Psychic Detective Show

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

I really enjoy the new Psychic Detective Show. What I like about it is that it's on a legit channel, the Court TV channel, where they have tons of ongoing court cases and informative shows on crime solving etc..... I'm glad to see the channel keeping an open mind.....Anyway, I've only seen a couple of episodes of it so far, but a couple of weeks ago, they had a lady on there who the police hired to help solve a case of a missing woman after they spent a long time looking for her and weren't having any luck, and she was awesome!! The FBI agent asked her to help find her, and she said that she was dead for sure. She mentioned that she would be found off a road which was going uphill. She also said that she was seeing the numbers 778 or was it 668?. I can't remember, but she kept seeing them in a circle. She also mentioned that the victim she was seeing was completely dressed in pink(nobody knew how she was dressed that day). She also accurately described a piece of jewelry which was found on her.....Anyway, to make a long story short, the body WAS indeed found next to an uphill road, which was accessed by road #778(or whatever those numbers were she mentioned)was buried and dressed in pink. She was also wearing the jewelry the psychic described. She accurately described a couple of other details as well, but since I can't remember what they were, I won't try and guess them. Anyway, although the FBI agent said he was a skeptic, he admitted that he just couldn't see how she how she could have successfully nailed so many details like that. I mean she basically lead them to the body. They were getting absolutely NOWHERE until they contacted the psychic..... I'm going to watch a few more of the newer episodes and see what I think.....Even the psychic says that sometimes the information is clear and comes to her and other times she doesn't get anything...

Now while I'm not going to make ANY notion whether or not I 100% know if she was right or wrong, I think it's healthy to keep an open mind to at least the possibility that she helped solve this case through an ability........

[jimmygun]

Quote........Anyway, I've only seen a couple of episodes of it so far, but a couple of weeks ago, they had a lady on there who the police hired to help solve a case of a missing woman after they spent a long time looking for her and weren't having any luck, and she was awesome!!
.................................................. ............................................

a couple of weeks ago

a lady

the police

a case

a missing woman

Pretty dead on in depth reporting of the event don't you think? Do you have any facts (FACTS) at all? Did you bother to check up on exactly when this happened, who 'the lady' was, what police department specifically, what case and what missing woman?

Sorry about being skeptical about this but if you can provide names and dates and such that I could verify, then I will do so.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Sorry about being skeptical about this but if you can provide names and dates and such that I could verify, then I will do so.

The best thing to do is to watch the show yourself if you are curious about these details, as I'm sure the show will repeat in time....... If you watch the show, you'll be able to get the facts. Again, this show it's a show about trying to get people to believe in the paranormal, just a show about the various cases psychics have assisted in. I don't remember what time or day it's on, but if you have the Court TV channel, you should be able to get it.

[jimmygun]

I guess you didn't get my drift. If you come to this board with statements please give us something to hang our hat on. It is a tactic of the woo woo community to say, "What about bla bla?", expecting the skeptics to provide the evidence against. If we go to the trouble to debunk bla bla, the woo woo's step up with another "What about bla bla?" and the whole thing repeats itself.

If you wish to have my comments on a certain subject then provide the data I need to comment on.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

If you wish to have my comments on a certain subject then provide the data I need to comment on.
guess you didn't get my drift. If you come to this board with statements please give us something to hang our hat on. It is a tactic of the woo woo community to say, "What about bla bla?", expecting the skeptics to provide the evidence against. If we go to the trouble to debunk bla bla, the woo woo's step up with another "What about bla bla?" and the whole thing repeats itself.

When I was asking for comments, I was hoping others had seen the show, and then they could further comment on it. I don't expect to try and convince anyone of anything. I realize that just like a skeptic can't change a hard-core believers mind(I don't consider myself hardcore by the way), a believer can't change a hard-core skeptics mind either. Also, what is a woo-woo?....Don't the words "keeping an open mind to other possibilities" sound a little bit more mature and make you guys sound a bit more serious and credible as opposed to using the words "woo-woo"? I don't think the Court TV network would be too impressed with you if you called them woo-woos just because they have a weekly show which profiles psychics who use detectives.

[Pyrrho]

My mind is open to possibilities, but I have long since closed it to the notion of psychic powers. They just haven't been proven to exist.

edited to add: And no, TV shows are not evidence. They are TV shows, written for entertainment, and the facts are usually fictionalized to a certain extent, or massaged for better play on the air.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

closed it to the notion of psychic powers. They just haven't been proven to exist.

See, instead of having a closed mind, I tend to approach something like from a different angle. I think to myself, well perhaps they do exist, but perhaps we just don't have a comprehension yet of what makes them work, when, why and how, etc.....Perhaps it's alot more complicated than something that's just cut and dry, or perhaps it's not, but at least by keeping an open mind, you keep an interest into possibilities that maybe WE just can't get a grasp of yet.....It's better for us to leave our arrogance at the door and stay open, that doesn't mean saying they exist, but it also doesn't mean saying that they DON'T exist....

[jimmygun]

How is it that you can shut out the unfathomable amount of evidence against the paranormal and claim to have an open mind?

There has never been any evidence of any paranormal event, ever. Not one smidgeon of factual, verifiable evidence .

My mind is open to any evidence of this nature but in the past million years none of it has surfaced. I don't ask that woo woo's prove every bit of reported paranormal experiences, just one, and I become a believer.

[Kopji]

The show was discussed a while back on another thread:
Link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36296)

Yeah, the stories have some 'police testimonials', but if you read the endorsement you will find the usual assortments of 'her help was locked my drawer for a year', or 'I could not get anyone to listen to me' etc, etc. There is NOTHING to show that any prediction was helpful BEFORE the case was solved, or helped in any way. The stories are all written AFTER THE CASES WERE SOLVED. I call this hindsight, not foresight.

Personally, the lady seems a little creepy: The more you look the more there is to find. She's some kind of high priestess minister in religious cult with a conduit to the Source. Would I leave her to babysit my kids? No way.

It's ok to have an open mind, but sometimes that sounds a bit like sitting on a fence not being willing or able to decide.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by jimmygun
How is it that you can shut out the unfathomable amount of evidence against the paranormal and claim to have an open mind?



Fine, then don't believe it. Again, nobody is telling YOU to believe it....You ask, how do I claim to have an open mind??? I claim to have an open mind because I ALLOW for the possibility that we may have a lack of understanding of certain aspects of how the paranormal work.....Do you allow for the possibility that you may be wrong??? That answer will dictate whether you are open-minded or just fooling yourself into thinking that you are. The reason I keep an open mind is that I"m a firm believer that when you SHUT your mind, you lock out your own possible experience, due to your closed frame of mind.....I've had my own intense experiences. I dreamed of the 911 plane crash exactly as it happened about 1 hour before it happened....Seeing the plane going into the top of a building, etc.....Prior to that I had NEVER dreamed of a plane crash ever in my entire life, and I'm 38...I didn't understand it. I didn't know why I had that dream, but due to how vivid it was, when I woke up, I felt as if something awful had happened...I actually needed a bit of counseling after that dream and finding out it actually happened because I just couldn't deal with it....My point being is, I try and be very very humble and realize that our comprehension of something like this might be sooo small that we can't understand it....I don't want to be so stupid and say "it was just a coincidence" and then just blow it off. It was too real..Had anyone else had the same exact dream, they'd be saying the same thing....My point being is that I think staying open to stuff like this opens yourself to experiencing more. I've had additional non-explainable experiences in life, but no need to brings those up at this time.



There has never been any evidence of any paranormal event, ever. Not one smidgeon of factual, verifiable evidence .

