterans vouching for them.
It's called reason and we use it to weigh the evidence.

Oh but he does! And not just officers but grocery store owners, gardeners and others.

Joe Black, Kentucky, USA: "Worm's unicorn is amazing. I had never would have believed it if I had not seen it".

Lara Boil, New York, USA: "Civilized Worm has a unicorn in his garage. I swear I have seen him ride it at nights especially when it is foggy."

James Lee Schnitzel, Santa Monica, USA: "It's just beautiful. Now whenever I hear someone doubting unicorns I tell them to go visit Civilized Worm".

And there are lots more….So now you have people who are vouching for the unicorn and it is in black and white in Worm's internet site. I don't expect you to doubt it as you don't doubt the police officers in the example you posted.

You have stated:

With psychic ability, we don't have to "pretend." Police officer after police officer is vouching for the psychic now and the evidence is in front of me.

I would like to change it to:

With Civilized Worm's unicorn, we don't have to "pretend." Person after person is vouching for the unicorn now and the evidence is in front of me.

Or

With Uri Geller's supernatural powers, we don't have to "pretend." Person after person is vouching for his powers now and the evidence is in front of me.

You also said:

There's alot of ways to test psychic ability plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims.

I would like to change it to:

There's alot of ways to test the existence of Worm's unicorn existence plus the unicorn has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims.

or

There's alot of ways to test the existence of Uri Geller's supernatural powers plus he has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims.

if you don't agree, can you tell me why not?

[schlitt]

Science has discovered things that cannot be observed like virtual particles. You can just measure the effect of virtual particles just like you can measure psychic ability. Check out http://veritas.arizona.edu/


I realize this was not addressed to me, but I could not refrain from commenting due to the absolute astonishing corruption of logic on display here.

Firstly, you mention psychic ability can be measured (which I would agree with, if it existed), and fail to recognize that it never has been under controlled testing. The mind boggles.



There's alot of ways to test psychic ability plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims. You can come to know the truth through reason. Twelve people do it everyday in court.


You claim to know that something exists with certainty. Your proof for this is supposedly credible eye witnesses, and you wonder why the scientific community does not take you seriously.
Again, the mind boggles.
By your logic we should be taking, bigfoot, flat earth theory, alien abductions, demon possesion, etc etc seriously too.

Science has brought us such things as medicine, electricity, air travel through verifiable, repeatable evidence. Until such time as this evidence is produced for psi, the reasonable position is to remain skeptical. There too many variables that are not ruled out from anecdotal accounts alone.



Dark energy is energy that cannot be directly observed. This is energy beyond our perception. The supernatural is just things we don't fully understand and they are beyond observation from the view of our 3-dimensional cave.


You statement here is so far off the logical mark it is astonishing. Dark energy is a hypothesis which has been worked towards through examining empirical evidence, and formulating a conclusion which fits with natural, verifiable laws. Going by your statement however, I could make up any theory I like, call it supernatural and beyond understanding, and "Hey presto!" I have a legitimate claim.
Well why not? Ok... Lets see; floating around us right now is one trillion invisible jellyfish, each called Dave, and they live off the dead skin cells that flake from our bodies. Don't believe me? You pseudoskeptic you! Don't you realize its supernatural dude? Beyond your understanding dude!

Someone’s anecdotal account does not rule out the plethora of alternate explanations that could have happened in their supposedly psychic anecdote. Ask yourself why the evidence for psi is always the same as evidence for bigfoot. Never verifiable evidence elevating itself to the status of near certainty with no other explanations.


As for the rest of your post, the fact you mention holographic principle is predictable.
Michael Talbot has a lot to answer for.

Also, may I suggest you read "The unconscious quantum" - by Victor Stenger, since you seem to be so interested in QM.

[devnull]

fail.

[Mashuna]

The way you tests psychic ability is you have a control group of people who don't have psychic ability and through guesses they might be right 15% of the time. You then take a group of psychics and if they are correct 40 or 50% of the time on average then more needs to be explored.



