Cop consults psychic to hear murder victim talk

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I believe everyone has some psychic ability in them, some just more then others.
There have been many times when I've been thinking something, and then I will hear or see something about it right away out of the blue. I consider that to be more then a coincedence.

I think these famous psychics work the same way, they're just a bit better at it then most. They don't actually know everything, and they certainly make mistakes, but they do get hunches about things that are often close to the truth.

Just a couple of days ago my GF went to see a psychic in Thailand, who told her she has a boyfriend of a different ethnicity. This is true. Could just be a lucky guess, but it seems like a strange thing to guess IMO. If he just says things to scam peoples money, that certainly doesn't seem like a high probobility thing to say.

Its called subjective validation, selective thinking and confirmation bias. Look them up for more info.

And ask yourself this: Why do so-called psychics always seem to tell you things you already know, yet provide no tangible predictions regarding important matters such as these:

-Natural disasters
-Terrorist activities
-the location of Osama bin Laden
-Oil spills
-The explosion of the space shuttle
-Betting on sports teams (if your psychic you should know who's gonna win)
-Being able to definitively help solve a crime
-Knowing what the winning lottery numbers are going to be

I can go on and on and on. The truth is "psychics" do not win the lottery more then any other person, they cannot tell us where Osama bin Laden is hiding, they do not predict disasters before they happen (they only claim they do after the fact, its called retrodicting). If psychics do have some sort of magical brain power then they are certainly using it in the wrong places.

But the thing is all psychics do is this:

*They rely on credulous persons, who subjectively validate vague things that are said
*People who believe in psychics will remember the times the psychic is right and forget the numerous more times more the psychic was wrong.
*People then believe the psychic was bang on

Below is a complete quoted example taken from the following link:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042106edward.html

Let’s examine this item, the “Crossing Over” show of December 19th, 2000. Edward began the session with a warning to the audience that he couldn’t meet their specific expectations, a technique that excused in advance what actually turned out to be a rather bad guessing game. Remember, every member of his audience, self-selected to consist of persons who sincerely want to make a connection with the spirit of a deceased relative or friend, sits and waits for a comment from Edward, an initial, name, suggestion, relationship, or situation that they can in some way relate either to their lives or to the life of the deceased. They search frantically for that connection which Edward is constantly urging them to make. Here are the first 50 seconds of that show:

John Edward: The person that’s coming through back here, they’re telling me to acknowledge I have a male figure who’s coming through and he’s coming through with a younger male. So I have a father figure who’s coming through, coming through with a person that would be below him and it’s like there’s some sort of connection between October, or the 10th of a month having some type of meaning, and there’s a feeling of somebody either working in transit, being involved with busses or trains, there’s something like “transit” feeling that comes up with that, because they’re showing me somebody with a transit connection, so I don’t know exactly where this goes. [He points into the audience.] It’s like I’m in the back, two rows back there. Do you understand this? [He points to a man, 70 years or so in age, who has indicated his interest.]

Just to bring a bit of clarity to this drivel, here it is again, the redundancies and the “stuffing” removed. It’s about a quarter of the original size, and much clearer:

A male father figure with a younger male, a connection between October, or the 10th of a month, and somebody working in transit, involved with busses or trains. [He points into the audience.] Two rows back. Do you understand?

This was delivered rapidly, with no pauses, not providing any opportunity for a denial. The question, “Do you understand this?” is a cold-reading technique; of course these simple words are understood, but affirmation of that fact can – and does – appear to indicate that all the items in this rambling sequence are being accepted by the victim, not just “understood.”

The chap “two rows back” indicated that he wanted to hear more of this:

Man: Yes.
JE: Okay. Your dad passed?
Man: Yes.
JE: Okay. And is there a younger male for him who’s crossed over, like his son or a younger brother?
Man: My son.
JE: Okay. Your dad and your son are coming through together. There’s a “D” connection that comes up around this, that either means that your dad is the “D,” your son is the “D,” there’s someone with a “D” connection around this. You understand that?

Again, the “Do you understand” ploy, even though the victim denies any suggested connection. And the identification of the father with “his son or a younger brother” is wrong. It turns out to be the victim’s son.

Man: Not a “D.”
JE: Okay, keep thinking about it.