It depends on what you define as evidence. For example, take the Near Death Experience. Skeptics will tell you that must because you can replicate SOME of the same effects when a person is under the influence of a drug, that means that NDE, doesn't really exist and isn't real..... I'd like to know how the skeptics come to this conclusion based only on that????

Instead the conclusion should be that even though you are able to replicate some of the same conditions which someone who has had an NDE experiences, all it tells you is that the real thing MAY not be an actual glimpse which lies beyond, but it in NO way means that it proves 100% that the NDE isn't a glimpse into the afterlife......














My mind is open to any evidence of this nature but in the past million years none of it has surfaced. I don't ask that woo woo's prove every bit of reported paranormal experiences, just one, and I become a believer.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Kopji
The show was discussed a while back on another thread:
Link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36296)

The comments on that thread didn't shock me at all. In fact, I knew exactly the comments I'd probably see, before I even looked at the thread. Again, the show that I saw, the Lady, was able to tell the officer the name of the road, where about the body was buried, and what the victim was wearing....I'm not saying that she's 100% legit, I'm just saying that it's possible.
It really cracks me up how people make there mind of so quickly on this forum without even knowing anything about the case...At least I'm not making my mind up.


It's ok to have an open mind, but sometimes that sounds a bit like sitting on a fence not being willing or able to decide.


I'm a fence sitter on alot of paranormal topics.
What's wrong with not being able to decide?? Why should you feel the NEED to have to decide now?? The NEED to decide shows that you MUST have an answer right now...Why?? There is no time table on NEEDING to decide. I'd question those that feel they have a NEED and have to make up their mind right now....

Although this isn't related to the paranormal, look at various Quantum Theories?? The jury is still out on alot of those theories...They haven't felt the NEED to decide right now, they keep open to the possibilities.....

[geni]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN

Although this isn't related to the paranormal, look at various Quantum Theories?? The jury is still out on alot of those theories...They haven't felt the NEED to decide right now, they keep open to the possibilities.....

Quantum theories don't involve con artists.

[Garrette]

I propose a corollary to that law (whose name I can't remember) about the introduction of Hitler into a thread being its death knell.

Something along the lines of:


The level of intelligent discourse in a thread drops precipitately upon the first mention of Quantum Mechanics in relation to paranormal phenomena. The time before the first mention of QM is inversely proportional to the the level of intelligent discourse exhibited in the OP.


Modifications to the corollary are invited.

[MRC_Hans]

SAC_KINGS_FAN: After just 13 posts, welcome to my ignore list. No, I'm sorry, it's NOT quite a record.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by Garrette
The level of intelligent discourse in a thread drops precipitately upon the first mention of Quantum Mechanics in relation to paranormal phenomena. The time before the first mention of QM is inversely proportional to the the level of intelligent discourse exhibited in the OP.

I don't think the inversely should be there since you are saying that the higher the level of intelligant discourse the shorter the length of time untill QM gets mentioned. I think the equation should look something like this:

Probability of QM being mentioned =K(1/level of intelligent dicourse)*number of posts

where k is a constant yet to be detemined

to put that into the for you were using:

number of posts/probablilty of QM being mentioned=k level of intelligent discourse.

[Garrette]

Good catch, geni. I did misword it.

For that, you get titular honors. I'm thinking something like:

The Geni-Fans Corollary

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
See, instead of having a closed mind, I tend to approach something like from a different angle. I think to myself, well perhaps they do exist, but perhaps we just don't have a comprehension yet of what makes them work, when, why and how, etc.....Perhaps it's alot more complicated than something that's just cut and dry, or perhaps it's not, but at least by keeping an open mind, you keep an interest into possibilities that maybe WE just can't get a grasp of yet.....It's better for us to leave our arrogance at the door and stay open, that doesn't mean saying they exist, but it also doesn't mean saying that they DON'T exist....
Arrogance exists on both sides of the question. I happen to think it's just as arrogant to proclaim that one has an "open mind" and pretend that having an "open mind" makes one somehow better than other people.

I do not claim to have all the answers. I do claim that the question of whether or not psychic powers exist has been answered to my satisfaction, and I don't need to continue to wonder. I simply do not care to waste any more time on the question.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN

Although this isn't related to the paranormal, look at various Quantum Theories?? The jury is still out on alot of those theories...They haven't felt the NEED to decide right now, they keep open to the possibilities.....
Hypotheses about quantum mechanics as an explanation for various alleged psychic phenomena or paranormal phenomena mean nothing. If quantum theory can show that psychic powers exist, show us the calculations. No calculations = no theory = no evidence.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Garrette
I propose a corollary to that law (whose name I can't remember) about the introduction of Hitler into a thread being its death knell.

Something along the lines of:


The level of intelligent discourse in a thread drops precipitately upon the first mention of Quantum Mechanics in relation to paranormal phenomena. The time before the first mention of QM is inversely proportional to the the level of intelligent discourse exhibited in the OP.


Modifications to the corollary are invited.
That would be Godwin's Law.

[thaiboxerken]

SAC.......... maybe you're mind is a bit too open. It's getting sunburned.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

I don't think the inversely should be there since you are saying that the higher the level of intelligant discourse the shorter the length of time untill QM gets mentioned. I think the equation should look something like this
Probability of QM being mentioned =K(1/level of intelligent dicourse)*number of posts :

I can tell you exactly why the word Quantum gets tossed around so often when discussing metaphysics...The reason it happens is because there are plenty of commonalities between what's discussed in metaphysics and which you hear about in various articles in theoretical physics... For example, I was reading a newsweek article about a couple of months ago(those who subscribe to this magazine will probably know the article). Anyway, I was just browsing it at the grocery store, and the article was based on a quantum theory in which the physicist believed that everything around you was basically an illusion and things which appeared solid may not actually be so. The article was a few pages long, and again, those who subscribe to newsweek(and I'm sure there are at least a few on here) can help me with this. It was a mind-blowing article, but interesting to read. Anyway, as I was reading the article, I had a flashback to a book I read many years ago by Jane Roberts entitled "Seth Speaks". I mean, so much of what this Newsweek article was saying was also contained in this book I read many many years ago, and the book is very old. I remember another article I read from Discover magazine a couple of years ago(I have the magazine), and the article was entitled "Does Time Really Exist?" Again, it's just based on theoretical physics, but it mentions the theory that "every moment of every individual's life, birth, death, and everything in between existing forever and being eternal." There are also other Quantum ideas I've read which speak alot about the present, future and past all existing at the same time. Again, you can find that these same ideas have been thrown around in metaphysical books for ages.....However, it's exciting to see articles like this appearing in Newsweek Magazine, etc....


Also, you are 100% correct, these various theories don't prove anything paranormal, but again, the reason they are tossed around so much is because of the various parallels which one can between between them and what's tought in metaphysics, THAT's why it's brought up so often....

I'm not saying that these theories presented are in any shape or form correct, but it's quite funny how they don't get attacked and called "woo-woos" for presenting the theories that they do, even though they can't be validated at the present through the scientific method...... I see some strange hypocritcal things happening here.

Again, don't blame us for mentioning the word Quantum so often when discussing metaphysics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the highly educated physicists who are putting out these articles and ideas. If they would just stop putting out these articles, we wouldn't bring it up so often .. All we are doing is tying in the commonalities we are finding. What's wrong with that?

[Clancie]

I keep missing this program:( Do you know if the series is still ongoing?

Sounds worthwhile, though, (especially for those of us who still have an open mind about this topic. :) ).

[RC]

Hi Clancie, fancy running into you here. Avoiding the imbeciles and trolls at TVTalk? ;)

"Psychic Detectives" is on Court TV, Wednesday at 8:30 pm. I caught a rerun last night (Sat.) at 8:30 pm. It was about Noreen Renier, which made me spend (waste?) an entire Sunday morning today reading about her on the web.