This seems like a reasonable test. As far as I know, no psychics have ever acheived this kind of success. Do you have any information on some well-designed tests that have shown this?

[CFLarsen]

Have you ever seen the show psychic detective? Police officer after police officer vouch for the psychics who help them with cases. Are they all lying?

I have not only seen the show, but also have most of the shows recorded. So I not only can, but will, check anything you say.

What do you mean by "help"?

[Mojo]

Here's another case to chew on:

In 1989, Rachel Lombera was murdered in her apartment in Selma, California. She was beaten to death with a boombox and a chair. The police investigated the scene, and found no evidence of forced entry. Rachel new her killer and willingly let the person inside. The police found fingerprints but were never able to match them to a suspect.
She was last scene at a local bar dancing with a man the night before her murder. A witness was able to provide the police with a composite sketch of the man. The sketch was publicised, but the leads that came into the police were all dead ends.

...




I'm getting a strange feeling of deja woo (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2791405#post2791405).

[Locknar]

There's alot of ways to test psychic ability....<snip>
Yep, there are a lot of ways to test psychic ability. Now all we need is a psychic that is willing to be tested via credible scientific means.


In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is....<snip>
I'm suprised you didn't bring up quantum discussions earlier...after all, it is so relevant to your claims about psychics.

It is simply a diversion from the topic at hand...your claims about psychic/paranormal abilities.


I could suggest some books for you to read as well. Speaking of suggested reading, perhaps you should find some on scientific research methods.

Bottom line…there is no scientific proof of anyone possessing any type of psychic/paranormal powers.

What you have presented is “cherry picked” anecdotes from situations which lacked proper controls or protocols, and witnesses of undetermined credibility; hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

You will began to take a step out of the cave and realize there's more to us and this universe than our perception of our local reality.The same old “hand waving” argument “woo woo’s” bring up to cloud the fact they have no credible scientific proof to support their claims.

[fls]

There's alot of ways to test psychic ability plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims.

I agree that there seems to be ways to test psychic ability. I've participated in helping design tests for the MDC, and if the subject is sincere, it is possible to come up with designs that allow the subject to easily perform as claimed while removing the effects of chance, fraud, wishful thinking and various biases that would serve as alternate explanations for any positive results. Unfortunately, under those circumstances, the subjects' performance is what you'd expect if they didn't have psychic powers.

Eyewitness accounts serve as tests in the presence of cognitive and other biases. If tests in the presence of bias are positive, and tests in the absence of bias are negative, doesn't that tell you the real source of the apparent effect?

You can come to know the truth through reason. Twelve people do it everyday in court.

The twelve people in court are given a far simpler job. They are asked to judge events for which we have independent evidence of their existence. How well do you think they would do if they were asked to decide on the guilt of a person who is charged with committing a murder, if there was no evidence that either the victim or the murderer even existed in the first place?

You will began to take a step out of the cave and realize there's more to us and this universe than our perception of our local reality.

It's sorta ironic that you say this. The idea that there is psychic ability comes solely from our perception of local reality and assigning fairly naive explanations to our observations. Removing our dependence upon our own perceptions, through the development of the scientific method, was the tool that allowed us to step out of the cave.

We would all like to believe that our perceptions can be trusted, that reason and sincerity are adequate protection against wishful thinking. And even though that idea has thoroughly been proven wrong, it is hard to let go.

Linda

[fls]

I am willing to consider it reasonable that police officers can confirm whether or not a person was helpful in a particular case. But determining whether no normal explanations account for that help requires specialized study. And there are no indications given that police officers, generally or specifically, even have the requisite knowledge and experience to undertake that study, let alone that they perform it. Instead, as far as I can tell, they seem (like most people) to be blissfully unaware of the need.

Linda

[JoeEllison]

This thread is a bust... so, instead of trying to reason with an unreasonable person, why don't we simply catalog the ways that this person is a near-perfect example of the woo delusional mindset?

The first thing is the use of scientific terms with zero understanding of what they mean. The second I see is the appeal to the moronic notion that lack of evidence is proof that we're "blind", not that there's just no evidence. Any others?

