You must have missed the post right above that describing ANOTHER TV show (on the Travel Network) that purported to be factual that was not factual.
But hey, believe whatever you want on TV. It's your brain.
Why police detectives and the FBI consult psychics
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
You must have missed the post right above that describing ANOTHER TV show (on the Travel Network) that purported to be factual that was not factual.
But hey, believe whatever you want on TV. It's your brain.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Detailed objective analysis of Joe Nickel's book right here:
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/10/psychic_detecti.html
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do the Police Really Use Psychics?
"Nickell published several articles in Psychic Sleuths to the effect that while most police officers or departments take psychic information under consideration, they do not actively seek out such help at least not under official channels.� Under anonymity, several people have indicated to this author (Ramsland) that psychics have been brought into cases despite prohibitions against it.
Practical Homicide Investigation
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 admits that it's controversial to work with psychics and that police officers are naturally skeptical of their claims, but he presents the results of his research on several psychics, including Noreen Renier (whom Gary Posner approaches with a skeptical eye in Nickell's Psychic Sleuths).� He claims that if the technique has proven successful at all, it should be considered again.� Calling a psychic a person who is "extra sensitive to nonphysical forces of life energy" (without explaining what that is), Geberth accepts Renier's rendition that this means "getting rid of logic and rationale."� Without any basis in science, Geberth says that psychics have learned to "control a portion of the brain which is not generally used."
Then he proceeds to offer guidelines to agencies that are considering calling on a psychic:
•the psychic's performance will be tested by results
•the psychic will have a distinct method of operation
•the psychic should be considered as an aid in developing clues
•the police should provide all follow-up to information offered
•since there are no scientific guidelines, the police must determine whether the psychic's claims are legitimate or worth pursuing
•officers who cannot accept a psychic's work should not get involved, as their attitudes can block the psychic's effectiveness
•the psychic should offer information not available to the public in publicized reports, as a way to prove his or her special insight
•all conversations with the psychic should be taped."---http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html
practical.jpg)
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them."— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them."— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Differences between true skeptics and pseudoskeptics:
"True skeptics can be defined as being "critical questioners." Typically a true skeptic suspends her or his beliefs - i.e. does not believe either "yes" or 'no" - and essentially says "I don't know. Could be yes, could be no, show me the data."
Implicit in this definition is the personal orientation of being open to receiving new information which could lead one to potentially change one's mind - for example, from being unsure to believing yes or no, or even from believing yes or no about something to becoming unsure about one's beliefs.
True skeptics not only know that they don't know something for sure, but they are genuinely open to changing their minds and growing in light of new evidence. In a deep sense they are humble and open-minded.
Pseudo-skeptics often are typically disbelievers - i.e. they are firmly entrenched in believing "no" about certain things. Although they may "claim" that they are open to new information, they typically react with strongly unfriendly if not hostile criticisms when their beliefs and assumptions are challenged by new ideas and evidence.
Pseudo-skeptics typically make extreme statements. They will sometimes categorically state that something is impossible, or they will make sweeping false statements such as "no evidence exists" or the experiments are "all flawed" or even the scientists in question are engaged in "pseudo-science."
Probably the most abusive of pseudo-skeptics tactics is to denigrate and dismiss carefully documented (and replicated observations in real life as being "anecdotes" and being "worthless" as potential scientific evidence. Even if the evidence was collected carefully using established standards in mainstream science, the findings are typically ignored or rejected as having any scientific value. The key phrase here is "any."----http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/TRUE-SKEPTICISM.html
"True skeptics can be defined as being "critical questioners." Typically a true skeptic suspends her or his beliefs - i.e. does not believe either "yes" or 'no" - and essentially says "I don't know. Could be yes, could be no, show me the data."
Implicit in this definition is the personal orientation of being open to receiving new information which could lead one to potentially change one's mind - for example, from being unsure to believing yes or no, or even from believing yes or no about something to becoming unsure about one's beliefs.
True skeptics not only know that they don't know something for sure, but they are genuinely open to changing their minds and growing in light of new evidence. In a deep sense they are humble and open-minded.
Pseudo-skeptics often are typically disbelievers - i.e. they are firmly entrenched in believing "no" about certain things. Although they may "claim" that they are open to new information, they typically react with strongly unfriendly if not hostile criticisms when their beliefs and assumptions are challenged by new ideas and evidence.
Pseudo-skeptics typically make extreme statements. They will sometimes categorically state that something is impossible, or they will make sweeping false statements such as "no evidence exists" or the experiments are "all flawed" or even the scientists in question are engaged in "pseudo-science."
Probably the most abusive of pseudo-skeptics tactics is to denigrate and dismiss carefully documented (and replicated observations in real life as being "anecdotes" and being "worthless" as potential scientific evidence. Even if the evidence was collected carefully using established standards in mainstream science, the findings are typically ignored or rejected as having any scientific value. The key phrase here is "any."----http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/TRUE-SKEPTICISM.html
And that right there sums it up. Believe first, ask questions...never.