I think it's a very enjoyable show.

[geni]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
I can tell you exactly why the word Quantum gets tossed around so often when discussing metaphysics...The reason it happens is because there are plenty of commonalities between what's discussed in metaphysics and which you hear about in various articles in theoretical physics... For example, I was reading a newsweek article about a couple of months ago(those who subscribe to this magazine will probably know the article).
newsweek is not a textbook. What the media do to QM is worrying to say the least.


Anyway, I was just browsing it at the grocery store, and the article was based on a quantum theory in which the physicist believed that everything around you was basically an illusion and things which appeared solid may not actually be so. The article was a few pages long, and again, those who subscribe to newsweek(and I'm sure there are at least a few on here) can help me with this. It was a mind-blowing article, but interesting to read. Anyway, as I was reading the article, I had a flashback to a book I read many years ago by Jane Roberts entitled "Seth Speaks". I mean, so much of what this Newsweek article was saying was also contained in this book I read many many years ago, and the book is very old.

Did this Jane roberts provide the maths or the evidence to back this up? And do we now have to credit one Issac asimov with the invention of the personal computer?


I remember another article I read from Discover magazine a couple of years ago(I have the magazine), and the article was entitled "Does Time Really Exist?" Again, it's just based on theoretical physics, but it mentions the theory that "every moment of every individual's life, birth, death, and everything in between existing forever and being eternal." There are also other Quantum ideas I've read which speak alot about the present, future and past all existing at the same time. Again, you can find that these same ideas have been thrown around in metaphysical books for ages.....However, it's exciting to see articles like this appearing in Newsweek Magazine, etc....

ther is a very big difference. Metaphysical people have been talking like that because they havn't got a clue. Popular QM is writen like that because pages and pages of equations (which is what real QM is) are not going to sell magerzines.


Also, you are 100% correct, these various theories don't prove anything paranormal, but again, the reason they are tossed around so much is because of the various parallels which one can between between them and what's tought in metaphysics, THAT's why it's brought up so often....

Nope they are brought up because in the publics mind QM= wrird stuffing happening and the people who know enough to shoot it downn are few and far between.


I'm not saying that these theories presented are in any shape or form correct, but it's quite funny how they don't get attacked and called "woo-woos" for presenting the theories that they do, even though they can't be validated at the present through the scientific method...... I see some strange hypocritcal things happening here.

Big difference. The who paranormal area makes testerble claims. these claims have been around a long time and yet they still fail to provide evidence that is worth anything. QM theories are either new and make predictions which can be tested in which case they are or they don't make predtions that can be tested at the moment. QM theories are not pulled out of thin air. They come from looking at the evidence that we already have and then doing the maths to come up with theories about how the universe works


Again, don't blame us for mentioning the word Quantum so often when discussing metaphysics. If you want to blame anyone, blame the highly educated physicists who are putting out these articles and ideas. If they would just stop putting out these articles, we wouldn't bring it up so often .. All we are doing is tying in the commonalities we are finding. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong is that you don't have a clue about QM. You seem to think that you can get an idea about how it works from the media. You can't. If you want to understand how QM works you need to get a degree in it then a masters then a PHD and then spend a few more years studying it. Trying to work with the media's version is just wrong.
Now I don't know how QM works. Fortunetly I don't need to. However I ahve worked with some parts of it and have used the results of QM to work things out (bond lenghts eletron orbitals that kind of thing nothing complex). What I have learned from this is that if you can't show the equations you are wasteing your time.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
SAC.......... maybe you're mind is a bit too open. It's getting sunburned.

Back that up!...I'm just expressing my open-mindedness in certain areas, not to EVERY idea.....Is that such a sin?

[geni]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Back that up!...I'm just expressing my open-mindedness in certain areas, not to EVERY idea.....Is that such a sin?

Depens on how you define open mindedness. Since for many belivers it means belive what they do you would be well advides to avoid the phrase.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by geni
[B]
newsweek is not a textbook. What the media do to QM is worrying to say the least.

You aren't getting it...The article may have been in newsweek, but they are speaking of individuals involved in theoretical physics which are highly educated....Newsweek didn't come up with this stuff...Pretty soon you may begin to see this stuff in textbooks.



Did this Jane roberts provide the maths or the evidence to back this up? And do we now have to credit one Issac asimov with the invention of the personal computer? ther is a very big difference. Metaphysical people have been talking like that because they havn't got a clue. Popular QM is writen like that because pages and pages of equations (which is what real QM is) are not going to sell magerzines.


Basically the material Jane Roberts came up with was channeled.....It was so deep and complex, I knew that she couldn't have come up with that information herself....
You are saying EXACTLY what Dean Radin, author of the Consious said Universe would happen...

Stage 1 skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible
because it violates the law of science.
Stage 2 skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible
but that it is not very intresting and the claimed effects are extremely weak.

Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important, but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined

Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first.......

I bring this up, because I can see this happening with some branches of theorectical physics....


QM theories are not pulled out of thin air. They come from looking at the evidence that we already have and then doing the maths to come up with theories about how the universe works


Yes, but the point is, some of these same ideas have been scoffed at by skeptics over and over again....There was a time when skeptics would laugh at you(and many still do), when you told them that everything around you is an illusion and nothing is actually solid. They said, "that's impossible!!!" but now since some branches of theoretical physics are saying it, it's okay right?????

[geni]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
You aren't getting it...The article may have been in newsweek, but they are speaking of individuals involved in theoretical physics which are highly educated....Newsweek didn't come up with this stuff...Pretty soon you may begin to see this stuff in textbooks.

No it wont. the stuff in textbooks will look like thoes pages you tried to avoid in your maths books at A level (I don't have any physics text books to hand right now so I can't give you an example).
To put it simply I you think you understand the QM behind the newsweek article you are wrong.




Basically the material Jane Roberts came up with was channeled.....It was so deep and complex, I knew that she couldn't have come up with that information herself....
You are saying EXACTLY what Dean Radin, author of the Consious said Universe would happen...


No you can't. lets take a look at how a sceptic would treat a QM theory.

Step one
someone comes up with a theory

step two

Sceptic asks what evidence there is for a theory and goes through looking for any flaws

step three
Any flaws found are either address or the theory is dropped.

step 4
the sceptic (and pretty much any scientist) says your theoy predicts X lets test X

Step 5

is X happens then the theory is stregthend. If it doesn't then we try another theory.


Stage 1 skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible
because it violates the law of science.

Nope see above

Stage 2 skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible
but that it is not very intresting and the claimed effects are extremely weak.

Scratch reluctantly sceptics are as interested in scientific advances as anyone else. As for the rest you don't know anyone working in the field of QM do you?


Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important, but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined

I've got some bad news for you. The strengeth of any effect will be know to several decimal places. For example planck constant= 6.62608*10^-34. Due to the number of times this constant turns up in the QM I work with you will find the strengeth of effects are well defined.

Secondly you make the mistake of assuming what you call the mainstream understands QM. If it does would you mind explaining why d-d eletron transitions are forbiden

Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first.......


I demolished this in my pervoius post


I bring this up, because I can see this happening with some branches of theorectical physics....


Really? Which journals do you read? how many theorectical phyersysits do you know?


Yes, but the point is, some of these same ideas have been scoffed at by skeptics over and over again....There was a time when skeptics would laugh at you(and many still do), when you told them that everything around you is an illusion and nothing is actually solid. They said, "that's impossible!!!" but now since some branches of theoretical physics are saying it, it's okay right?????