[Frankenstyle]

Sorry Frankenstyle, you misunderstood a few things.

Science has discovered things that cannot be observed


If you meant to say directly observed, that is correct. That’s what I said before.


You can just measure the effect of virtual particles just like you can measure psychic ability.


Yep. And no one has come up with a positive when testing for scary mind powers, directly or indirectly.


There's alot of ways to test psychic ability


There sure are. You’d think they’d have found something by now, if it was there to find.


plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims.


Apparently not, all things considered.


You can come to know the truth through reason.


Yes, it’s worked pretty well so far.


Dark energy is energy that cannot be directly observed. This is energy beyond our perception.


Good! I’m so happy you understood my point.


The supernatural is just things we don't fully understand and they are beyond observation from the view of our 3-dimensional cave.


Or not. Again, if there is something there, it can be tested.


I don't think you understand decoherence


Oh come on now, I didn’t have to copy and paste from Wikipedia just to give a quick overview. Give me a little credit here.


Decoherence means part of the total superpositition of the wave function is beyond the realm of measurement. This is the whole crux behind quantum computing.


Just the opposite, decoherence is the bane of quantum computing and may mean that such devices are not possible to construct.


So some people in the cave think the cave is all that there is.


No matter how many times I run the math, I do not come up with “decoherence = cave dwellers in denial". Can you show your work?


Frankenstyle let me suggest you read up on these things:

M-Theory
String Theory
Inflation
The Multiverse
Many Worlds Interpretation
Quantum Cosmology and imaginary time vs. real time
Holographic Principle
Quantum Computing


I already have that covered. Why, what do you want to know?


Then study:

The Bible
Tao Te Ching


I’ve read both of these, more than once. I even have a funny story about how the Tao Te Ching greatly helped improve my racquetball game. Have you read the Tao of Pooh? It does a neat job allegorically explaining Taoism using examples from Winnie the Pooh. Wait, on second thought maybe you shouldn’t read that.


You will began to take a step out of the cave and realize there's more to us and this universe than our perception of our local reality.


Yes there is. So much in fact, that I really don’t see the need to convolute reality by cluttering it up with Unicorn mounted Bigfeet (Bigfoots?) , and quantum Pixies.

[alfaniner]

...
There's alot of ways to test psychic ability plus psychic ability has alot of credible eyewitnesses to back up the claims. You can come to know the truth through reason. Twelve people do it everyday in court.


You must have missed the verdict in the Trial of the Century about 10 years ago, then.

[fls]

This thread is a bust... so, instead of trying to reason with an unreasonable person, why don't we simply catalog the ways that this person is a near-perfect example of the woo delusional mindset?

The first thing is the use of scientific terms with zero understanding of what they mean. The second I see is the appeal to the moronic notion that lack of evidence is proof that we're "blind", not that there's just no evidence. Any others?

We each need a bingo card. The first person to get five-in-a-row in any particular thread wins a free Nomination. Other suggestions welcome.

Linda

[fls]

Frankenstyle let me suggest you read up on these things:

M-Theory
String Theory
Inflation
The Multiverse
Many Worlds Interpretation
Quantum Cosmology and imaginary time vs. real time
Holographic Principle
Quantum Computing

I could suggest some books for you to read as well.

Then study:

The Bible
Tao Te Ching
Metaphysics

You will began to take a step out of the cave and realize there's more to us and this universe than our perception of our local reality.

I'm not Frankenstyle, but I have read up on each of those topics (some books (examples - The Elegant Universe, Fabric of the Cosmos, The Road to Reality, Hyperspace (Kaku)), some articles) and I have read the Bible, Taoist and Buddhist I Ching, and a few other religious texts (I'm not counting Discworld ;)). Yet I still don't have your perspective. In particular, it has not taught me to be credulous, but rather to greatly appreciate how much value incredulity has brought to my ponderings.

So I'm not sure your advice to Frankenstyle will have the desired effect.

Linda

[Senex]

Check out this site if you want to know about Renier.

http://www.amindformurder.com/NoreenRenier.htm

and

http://www.amindformurder.com/runwaypart1.htm

And this one if that's not enough.