Whereas a pseudoskeptic just watches TV and believes whatever he sees - because he trusts sources that meet his preconceptions 100%, and rejects anything that would cause him to question his worldview.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
True skeptics: People who take the evidence as presented instead of concocting elaborate conspiracy theories of widespread media fakery and deception. Pseudoskepticism is thus a form denialism along the lines of climate change denialism, 911 denialism, Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and evolution denialism. It always falls back on conspiracy theories of some dark cabal of deceivers who are fabricating events and facts in order to delude the general public. This ridiculous scenario allows them to continue to reject any evidence presented against their disbelief. Hence the standard ridiculous claim "If it's presented as true on TV, its really just made up."
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do YOU have some evidence that the stories are fictional? That there is a massive conspiracy of police and detectives and TV producers and family members and psychics all just making up events that never really happened? No? That's what I thought..
Nice try!
What a load of BULL!!! Just like the know-nothing MR to come up with nonsense like this.
It still seems odd to me... that cops who secretly brang psychics into cases because ther performance has been proven... not 1 of 'em can convince ther bosses to go public wit the evidence which proves that psychics are a big help in solvin crime.!!!
Do you thank thers a goverment conspiracy aganst lettin the public know the truth about psychic abilities.???
double post
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..just the attempt to avoid embarrassment that psychics were consulted or were helpful.
Wow. I almost don't know how to parse that - It's remarkable. Seriously, you and I need to start playing poker against each other. And would you like to buy my perpetual motion machine?
Good - that's an acknowledgement that you know you were wrong about "reality TV" always having to be real (including the Amish Mafia, which you've dropped from the discussion).
Your logic, not mine. You are the one who said that because it is on TV we must assume it is true because they can't put anything on TV that isn't true. Now you have acknowledged that you were were wrong, so you're dropping that claim. We're good on this point.
Your reading comprehension is just too bad for me to even bother continuing to try to explain it to you.
I've checked-out two of the claims and shown them to be weak at best. That's considerably more effort than you have put into this. You've forgotten what this thread is about: You posted it, trying to convince us that psychic detectives are real. You've failed at that. I don't have to convince you that you're wrong, I've convinced myself and everyone else who has participated in the thread. That's your failure: no one believes you and everyone thinks you are behaving remarkably gullible/naive (seriously, I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone so gullible!).
Please start addressing me as Batman.
Why do you thank psychics are such an embarrassment.???
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Because it suggests the police are too incompetent to solve the case on their own.
Just for kicks, I looked into some more. I tried just starting from the first one, but the first two are so vague that I can't even find the crime. But here's a debunking of the third one:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/psychic_sleuthing_the_myth-making_process
Seems that the quoted cop was much less impressed than the show claimed and came to recognize after the hype faded that most of what was provided was uselessly vague.
Case 4, a body is found randomly by a hiker, after a year of failure by a psychic to find it. Psychic claims victory anyway, having gotten a few details right and others wrong (method of murder: wrong). Again, it's the "shotgun" (I prefer "crap-flinging") technique.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/a...ri-bowersock-search-for-mom-loretta-ends.html
The story of Case 6: Body found by a man walking a dog, everyone suspected the mother, nothing for a psychic to do:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20106446,00.html
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You make the claim..You back it up. It's that simple.
You're the one claiming the Kardashians is a faked show, not me. I don't buy your claim that is a fictional show. So what about it suggests Psychic Detectives is faked too? Does Kim Kardashian produce Psychic Detectives?
I said there is no evidence that any of these crime documentaries presented on TV as factual are made up. 48 hours? 20/20? Cops? No evidence whatsoever. And so far you have presented ZERO evidence that the cases presented on Psychic Detectives were fabricated and made up. You even confirmed the reality of the two cases Nancy Weber worked on. They really happened! And the police and polygraph expert testimony confirmed she was crucial in solving the cases. Now you are refusing to crosscheck any of the others. What's the matter? If they were all faked by TV producers it should be quite easy proving that shouldn't it?
IOW, I proved you were wrong and so you don't want to discuss it anymore.
LOL! I posted 81 examples of famous crime cases psychics provided valuable information on in solving. So far nobody has made a dent in this evidence beyond silly claims of lucky guessing and faked TV documentaries and delusional cops. You have provided nothing whatsoever refuting even the two you crosschecked. The only details that hold up are the misspelling to the victim's name Rachel Domas and the calling of it a "cold case". So what? All the other bullshit about the psychic knowing the suspect in advance, of him not being cleared by the polygraph, and of the other case's timeline of 3 days being too short to involve a psychic providing useful information, are just that: bullshit. I'll take your refusal to consider any of the other 79 cases as an admission of defeat at this point.
I prefer just batty...
No, that won't work - people will just confuse me with you.
- Status