But some branches of QM are not say that. The link is no stronger than the one between all the people who jumped off cliff flapping their arms and the Write brothers.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

But some branches of QM are not say that. The link is no stronger than the one between all the people who jumped off cliff flapping their arms and the Write brothers

I didn't say ALL branches say that life and Time is an illusion, but at least it's disccussed...Oh well, they are just a bunch of woo-woos afterall, right???...... LOL

[Zep]

I smell a sock...

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Zep
I smell a sock...

I smell a closed mind, and damn it stinks!!! :D

[Zep]

OK, SAC. One step at a time.

Tell me, do you believe there are little green Martians who are hiding behind the cameras of our Martian explorer thingies up there and just sit around giggling at our feeble attempts at exploration? If so, why so? If not, why not?

PS. This is a serious question.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

OK, SAC. One step at a time.
Tell me, do you believe there are little green Martians who are hiding behind the cameras of our Martian explorer thingies up there and just sit around giggling at our feeble attempts at exploration? If so, why so? If not, why not?
PS. This is a serious question.


I can't comment on anything I've never experienced. I've had dreams which have come true the next day(see my post on 911). I've had allot of other psychic experiences from others and allot of unexplainable things which have happened to me, but I don't dare talk about them here, because I would be accused of providing anecdotal evidence. So to answer your question, I keep an open mind when it comes to the study of UFO's, because I know that there are allot of bright people involved in the study, just like there are allot of bright skeptics, but personally, but when it comes to the paranormal, I only believe in what I've experienced myself or what I've experienced with others......Yes, it's anecdotal and no, I don't expect anyone here to believe, and that's fine............... I don't find the need or obsession to try and convert others.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
I can't comment on anything I've never experienced. I've had dreams which have come true the next day(see my post on 911). I've had allot of other psychic experiences from others and allot of unexplainable things which have happened to me, but I don't dare talk about them here, because I would be accused of providing anecdotal evidence. So to answer your question, I keep an open mind when it comes to the study of UFO's, because I know that there are allot of bright people involved in the study, just like there are allot of bright skeptics, but personally, but when it comes to the paranormal, I only believe in what I've experienced myself or what I've experienced with others......Yes, it's anecdotal and no, I don't expect anyone here to believe, and that's fine............... I don't find the need or obsession to try and convert others. You are avoiding the question. Do you believe what I have described is possible? Explain your answer.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

You are avoiding the question. Do you believe what I have described is possible? Explain your answer.

Ummm, Hello????? Did you NOT read my reply??... Sure I believe it's possible, lots of things in life are possible......I can get hit by a truck tomorrow, that's possible...But regarding UFOs, Who am I to say it's NOT possible when it's something I've never even researched???? So while I might believe something is possible, that's as far as I take it with UFO's, because I have no interest...

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
Ummm, Hello????? Did you NOT read my reply??... Sure I believe it's possible, lots of things in life are possible......I can get hit by a truck tomorrow, that's possible...But regarding UFOs, Who am I to say it's NOT possible when it's something I've never even researched???? So while I might believe something is possible, that's as far as I take it with UFO's, because I have no interest... I read your reply, and I repeat: You are avoiding the question. It wasn't about your beliefs in UFOs, it was about belief in little green Martians hiding behind the cameras on Mars and giggling. Do you think that is feasible? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Sheesh... Give it a go, why don't you.

[renata]

Some info on the show Psychic Detectives

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/2/prweb58631.htm

"Psychic Detectives" is produced by Superfine Films for Court TV. Lisa Jackson is the Director and Producer and Stephen Miller is the Producer for Superfine Films. Robyn Hutt is Senior Executive Producer for Court TV. Ed Hersh is the Senior Vice President, Documentaries & Specials for Court TV.

Lisa Jackson also produced HBO Dr Schwartz's study. It is a small paranormal world.

http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
A major US television network decided to produce a documentary on after-death communication (ADC) and the plausibility of survival of consciousness after physical death. When the producer / director (Lisa Jackson) approached Schwartz and Russek about possibly participating in the documentary, we proposed that if they were seriously interested in the science of mediumship, they should fund a first-ever laboratory experiment with well known mediums to examine possible inter-medium replicability of information obtained during readings under controlled circumstances.


And here is the motivation for at least one feature they did- same story

The case of missing Penn State student Cindy Song will return to a national media spotlight this month, appearing in a Court TV documentary about psychics and detective work, the show's producer said.
....

Miller and colleague Lisa Jackson followed nationally-known psychic, Carla Baron, as she visited central Pennsylvania last year, touring the area and working closely with Ferguson Township police Detective Brian Sprinkle.
....

Song, a Penn State student from South Korea, was last seen Nov. 1, 2001. The FBI and state and municipal police forces have tried for months to crack the case.

"Unsolved Mysteries," another national TV program, featured the disappearance on Aug. 21.

"We're always thankful for media exposure," said Edward J. Connor, Ferguson Township's police chief. "We're hoping that, somewhere along the line, it will strike a chord with someone's conscience.
"We won't give up," he said.
Connor, who was interviewed in a session recorded for the Court TV documentary, definitely credits Baron with providing "some new direction" in the Song investigation.



So in this case, the psychic apparently did not solve it, the girl is missing. At most it got "some new direction" from him. But I can understand why the detectives worked with her- they wanted the national exposure, that is exactly what the police chief said! He hoped not for a solution from a psychic, but for people who know something to call in.

And here is an interesting lengthy article about police and psychics. It talks about history of psychics in law enforcement. It examines, in some detail work that psychics made on cases. I think it is rather balanced: it discusses some famous cases, mentions some unexplained successes but also looks with some skepticism on some claims.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/index.html?sect=21

I am quoting some things that raised my eyebrows- regarding credit psychics take for their work.



....
Dennett checked with police officers with whom Allison worked and learned that some had experienced her making many wrong guesses and wasting their resources for as long as a week. Then she would request a letter of commendation for her files. One officer apparently told Dennett that when she was denied this letter in a specific case of a missing girl, she offered to pay them for it. While Allison's actual request of this commendation appears not to have been put into writing, Dennett affirms the officer's account in a letter. Allison apparently then claimed credit for solving the crime, so the cop went public with his part of the tale.
.....

Vernon J. Geberth, author of Practical Homicide Investigation, devotes five pages to how police officers can (and do) work with psychics, but Barry Fisher, in Techniques of Crime Investigation, equally as renowned to law enforcement, ignores the entire issue.
....


....Geberth notes that there is little hard research data available about how much psychics have aided in solving crimes (he offers none), and at no time does he provide a convincing case that illustrates in detail how a psychic actually did so.

...
What appears to be most annoying to police officers is that when crimes happen—especially high-profile crimes—psychics call in offering information—sometimes hundreds of them. Regardless of whether the information is even acknowledged, the psychic claims that the police consulted him or her on that case. This appears to have been the MO of more than a few famous psychics, whose cases numbered into the hundreds and thousands. How many they actually worked on, let alone were invited into, is anyone's guess.

Often on any given case, no two psychics agree, so which one is to be believed? Even if one is singled out, the information that psychics give is typically too vague and impressionistic to narrow down the field of search, and it looks impressive only in retrospect.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Zep
I read your reply, and I repeat: You are avoiding the question. It wasn't about your beliefs in UFOs, it was about belief in little green Martians hiding behind the cameras on Mars and giggling. Do you think that is feasible? If so, why so? If not, why not?
Sheesh... Give it a go, why don't you.


Well, you've been avoiding alot of the points that I made, so I guess that makes two of us. As far as do I believe there are little green men with camcorders giggling as they take pictures of earth, of course not....But how many people on earth have actually experienced that EXACT thing??? Believing in UFO's does not mean you have to believe in that.... So there, I answered you....