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n12/psychic.html


If you can learn to use an Internet search engine as well as you use that TV remote control you might not buy into such obvious fraud.

If there are psychic detectives out there why do we bother with real ones? Why do we need predator drones or spy satelites? Police and military intelligence sure are stupid for missing the cheapest and most reliable way to find missing people.

[polomontana]

I am willing to consider it reasonable that police officers can confirm whether or not a person was helpful in a particular case. But determining whether no normal explanations account for that help requires specialized study. And there are no indications given that police officers, generally or specifically, even have the requisite knowledge and experience to undertake that study, let alone that they perform it. Instead, as far as I can tell, they seem (like most people) to be blissfully unaware of the need.

Linda

This is a key post.

What is a normal explanation? This is the crutch of the skeptic.

When a psychic gives the police a sketch of the criminal before they have a suspect, what's the normal explanation?

When the police test a psychic and put 3 pictures face down and ask her to identify the murderer and she stops her hand over the murderers picture and turns it over and the police are amazed. They then use her on the case and her information helps them?

What is the normal explanation when the police use info from the skeptic to get a confession from the criminal?

What is the normal explanation when the psychic gives the police the initials of the suspect, tells them where he lives and describes him, the guy passes the polygrath and the psychic insist he's the one. They bring him in for more questions and he confesses to the murder?

I can go on and on with examples.

The problem here is the pseudoskeptic starts with the priori that psychic ability can't be a "normal explanation." This is using skepticism as a crutch to protect your pre-existing belief system.

A true freethinker will start off by including psychic ability as a possible explanation. A freethinker is seeking the truth even if it disagree's with something they already believe.

There is no other explanation for these things unless you think all the police officers are lying or stupid.

The smart thing to do is to explore how these things are attached to the natural order. There's not enough research into these things because of the fear of the pseudoskeptic.

If psychic ability exist then the worldview of the pseudoskeptic about things like life and death will be shattered and they rather protect their belief system rather than follow the truth wherever it leads.

Like I said, we know there's energy beyond our perception so dark energy would be immaterial to our material universe. We can't observe it and we don't know what it is. You can have a body made of dark energy/matter within your material body that survives death.

The pseudoskeptic will say, this is IMPOSSIBLE!! The freethinker will say let's explore this and follow it wherever it leads.

This is just one example that we could look into.

Psychic ability can be tied to synapses. As you go from child to adult your synapses degrade and you become more self aware. Children are open to many things that psychics tell us exist.

Young children have about 10/16 synapses (10 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for adults vary from 10/15 to 5 × 10/15 (1-5 quadrillion) synapses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Because of the uncertainty principle, a certain number of adults will not have a full decline of their synapses and they will be more aware than the average adult.

These people could be psychic and this could be tested in the lab.

The pseudoskeptic already knows the answer and this truly does a disservice to logic and reason.

[JoeEllison]

:rolleyes:

Another thing we can note from polomontana's posts is that he considers his intellectual superiors to be "pseudoskeptics." We can also see that no lack of evidence will ever sway him from his silly belief in psychics. Look at the construction of his latest post:

What is a normal explanation? This is the crutch of the skeptic.Here he pretends that his betters are using logic and rational thinking as a "crutch."

When a psychic gives the police a sketch of the criminal before they have a suspect, what's the normal explanation?There's no evidence that this has ever happened.

When the police test a psychic and put 3 pictures face down and ask her to identify the murderer and she stops her hand over the murderers picture and turns it over and the police are amazed. They then use her on the case and her information helps them?
There's no evidence that this has ever happened.

What is the normal explanation when the police use info from the skeptic to get a confession from the criminal?There's no evidence that this has ever happened.

What is the normal explanation when the psychic gives the police the initials of the suspect, tells them where he lives and describes him, the guy passes the polygrath and the psychic insist he's the one. They bring him in for more questions and he confesses to the murder?
There's no evidence that this has ever happened.

I can go on and on with examples.
Look, he can keep listing imaginary situations without ANY supporting evidence! We should be impressed?