And furthermore, I always find it humorous, how some of you hardcore skeptics have to STRETCH everything to try and prove a point. For example, if I believe in psychic phenomena based upon my own experiences and the fact that I've seen it in action, somebody will reply back, "well, do you believe in pink elephants with tennis shoes playing trumpets which fly above our earth every day?"..... It's as if they have to exaggerate their examples, instead of sticking to what's being talked about......I guess they feel that if they exaggerate the examples, it will make them feel more superior......

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
Well, you've been avoiding alot of the points that I made, so I guess that makes two of us. As far as do I believe there are little green men with camcorders giggling as they take pictures of earth, of course not....But how many people on earth have actually experienced that EXACT thing??? Believing in UFO's does not mean you have to believe in that.... So there, I answered you....

And furthermore, I always find it humorous, how some of you hardcore skeptics have to STRETCH everything to try and prove a point. For example, if I believe in psychic phenomena based upon my own experiences and the fact that I've seen it in action, somebody will reply back, "well, do you believe in pink elephants with tennis shoes playing trumpets which fly above our earth every day?"..... It's as if they have to exaggerate their examples, instead of sticking to what's being talked about......I guess they feel that if they exaggerate the examples, it will make them feel more superior...... OK, we have made one move forward: You do not believe in the little green Martians scenario. However you have simply stated that you do not, but not WHY. Although the tone of your response suggests that you think it is exaggeration on my part and therefore something clearly ridiculous. So would it be fair to say that you think the little green Martians scenario is unacceptable because it IS ridiculous for you? If so, why so?

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

So would it be fair to say that you think the little green Martians scenario is unacceptable because it IS ridiculous for you? If so, why so

Why do I think it's ridiculous? for obvious reasons.

#1, because it's not a common thread which runs through the countless books on metaphysics, like psychic phenomena, mediumship and remote viewing does....

#2, because, it hasn't been studied by such open-minded researchers with P H.ds such as Radin and others to even make it remotely credible.......

#3, because their isn't even any anecdotal evidence regarding it, and if there is, I don't know about it.....


Bottom line, ALL 3 of what I mentioned above must be true for me to even consider it....and it must exist STRONGLY in all 3 of the above......

I still think your question is absurd....It's a known fact that you have to draw the line somewhere... For example, think of the saying "if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything." Well, we know that doesn't mean that you can jump off a building and survive no matter how much you put your mind to it....

just an analogy.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
Why do I think it's ridiculous? for obvious reasons.

#1, because it's not a common thread which runs through the countless books on metaphysics, like psychic phenomena, mediumship and remote viewing does....

#2, because, it hasn't been studied by such open-minded researchers with P H.ds such as Radin and others to even make it remotely credible.......

#3, because their isn't even any anecdotal evidence regarding it, and if there is, I don't know about it.....


Bottom line, ALL 3 of what I mentioned above must be true for me to even consider it....and it must exist STRONGLY in all 3 of the above......

I still think your question is absurd....It's a known fact that you have to draw the line somewhere... For example, think of the saying "if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything." Well, we know that doesn't mean that you can jump off a building and survive no matter how much you put your mind to it....

just an analogy. You are STILL not sticking to the point - I didn't mention ANY of the subjects you listed, nor did I imply them in my questions, nor are they answers to the questions. You seem SO intent on answering questions that I haven't asked. By golly we are having to go back to baby-steps here, aren't we!

However...I managed to glean the following tidbit of info from you:I still think your question is absurd....It's a known fact that you have to draw the line somewhere...Does this mean there is a level of absurdity beyond which you would dismiss any such claims a priori? Or are you only interested in claims, absurd or not, that pertain to your chosen subjects?

Remember...read the question, answer the question. OK?

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Dude, you need to SERIOUSLY learn how to read!!! I answered your question below. You asked why I thought it was ridiculous and explain why I thought so, I still did, and you tell me then that I still haven't answered your question.....Read below and you too shall find!!! In case you don't understand it the first, I'll repeat myself a few more time. Read it until you get it....


Why do I think it's ridiculous? for obvious reasons.

#1, because it's not a common thread which runs through the countless books on metaphysics, like psychic phenomena, mediumship and remote viewing does....

#2, because, it hasn't been studied by such open-minded researchers with P H.ds such as Radin and others to even make it remotely credible.......

#3, because their isn't even any anecdotal evidence regarding it, and if there is, I don't know about it.....


Bottom line, ALL 3 of what I mentioned above must be true for me to even consider it....and it must exist STRONGLY in all 3 of the above......

Edited to remove spam-like repetition of the last five paragraphs.

[Zep]

Why do I think it's ridiculous? for obvious reasons.

#1, because it's not a common thread which runs through the countless books on metaphysics, like psychic phenomena, mediumship and remote viewing does....

#2, because, it hasn't been studied by such open-minded researchers with P H.ds such as Radin and others to even make it remotely credible.......

#3, because their isn't even any anecdotal evidence regarding it, and if there is, I don't know about it.....
Well, that was a waste of time and effort on your part, wasn't it! I ask a simple question about little green Martians and I get references to metaphysics, psychic phenomena, clairvoyence, Dean Radin, and anectdotal evidence! Wow! Somebody has a serious head disconnect somewhere.

Anyway, by induction I am going to allow that your answers are: "If it isn't something I'm interested in, from a set of very select subjects, then I don't care how ridiculous it is." And also I might conclude that you believe: "If it IS one of those select subjects that I'm interested in or has even been just commented on by my favourite authors, I will accept anything at all, no matter how ridiculous the claim."

Would you say that is a fair evaluation of your position?

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Would you say that is a fair evaluation of your position? [/B]

For some reason I expected you to answer that way...I mean, afterall, you are a hardcore skeptic(your kind are few, far and between, but you do exist)....But to be honest with you, it's not worth my time when you ask a question that is completely unrelated to what this topic was originally about.....You tell me to stick to the question, when you can't even stick to the topic which this thread is about.....I did answer you, I just went into more detail that you weren't prepared for as to why I thought what I did....

I can tell you right now, there is no way I can answer your question, when all you are going to do is twist it around, bend it upside down, manipulate it, shake it out and twirl it around a bit to try and make you coming out smelling like roses and accuse me of being wrong each and every time I tried to answer you....What's the point?...

I should have learned by now, the moral of this story is, the skeptic is always right......

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
For some reason I expected you to answer that way...I mean, afterall, you are a hardcore skeptic(your kind are few, far and between, but you do exist)....But to be honest with you, it's not worth my time when you ask a question that is completely unrelated to what this topic was originally about.....You tell me to stick to the question, when you can't even stick to the topic which this thread is about.....I did answer you, I just went into more detail that you weren't prepared for as to why I thought what I did....

I can tell you right now, there is no way I can answer your question, when all you are going to do is twist it around, bend it upside down, manipulate it, shake it out and twirl it around a bit to try and make you coming out smelling like roses and accuse me of being wrong each and every time I tried to answer you....What's the point?...

I should have learned by now, the moral of this story is, the skeptic is always right...... I know you all too well to respond to your blustering personal invective.

The point of all the preceding is to establish what YOU think are YOUR limits of absurd claims of any sort, and why and how you have set those limits. This relates directly to how the public is fed and perceives TV shows such as the one in the subject line of this thread.

So please enlighten us: What are YOUR limits on what you think is absurd and what is not? And why?

If someone else has set those limits for you, if you let a few books and latter-day crack-pots do your thinking for you, just say so. If you have any thoughts of your own, let's hear them. Note that it is NOT me doing the talking, it is YOU. So go right ahead and say whatever you want - dazzle us all with your brilliance. dude

[Aussie Thinker]

Zep,

I think the point SAC is making is that he gives credence based on volume.