The problem here is the pseudoskeptic starts with the priori that psychic ability can't be a "normal explanation." This is using skepticism as a crutch to protect your pre-existing belief system.

A true freethinker will start off by including psychic ability as a possible explanation. A freethinker is seeking the truth even if it disagree's with something they already believe.I guess a "true freethinker" should also explore the possibility of government conspiracies, alien brainwashing rays, and the possibility that we all live in the Matrix? Why not add all that stupidity to the psychic stupidity?

There is no other explanation for these things unless you think all the police officers are lying or stupid.First off, there's little evidence of any police officers having ANY positive encounters with "psychics" outside of television shows and known con artists' claims. Add to that the fact that we ABSOLUTELY KNOW that there are stupid and dishonest people, and why shouldn't we consider that the most likely explanation?

The smart thing to do is to explore how these things are attached to the natural order. There's not enough research into these things because of the fear of the pseudoskeptic.

If psychic ability exist then the worldview of the pseudoskeptic about things like life and death will be shattered and they rather protect their belief system rather than follow the truth wherever it leads.
Here's that common lie that "psychic" frauds and their willing dupes like to spread around. Note, however, that the dupes believe 100% in psychic mumbo jumbo, and reject the ideas of evidence and rational thinking. They are the ones unwilling to investigate before making a judgment.

Like I said, we know there's energy beyond our perception so dark energy would be immaterial to our material universe. We can't observe it and we don't know what it is. You can have a body made of dark energy/matter within your material body that survives death.

The pseudoskeptic will say, this is IMPOSSIBLE!! The freethinker will say let's explore this and follow it wherever it leads.

This is just one example that we could look into.

Psychic ability can be tied to synapses. As you go from child to adult your synapses degrade and you become more self aware. Children are open to many things that psychics tell us exist.

Young children have about 10/16 synapses (10 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for adults vary from 10/15 to 5 × 10/15 (1-5 quadrillion) synapses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Because of the uncertainty principle, a certain number of adults will not have a full decline of their synapses and they will be more aware than the average adult.

These people could be psychic and this could be tested in the lab.Real skeptics ignore "what if" scenarios when there's no evidence to back them up. Woos and dupes say if there's a "what if" scenario, then everyone should accept their stupidity as true. It is up to us to disprove their stupidity... because we all know they aren't willing or able to do any research themselves.

The pseudoskeptic already knows the answer and this truly does a disservice to logic and reason.This is such a reversal of reality that it is truly mind-boggling. People who believe in psychics without evidence are the protectors of "logic and reason"?

Really?

[Locknar]

I can go on and on with examples.
Yes...I suspect you could go on, and on, with non-credible examples of "woo woo"; your point?

So why the reluctance from the psychics to be tested in a controlled setting, with proper protocols in place in keeping with scientific research?

[yairhol]

Thank you for not paying attention to my post above.

[blutoski]

What is a normal explanation? This is the crutch of the skeptic.

Yep. You brought up a lot of examples. You're asking us to explain the examples as if they'd been verified as what actually happened. A skeptic isn't even there yet. We don't have to explain things that aren't verified as true. There is a normal explanation for why people say that things are true even when they are in fact false: selective memory, lying, reconstructed memory... that's the first round of normal explanations.

Skeptics like Nickell spend a lot of time digging into these examples, and they start to fall apart. Sometimes the example is so vague that it's impossible to verify anything about it at all. Sometimes the details turn out to be completely false - the location does not exist, or the location exists but there has never been a police officer by that name, or the police officer says he has never heard of this psychic, or the police officer says that the psychic did not do what they said they did in this case, &c.

We're waiting for *one* good case that survives investigation in light of above normal explanations.

To answer your question about nominal explanations in more detail, see: [Police Psychics: Do they Really Help Solve Crimes? (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html)]





The pseudoskeptic already knows the answer and this truly does a disservice to logic and reason.

Yep. That's the definition of a pseudoskeptic.

Fortunately, these cases were investigated by skeptics instead. Many have written books about their exhaustive research on individual cases. See: Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases by Joe Nickell, Prometheus Press, 1994.