If a phoney story is repeated often enough it gains credibility in his mind.

In our minds numbers of times mean NOTHING.. actual physical evidence means EVERYTHING..

SACS needs to understand we are completely open minded.. We only ever ask for ONE piece of proof.

When NO paranormal event as EVER been shown to have existed normal people tend towards discounting claims of paranormal happenings. The fact that we STILL listen to them AT ALL shows how open minded we are.

Isn’t that normal SAC ?

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

If someone else has set those limits for you, if you let a few books and latter-day crack-pots do your thinking for you

Oh that's right, all of those people involved with quantum theoretical physics are just a bunch of crack pots and woo-woos, I forgot... How dare they claim that life is an illusion, how dare they claim that perhaps there is no such thing as time. how dare they claim that it's possible that items which appear solid to us, may not be solid after all... The scientific method never tought me this stuff, therefore it must be false...If I can't see it, I don't believe it.......what a bunch of new age fools these theoretical physics idiots are.... What a bunch of woo-woos.............

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]SACS needs to understand we are completely open minded


Come on now, this suppose to be a SERIOUS forum, no time to crack jokes!! LOL....but your comment does have me laughing uncontrollably.

[Aussie Thinker]

SACs,

I notice you didn’t address the point I made at all…

If that is how your open mind works it seems pretty shut from here..

If NO evidence EVER show paranormal activity it is fair to assume NONE exists ?

YET even give this logical way to proceed we STILL listen to paranormal stories all the time…

THAT IS EXTREMELY OPEN MINDED..

We should just ignore them and tell their purveyors to go away and stop annoying us !

But being a typically “open minded” paranormal purveyor you WON”T address this issue !

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
Oh that's right, all of those people involved with quantum theoretical physics are just a bunch of crack pots and woo-woos, I forgot... How dare they claim that life is an illusion, how dare they claim that perhaps there is no such thing as time. how dare they claim that it's possible that items which appear solid to us, may not be solid after all... The scientific method never tought me this stuff, therefore it must be false...If I can't see it, I don't believe it.......what a bunch of new age fools these theoretical physics idiots are.... What a bunch of woo-woos............. In tonight's round of buzzword bingo, SAC_KINGS_FAN has opened the scoring with one straight "quantum physics" reference even though he can't explain it himself! Do we have any advances? Anyone else want to put up another buzzword they can't adequately explain?

SAC, you have been given an open door to give us the benefit of your wisdom, and you have tripped straight over the mat. Pick yourself up and have another go. We don't care what you think of us - you have made that all too boringly clear (and you rate 2/10 as an insulter anyway). Instead, tell us what you think about reality and why you think it is so.

Aussie Thinker, you are quite right, but SAC won't admit here that "many anecdotes equals evidence" is all he has to work with as a basis for his beliefs. We could go into the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from billions of people across the world from the dawn of time to now that the sun revolves around the earth therefore being proof that it surely does, but SAC will avoid that subject entirely - it's way too disturbing for his belief equilibrium! :)

[Aussie Thinker]

Zep,

I never quite get it I s’pose…

NONE, NEVER, ZERO.. they all seem such damning words when referring to paranormal evidence…

Why is it so obvious to us.. yet not to others ?

Yeah SACS will blather on.. “but LOTS of people have seen these things”.. “LOTS of people say this and that happened” .. “LOTS of people say they talk to dead guys…”

Is that EVIDENCE.. clearly its enough for SACS.. as he seems “close minded” to human error, lies and misunderstanding.. if enough people say it… it MUST have something to it !

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
SACs,
YET even give this logical way to proceed we STILL listen to paranormal stories all the time


No sorry I totally disagree. So far all I've seen on here is In one of yours ears and out the other......If you were open minded, you wouldn't shut out any idea which was presented to you. If you were open minded, you would state, "sure, there is a possibility that it exists, we just haven't seen it yet. ". That's what you call open-mindedness.... I have NEVER heard that statement made on here...
nighty night....

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


No sorry I totally disagree. So far all I've seen on here is In one of yours ears and out the other......If you were open minded, you wouldn't shut out any idea which was presented to you. If you were open minded, you would state, "sure, there is a possibility that it exists, we just haven't seen it yet. ". That's what you call open-mindedness.... I have NEVER heard that statement made on here...
nighty night.... Shall I, everyone? OK...
<h1>SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!</h1>

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]In tonight's round of buzzword bingo, SAC_KINGS_FAN has opened the scoring with one straight "quantum physics" reference even though he can't explain it himself! Do we have any advances? Anyone else want to put up another buzzword they can't adequately explain?

Ya know a friend of mine at work told me about this board awhile back ago. He said, "You got to check it out. It's like the National Enquirer or the Rush Limbauch of skeptics. It's like a cult over there".... He then told me, "Go try and make a post about something outside of the physical being possible, and you'll get slammed so hard, you won't know what hit you.".....I didn't believe him at first. I didn't think skeptics existed who could be THAT bad, but now I do........ I'll have a nice full report for him in the morning.... To be honest with you, I almost find it comical and quite sad at the same time. I mean it's such a small minority who think the way you people think, and there is a good reason for that. I've dealt with skeptics before, but never skeptics like this...... You are unique, I'll give you that....

nighty night, hopefully I'll have some woo-woo dreams
:D

[geni]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


I didn't say ALL branches say that life and Time is an illusion, but at least it's disccussed...Oh well, they are just a bunch of woo-woos afterall, right???...... LOL

I distroyed this poin in my post. You are just making yourself look silly by ignoring this.

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]In tonight's round of buzzword bingo, SAC_KINGS_FAN has opened the scoring with one straight "quantum physics" reference even though he can't explain it himself! Do we have any advances? Anyone else want to put up another buzzword they can't adequately explain?

Typical answer for a hard-nosed skeptic.

Open mindness shows describes some of the commonalities between some theoretical physics ideas and metaphysics

skeptic answers: You know nothing about quantum physics. It has nothing to do with the paranormal...

Easy way out, especially considering I listed all of the similarities earlier, but of course the Quantum people want to take credit for them first, when metaphysicians have known about them for thousands of years...............

[SAC_KINGS_FAN]

Originally posted by geni


I distroyed this poin in my post. You are just making yourself look silly by ignoring this.

No. In YOUR mind, you destroyed the point, or at least you thought you did. Your answer was completely predictable.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Typical answer for a hard-nosed skeptic.

Open mindness shows describes some of the commonalities between some theoretical physics ideas and metaphysics

skeptic answers: You know nothing about quantum physics. It has nothing to do with the paranormal...

Easy way out, especially considering I listed all of the similarities earlier, but of course the Quantum people want to take credit for them first, when metaphysicians have known about them for thousands of years...............

I would disagree with this. As far as I know we are talking about two very different beasts.

"Quantum" physics is a mathematical theory and whilst it is good that a lot of scientists and others have tried to explain it in "words" that does not mean the "words" are the theory. If you can point out a “metaphysics” that uses mathematics then we can look for a correspondence, otherwise we are not making a direct comparison.

[Aussie Thinker]

Sacs,

I find it amusing that you come on here looking for hard nosed skeptics and .. surprise, surprise you get EXACTLY what you look for.

What did you expect when you come in with some lame half baked half truth about paranormal crime solvers. A story that is debunked within about 7 posts.

Then you blather on about open mindedness as though you wear some great badge of honour for half wittedly giving these ridiculous paranormal stories credence.

We DID listen to your story and several posters posted excellent responses.. what do you want?