[CFLarsen]

What is the normal explanation when the psychic gives the police the initials of the suspect, tells them where he lives and describes him, the guy passes the polygrath and the psychic insist he's the one. They bring him in for more questions and he confesses to the murder?

That would be the case of John Reese.

The psychic, Nancy Weber, claimed the murder weapon was a hammer. It wasn't.

How do you explain that?

These people could be psychic and this could be tested in the lab.

So why don't they get tested in the lab?

[polomontana]

Joe Nickell?

His last name sums up what his opinion is worth.

All he offers is opinion after the fact.

Who should be given more weight, the skeptic who just offers an opinion or the police veteran who was actually there?

It's obvious to the freethinker, the police officer but the skeptic will accept anything that fits there pre-existing belief system no matter how silly it sounds.

Joe Nickell, James Randi and Michael Shermer are professional skeptics who make there money off of skepticism. The pseudoskeptic followers of these people see their motives as pure but you let a psychic make money and there fake.

The skeptic can make money from being a professional skeptic and that's fine. That makes no sense.

James Randi always goes after easy targets like Sylvia Browne, Uri Gellar or John Edwards.

Michael Shermer actually used Miss Cleo as a basis for psychics when he was talking about psychic ability.

Joe Nickell concedes my point. He said police vouch for psychics in the article you posted Blutoski, then he gives a vague example of how psychics help when they give police specific information like a sketch of the criminal or they show the police where the criminal lives before the police even have a suspect.

Lets see Joe Nickell go into a case and try to do the same thing the psychic does. He can't, police are not stupid. They run into fake psychics all the time and they know the difference between real information and bogus information.

To the pseudoskeptic, the police somehow become stupid when they get help from a psychic. This makes no sense.

[JoeEllison]

See what I mean? Reality makes no difference to the believers... woo is real, and scientists and rational thinkers are "pseudoskeptics." The complete lack of real evidence doesn't sway believers at all. Police can never be mistaken or dishonest when it comes to "psychics", while all skeptics are assumed to be stupid and/or dishonest.

[polomontana]

That would be the case of John Reese.

The psychic, Nancy Weber, claimed the murder weapon was a hammer. It wasn't.

How do you explain that?





Easy CFLarsen,

As I said in my first post, psychics will not be 100% correct.

This is the red herring offered up by the skeptic. The information is coming through a human agent so it will be prone to human error.

Let me ask you a question, why should psychics have to be 100% correct?

[Frankenstyle]

This is a key post.

Children are open to many things that psychics tell us exist.



The irony is making me a little light headed.

Children also believe in Santa, tooth fairies, and most anything else an adult endorses. Once I jokingly told a nephew that a trailer for Starship Troopers was actually an ad for a documentary about life in eastern Pennsylvania. Weeks later he asked me if I was afraid that the bug monsters were going to eat his grandmother. Of course I explained that I’d been kidding.

Children have a remarkable ability to absorb information, but lack the life experience to examine that information critically. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that as they grow some children don’t develop those skills as much as others, rather than to imbue them with magic mind powers?

I could be wrong, but I say my credentials of being an ex-cop / FBI agent cowboy neurosurgeon add some hefty weight to my claims.

[polomontana]

See what I mean? Reality makes no difference to the believers... woo is real, and scientists and rational thinkers are "pseudoskeptics." The complete lack of real evidence doesn't sway believers at all. Police can never be mistaken or dishonest when it comes to "psychics", while all skeptics are assumed to be stupid and/or dishonest.

Joe, you illustrate my point.

To say police are mistaken or dishonest whenever they disagree with your pre-existing belief about psychic ability is pseudoskepticism at it's worst.

There are crooked cops but the majority of them protect our lives on a daily basis and it flies in the face of reason that all these cops who vouch for psychics are mistaken or dishonest just because they disagree with you.

[polomontana]

The irony is making me a little light headed.