Like ZEP inferred.. your expecting us to be open minded to your nutbaggery is EXACTLY like us expecting YOU to be open minded to the existence of the pink unicorn…

Our expectation of evidence continues to rest slightly above ZERO.. yet you claim we are the close minded ones… What an idiot.

Come back here in a couple of years when you thoroughly examine EVERY paranormal thing you can.. I will accept your apology when NONE of them are found to have an iota of credibility !

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
Ya know a friend of mine at work told me about this board awhile back ago. He said, "You got to check it out. It's like the National Enquirer or the Rush Limbauch of skeptics. It's like a cult over there".... He then told me, "Go try and make a post about something outside of the physical being possible, and you'll get slammed so hard, you won't know what hit you.".....I didn't believe him at first. I didn't think skeptics existed who could be THAT bad, but now I do........ I'll have a nice full report for him in the morning.... To be honest with you, I almost find it comical and quite sad at the same time. I mean it's such a small minority who think the way you people think, and there is a good reason for that. I've dealt with skeptics before, but never skeptics like this...... You are unique, I'll give you that....

nighty night, hopefully I'll have some woo-woo dreams
:D I'm so glad you are now imagining you have a friend who talks to you like that. But are you sure this isn't one of your own alter egos?

OK, I'll be serious for you AND address your point too. You talk about "something outside the physical being possible". Two problems:

First, many of these paranormal claims are that entirely physical effects happen as a result - effects that are experienced in this real world and which are claimed to be scientifically sound. Your "friend" Schultz and the people at PEAR are such proponents of this type of effect. Therefore it makes sense that these realworld effects can be quantitatively measured by realworld scientific methods, but when this is applied (or in Schulz's case, even just suggested) the results are NIL. The evidence is NOT there, and continues to be NOT there.

However, as I pointed out to you in BIG letters above, if there ARE any claims you feel are valid of realworld effects of paranormal phenomena that really would stand up to scientific examination then feel free to show the world the evidence. Here and now, in the JREF challenge, at CERN labs in Switzerland, whatever. Go for it!

Second, some paranormal claims are for effects that are never claimed to be measureable by realworld methods. In that case they are useless as "science" which deals only with realworld issues anyway. Call them "beliefs" or "spirituality" or "a higher power" or whatever by all means, but science they definitely are NOT. While some of us may smile about these here on JREF, no-one will try to dissuade you from holding these beliefs, because they make no testable claims worth looking into here.

So is that rational enough for you?

PS. It appears you don't need to sleep to have woo-woo dreams, W.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN

No. In YOUR mind, you destroyed the point, or at least you thought you did. Your answer was completely predictable. Not only predictable, he also comprehensively destroyed your point for everyone else BUT you.

[magicflute]

I would like to get involved with this thread, but I am afraid of stepping on all the gray matter lying on the floor. If Doctor Lecter were here he would would think he was being offered a bouffet. Now if we only had a few fava beans and some nice chianti!! :p

[Oleron]

Hi Sac, welcome to the forums. I'd like to return to your original point if I may.

The difficulty in viewing these programs with an open mind is that the viewer is at the mercy of the production company. Even the people that consented to take part in the show are subject to the whims of the editor and director. While this can make for great viewing it cannot be used 'in evidence'.

Dr Susan Blackmore writes about the problems associated with appearing on these shows in the latest edition of The Skeptic magazine (the British one, edited by Chris French and Wendy Grossman). She writes about an incident where she was made promises by the production team about the scientific nature of a 'science investigation show'. She consented to give her opinion on the show and was aghast to find her views marginalised, misinterpreted and sidelined in the final cut. The show had an agenda that wasn't immediately apparent at the filming stage. She complained bitterly to the producers to no avail.

The bottom line is that we no longer can trust what we see on TV, if we ever could.

What I have done recently is to note the salient points from these shows and then go off and do some research of my own. I reckon myself to be at least as competent an investigator as the bumblers who make these shows so why shouldn't I be able to find the info they found? The problem I have found is that there is little hard evidence in these cases and finding any references is not easy. The reason these shows depend heavily on the statements of the protagonists is that there is NO other corroborating evidence available.
Witness statements absolutely cannot be relied upon as hard evidence.

You say we should keep an open mind still? Well OK, the next time I see one of these shows I daresay I will go off and do some research. However at what point do we say that 'Wolf' has been cried once too often? For me I hope I never say that, but I can well understand the viewpoint of those who are bored with it all.

[Zep]

Oleron, for the last 30 years I have had first-hand evidence of all branches of the media manipulating facts to suit either a deadline, a budget, a predetermined slant/spin, or any combination of these. Time after time. And I'm hardly alone on this, nor is it particularly hidden from public view anyway. In reality, the ONLY thing the media is interested in is PUBLICITY FOR THEMSELVES because IT PAYS. The only time they do good research is if it ultimately makes "good copy".

Of course, SAC is a "true believer" in anything, or indeed everything, published that meshes with his point of view - he hasn't a questioning cell in his being in those cases. Which is why he looks just so darned silly when he trots this sort of stuff out.

Really, responding to him is just like feeding a troll.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN


Why do I think it's ridiculous? for obvious reasons.

#1, because it's not a common thread which runs through the countless books on metaphysics, like psychic phenomena, mediumship and remote viewing does....

#2, because, it hasn't been studied by such open-minded researchers with P H.ds such as Radin and others to even make it remotely credible.......

#3, because their isn't even any anecdotal evidence regarding it, and if there is, I don't know about it.....

Bottom line, ALL 3 of what I mentioned above must be true for me to even consider it....and it must exist STRONGLY in all 3 of the above......

SAC, I hope I'm not being too hard-nosed when I say this, but you do realize, don't you, that these are all textbook logical fallacies, and are the worst reasons to begin to believe anything, much less being used as benchmarks as you seem to be doing. There is nothing wrong with having something unusual pique your curiosity, but when you wish to look into it further, the last place to go is books on metaphysics, psychic phenomena, etc. (most of which are biased and do not examine the topic objectively), individuals flaunting a credential claiming to have "studied" the subject, or anecdotal testimony. It seems that rather than being on a search for the truth (ie being open-minded), you've already decided what you believe and are just looking to confirm it. Skeptics are in fact open-minded, because we are always open to evidence or proof, but are rarely presented with any.

BTW, and I mean this with all sincerity and in a gesture of helpfullness, have you read either Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark or Michael Shermer's Why Do People Believe Weird Things? If not, please give them a try. Since you invited us to watch this psychic detective program, I would like to invite you to read these books. They are readily available and fun to read. And if after reading them you have any questions about them please ask.

[Zep]

Psi Baba, SAC_KINGS_FAN is not who he pretends to be here.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Zep
Psi Baba, SAC_KINGS_FAN is not who he pretends to be here.
Thanks, ZEP. I thought sock-puppets were prohibited. Admins, Mods, hello? Howzabout a little house cleaning here? This is the last time I waste time helping an alleged newbie. As far as I'm concerned, from here on in, anyone, no matter how new, posting here with woo-woo crap is fair game, both barrels, full on. And these sh!tweasels wonder why we call them woo-woos and creduloids. Pathetic losers. . . hiding behind masks. I'm ready to join the Church of De_Bunk. No time ... no patience for their crap . . . No mercy.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Zep
Psi Baba, SAC_KINGS_FAN is not who he pretends to be here.

Someone we know?

[Zep]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Someone we know? Yes. PM.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Zep
Yes. PM.
Is there now a policy against outing sock puppets publicly?

I'm guessing King of Americas. Similar writing style. User name is almost an anagram, though not quite. The mentality of both are nearly the same.