Children also believe in Santa, tooth fairies, and most anything else an adult endorses. Once I jokingly told a nephew that a trailer for Starship Troopers was actually an ad for a documentary about life in eastern Pennsylvania. Weeks later he asked me if I was afraid that the bug monsters were going to eat his grandmother. Of course I explained that I’d been kidding.

Children have a remarkable ability to absorb information, but lack the life experience to examine that information critically. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that as they grow some children don’t develop those skills as much as others, rather than to imbue them with magic mind powers?

I could be wrong, but I say my credentials of being an ex-cop / FBI agent cowboy neurosurgeon add some hefty weight to my claims.

Couldn't it be that children will easily accept these things because they are more aware of things that surrounds us than adults do to the decline of synapses?

This could also correlate to the psychic if the psychic has more synapses firing than the average adult and this could be tested in a lab.

Of course the pseudoskeptic will belittle this before it's even looked into because in their mind psychic ability can't or doesn't exist and this is freethinking?

[Pixel42]

it flies in the face of reason that all these cops who vouch for psychics are mistaken or dishonest just because they disagree with you.
You have yet to produce real evidence of a single cop who sincerely believes that a psychic was responsible for solving a crime. As has been patiently explained to you shows like Psychic Detectives are almost entirely made up, nor can the claims made by psychics themselves be trusted. Attempts to investigate them rarely even find a real detective with the name given. I suspect that the number of such cops who really exist can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And anyone can be fooled, including an honest cop.

[polomontana]

You have yet to produce real evidence of a single cop who sincerely believes that a psychic was responsible for solving a crime. As has been patiently explained to you shows like Psychic Detectives are almost entirely made up, nor can the claims made by psychics themselves be trusted. Attempts to investigate them rarely even find a real detective with the name given. I suspect that the number of such cops who really exist can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And anyone can be fooled, including an honest cop.

Sorry Pixel, Blutoski's skeptic Joe Nickell disagrees with you. This is from the article that Blutoski linked us to:

"But what about testimonials from experienced homicide detectives who have actually used psychics?"

He admits that "experienced homicide detectives" vouch for psychics. His silly claim is that they protect us and solve crimes most of the time but when they are working with psychics they become Forrest Gump. This makes no sense.

These people are professional skeptics who make money from skepticism, why should I trust the word of Randi, Nickell or Shermer?

They have a huge financial stake in this and ghosts could be in their houses every night but why would they tell you? You buy their books and magazines and to you their motives are PURE!!

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

[godless dave]

Couldn't it be that children will easily accept these things because they are more aware of things that surrounds us than adults do to the decline of synapses?

What decline of synapses? Adults have more synapses than children.

[Moochie]

Sorry but your analogy with unicorns doesn't make sense.

Unicorns don't have 20 year police veterans vouching for them.

It's called reason and we use it to weigh the evidence.

So pink unicorns flying in my backyard could not be compared to psychic ability because psychic ability has police officer after police officer vouching for the psychic and that has to be taken into consideration as the evidence is being weighed.

Bad analogy.


Why do you give credence to "20 year police veterans" who don't have any real evidence either? Police can be just as delusional in their thinking as anyone else, although I would hope such people don't graduate from the academy.


M.

[Frankenstyle]

Couldn't it be that children will easily accept these things because they are more aware of things that surrounds us than adults do to the decline of synapses?


Why? I mean, what is happening to warrant such a blind leap? What effect so desperately needs to be explained that requires us to consider such a hypothesis? What unknown mystery are you trying to solve here? This isn’t just a case of grasping at straws, you’re grasping at straws for no reason whatsoever.


This could also correlate to the psychic if the psychic has more synapses firing than the average adult and this could be tested in a lab.


Stick with me here. You’re saying that because you proposed a random idea for no reason, it therefore supports a secondary and otherwise unrelated presumption. That’s not “free thinking”, it’s beating on a piano with a sledgehammer while blindfolded, believing that if you do it long enough you’ll eventually perform the collected works of Chopin.


Of course the pseudoskeptic will belittle this before it's even looked into because in their mind psychic ability can't or doesn't exist and this is freethinking?

Nope, see? I looked into, and came up with nothing. Keep beating that piano, though. Surly you've got to be getting closer, right?

[fls]

This is a key post.

What is a normal explanation? This is the crutch of the skeptic.

I will paraphrase Hume on this. An explanation whose falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish.

When a psychic gives the police a sketch of the criminal before they have a suspect, what's the normal explanation?

That would be things like the psychic saw the suspect, the psychic saw a picture or sketch of the suspect, the sketch looked like a great number of people.

When the police test a psychic and put 3 pictures face down and ask her to identify the murderer and she stops her hand over the murderers picture and turns it over and the police are amazed. They then use her on the case and her information helps them?

If the tester knew which picture was of the murderer, they may have provided non-verbal cues (Clever Hans as the prototypical example).

What is the normal explanation when the police use info from the skeptic to get a confession from the criminal?

What is the normal explanation when the psychic gives the police the initials of the suspect, tells them where he lives and describes him, the guy passes the polygrath and the psychic insist he's the one. They bring him in for more questions and he confesses to the murder?

I can go on and on with examples.

Some of these are recognizable, since you are already covering the same ground as Rodney. The details are always so vague that nothing prevents it from being the result of retrofitting, and the usual biases re-working the memories as the story grows with each re-telling.

The problem here is the pseudoskeptic starts with the priori that psychic ability can't be a "normal explanation." This is using skepticism as a crutch to protect your pre-existing belief system.

A true freethinker will start off by including psychic ability as a possible explanation. A freethinker is seeking the truth even if it disagree's with something they already believe.

Most of this does not seem relevant to what I said. However, it is a simple matter of logic that one cannot prove something by assuming it to be true.

There is no other explanation for these things unless you think all the police officers are lying or stupid.

Actually, these things are easily what we'd expect to find based on our current understanding of memory and other cognitive processes - especially in intelligent, honest people (who tend to vastly over-rate their immunity to the usual cognitive biases).

The smart thing to do is to explore how these things are attached to the natural order. There's not enough research into these things because of the fear of the pseudoskeptic.

If psychic ability exist then the worldview of the pseudoskeptic about things like life and death will be shattered and they rather protect their belief system rather than follow the truth wherever it leads.

None of this is relevant to our conversation.

Like I said, we know there's energy beyond our perception so dark energy would be immaterial to our material universe. We can't observe it and we don't know what it is. You can have a body made of dark energy/matter within your material body that survives death.

Dark energy is a proposal that explains specific observations - none of which have anything to do with this conversation.

The pseudoskeptic will say, this is IMPOSSIBLE!! The freethinker will say let's explore this and follow it wherever it leads.

This is just one example that we could look into.

Psychic ability can be tied to synapses. As you go from child to adult your synapses degrade and you become more self aware. Children are open to many things that psychics tell us exist.

Young children have about 10/16 synapses (10 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for adults vary from 10/15 to 5 × 10/15 (1-5 quadrillion) synapses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Because of the uncertainty principle, a certain number of adults will not have a full decline of their synapses and they will be more aware than the average adult.

Because of the uncertainty principle? I think you just outed yourself. I will admit you had me going a little bit with your paragraphs on decoherence, but now I'm guessing that was a cut and paste job?

These people could be psychic and this could be tested in the lab.

Yes. That is what I would like to see.

The pseudoskeptic already knows the answer and this truly does a disservice to logic and reason.

I agree.

Linda

[CFLarsen]

Easy CFLarsen,

As I said in my first post, psychics will not be 100% correct.

This is the red herring offered up by the skeptic. The information is coming through a human agent so it will be prone to human error.

Let me ask you a question, why should psychics have to be 100% correct?

Why wouldn't they be?

If you allow them to be less than 100% correct, how is that different from cold reading?

[polomontana]

What decline of synapses? Adults have more synapses than children.

Wrong Dave.

Young children have about 10/16 synapses (10 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for adults vary from 10/15 to 5 × 10/15 (1-5 quadrillion) synapses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

At the age of 2 to 3 years old, children hit their peak with 10x the synapses and 2x the energy burn of an adult brain. And it’s all downhill from there.