[JPK]

On Thursday night I did get to see the "Psychic Detective Show" on Court TV. I would love to hear from the police officers and the department heads themselves as to the accuracy of the show. I'm sure the officers are quite embarrest by the way they are portraid. They showed this one detective on his first murder case and he was stumped. It took a psychic to show him the way. It was a double homicide of an older couple who was stabbed repeatedly and then the house was ransacked, but no vaulables were taken. The psychic told the police that they were looking for a male. That she felt that there was "anger" involved, and that the motive might have been money. This couple had a son with a major gambling problem. Another detective was "amazed" that a psychic described an area in a park so well. It had a picnic table and bbqs and garbage cans, and oh yeah, and a tree with some kind of carving on it. Truely an amazing example of psychic viewing. I find it hard to believe that these detectives are actually this foolish. Wouldn't it be nice to hear the side of the police after they saw the show?

JPK

[Clancie]

From the CourtTV website.

Psychic Detectives tells the true stories of real cases where psychics help detectives solve some of law enforcement’s most baffling cases.
CourtTv clearly says that psychics do help detectives solve cases.

So...either skeptics who believe that "psychics have never helped solve a single case" need to factually debunk all of the Court TV examples of real life people and cases (for example, you'd think Joe Nickells would be interested)...OR....skeptics should abandon making statements like the above altogether. :p

(And, just to be helpful, my suggested revision for those who find it too difficult to accept the idea that psychics -do- help police solve crimes would be something like this, "Although I personally don't believe in psychic abilities, I do have to accept that many police detectives themselves feel that working with psychics has helped them to solve cases. I don't understand how it can be true, but I have to accept that many detectives really do feel that way."

Not perfect, but at least it would convey some understanding of the reality.)

[Pyrrho]

I think that if a "psychic detective" or "psychic" submitted to a controlled test of their alleged capabilities, they'd fail. As it is, I think they perform in an information-rich, loosely-controlled environment and can make educated guesses. There's also the possibility of casting the artistic eye upon existing clues, and arriving at a different conclusion than a non-artist might.

edited to add: helping should not be considered synonymous with solving. Many people help in investigations; doesn't mean their help is at all helpful, if you get my drift.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Clancie

CourtTv clearly says that psychics do help detectives solve cases.



Well, that's good enough for me. As long as CourtTv clearly says that , it must be true. :)

JPK

[JPK]

Originally posted by Clancie

CourtTv clearly says that psychics do help detectives solve cases.



Well, that's good enough for me. As long as CourtTv clearly says that , it must be true. :)

JPK

[JPK]

Sorry about the double post...

JPK

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I think that if a "psychic detective" or "psychic" submitted to a controlled test of their alleged capabilities, they'd fail. As it is, I think they perform in an information-rich, loosely-controlled environment and can make educated guesses. There's also the possibility of casting the artistic eye upon existing clues, and arriving at a different conclusion than a non-artist might.

edited to add: helping should not be considered synonymous with solving. Many people help in investigations; doesn't mean their help is at all helpful, if you get my drift.

I'm sure that police detectives are no more immune from the specious arguments of believers in psychic powers than are the general population.

Some people claim that mediums 'helped' them in their grief.
Some detectives claim that psychics 'helped' them solve a crime.

Why might some detectives make this claim?


Some detectives might genuinely believe in psychic powers.
Psychics (like news stand informers) have networks. Detectives like all the information they can get.
Detectives use psychics to get publicity for the case. In this way, the psychic 'helped'.
Detectives may think that some psychics are really quite good investigators and keen observers, and that they might therefore (by purely mundane means) spot something the detectives have missed.
Some detectives may just like to see their faces on TV, no matter the programme. It's something to show the grandchildren.
Detectives may use 'we have definite information from a psychic' ploy when interrogating a credulous perpetrator in order to elicit a confession. Same principle as a lie detector, or cohort confession. Thus, the psychic 'helped'.

[magicflute]

True enough Thor. Either they believe in it, or at least the detectives might think that if the criminal or accomplices believe that psychics can see what they did, it might "help" with the case. Not a good solution, but I guess sometimes they are left grasping at straws on some cases.
But the routine "I see a small house, there is water nearby, I see a red sign, some tall trees. and the number 5 or 7, can probably account for 90% of the hits you might get. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
CourtTv clearly says that psychics do help detectives solve cases.

And the FBI says they don't.

Originally posted by Clancie
So...either skeptics who believe that "psychics have never helped solve a single case" need to factually debunk all of the Court TV examples of real life people and cases (for example, you'd think Joe Nickells would be interested)...OR....skeptics should abandon making statements like the above altogether. :p

A technique also used by Victor Zammit: It is up to the skeptics to disprove claims of paranormal phenomena.

Originally posted by Clancie
(And, just to be helpful, my suggested revision for those who find it too difficult to accept the idea that psychics -do- help police solve crimes would be something like this, "Although I personally don't believe in psychic abilities, I do have to accept that many police detectives themselves feel that working with psychics has helped them to solve cases. I don't understand how it can be true, but I have to accept that many detectives really do feel that way."

You do not decide what people should think, say or do.

Originally posted by Clancie
Not perfect, but at least it would convey some understanding of the reality.)

All we need is one case, Clancie. Just one. Should be easy, no?

......no?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Is there now a policy against outing sock puppets publicly?

I'm guessing King of Americas. Similar writing style. User name is almost an anagram, though not quite. The mentality of both are nearly the same. OK, if you wish, Clancie. Although I have no proof specifically of this, there are more than a significant number of similarities in content, subjects, style, method, wording and pecularities for me to be confident that SAC_KINGS_FAN is a Winston Wu sock. I might also note that as soon as I hinted that I knew (look at my posts in this thread), he bugged out and has never returned - typical Wu behaviour again.

But I can easily be wrong!

[CFLarsen]

Bumped.

This has been nominated for "Forum Spotlight". I agree: It is important to emphasize that no psychic has ever solved a case.

[RamblingOnwards]

I demand a refund for my physics courses.

They made me spend three solid weeks, staying up until all hours of the morning and digging out old maths textbooks, to solve schrodinger's wave equation for a hydrogen atom, but they never even spared five minutes to discuss how QM justified paranormal theories.

I've been gypped!

[Zep]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I demand a refund for my physics courses.

They made me spend three solid weeks, staying up until all hours of the morning and digging out old maths textbooks, to solve schrodinger's wave equation for a hydrogen atom, but they never even spared five minutes to discuss how QM justified paranormal theories.

I've been gypped! BASTARDS!

[EGarrett]

Just to clarify something...

It's no surprise that believers take up quantum mechanics as their token scientific reference for their beliefs.

Much like god...paranormal phenomena are often used to fill the "gaps" of science.

God used to be believed to be in the clouds where he couldn't be seen. Man built airplanes and saw above the clouds...so God was moved to having created the earth 5000 years ago. Man studied history and found bones millions of years old. God moved back again etc...

As of this point in our scientific development...quantum mechanics is the new frontier. Thus woo's use this to justify their paranormal belief of the moment...until QM is better explained to the masses...then it will be something else.

Their argument is that science doesn't know everything...and some theories are yet unexplained...but here's the thing. Those new theories exist to explain OBSERVABLE phenomena that we don't yet understand. Like the tendency of sub-atomic particles to jump from one place to another without traversing the space in between.

If you wanted to...you could go to a laboratory and watch yourself. The woo phenomena are explanations for events that don't actually occur. Thus they have nothing to do with quantum mechanics or anything else linked to actual, reproducible events.

[patnray]

Originally posted by SAC_KINGS_FAN
I don't think the Court TV network would be too impressed with you if you called them woo-woos just because they have a weekly show which profiles psychics who use detectives.

"Psychics who use detectives" sums it up pretty well, I think...