We have here another common cold-reading move, in which the victim is told to continue to try to come up with a connection, and the implication is that Edward will return to the guess and further develop it. And he does, though the victim’s wife supplies the connection, as someone frequently does, trying to help the scam artist:

Man: [interrupts when his wife whispers to him]… mother-in-law.
JE: Who’s passed?
Man: [nods yes.]
JE: Okay.
Man: Dottie.
JE: That’s a “D”!

Next, following this clutch-at-a-straw, Edward reminded the man, in a quick re-cap, what he’d told him. He said he’d “brought through” his dad, and a “younger male,” plus the month of October, and the 10th of any month (either of which he then suggested to the man might mark a birthday or anniversary, but neither did), and insisted that at least the number “10" was “marking” something or someone, extending the field now to include “an uncle or uncle-in-law.” Still no connection. He then asked if the family consisted of three children, or perhaps one child “and two others.” Both those guesses were also met with a blank stare and denial.

But remember, in the case of his “bringing through” the father, Edward didn’t give a name or even a correct initial, though he tried! The “younger man” he had introduced, he guessed was either the man’s brother or his uncle, but it wasn’t; it was his son. Note, too, the gimmick of instant correction used by Edward: he guessed the wrong relationship here, but as soon as the man corrected his guess for him, he incorporated it immediately by saying, “Your dad and your son...” All that long attempt to connect the transit industry with the man or with the deceased – 9 seconds out of the 20 seconds of “fishing,” – also failed, and though Edward, before leaving the man and moving on, tried the “transit” reference once more, it was a total washout and was then ignored. The month of October, or the 10th of any month – giving him 42 days out of the year! – didn’t fit any angle, and Edward didn’t find anyone with a “D” name until the man’s wife suggested her own mother, who up until then had not even been mentioned. Edward accepted it eagerly as fitting the “D” guess.
This was a resounding failure as a reading, but the subject of all this guesswork was reduced to sobs and tears by the experience, and the audience was impressed.

Response
(1) There is a male figure? Yes
(2) There is also a younger male figure? Yes
(3) There is significance to the month of October? No
(4) There is significance to the 10th of any month? No
(5) There is a transit industry connection? No
(6) Busses are involved? No
(7) Trains are involved? No
(8) Your father is deceased ? Yes
(9) The younger man is your brother? No
(10) The younger man is your uncle? No
(11) There is a “D” connection? No
(12) Your son is the “D”? No
(13) Your father is the “D”? No
(14) Can you identify with any “D” person in your life? No
(15) The 10th of a month — any month — is a birthday? No
(16) The 10th of a month — any month — is an anniversary? No
(17) There’s a birthday — of anyone — in October? No
(18) There’s an anniversary — of anyone — in October? No
(19) The number 10 “marks something”? Anything? No
(20) An uncle is “connected” with the number 10?No
(21) An uncle-in-law is “connected” with the number 10? No
(22) Your family has three children? No
(23) Your family consists of one child and two others?No

3 right 20 wrong

End Quote

Originally Posted by photon

I never claimed to be an expert on solving crimes. However you say solving a homicide is based on a congolmerate of circumstantial evidence. This is something a psychic cannot provide, because their "powers" are based purely their ability to make people think they know something when they actually don't; their ability to make a whole bunch of guesses and rely on the perception that those guesses were right.

How will that help a murder investigation; what circumstantial evidence does that provide? In what way is a psychic a useful tool for an investigation?

Again, as troutman posted, "there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime."

Maybe they should use the psychics that predicted 9/11. Oh wait, they can't. That's because there were none. Zero.

If I had a loved one murdered, I can honestly say I would be irate if I found the police were wasting their time consulting with a psychic.

You really missed the point... or maybe I wasnt as clear as I could have been.
Fact is, ANY FORM OF EVIDENCE or SUSPICION that can be gleamed from the use of a psychic could be used in an investigation. To me, that single fact alone, makes it a worthwhile resource. Whether it can be used as a tangible form of 'real evidence' is not for us to decide (although, I doubt it would ever be admitted untill further study completed).
As far as your questions go, I will not go into further detail, however, if you are interested there is a decent book entitled , Practical Homicide Investigation by Vernon Geberth.
Do I think psychics are provide police with reliable information? NO
Do i think psychics have the ability to provide information on events and persons using some sort of paranormal ability? PERHAPS
Do I think it is worth using as a resource to aid criminal investigations? PROBABLY
What I think most investigators are aware of is that psychics are to be treated as a resource and for the most part a very unreliable one just as informants. The information offered must be checked and rechecked for its reliability and validity.
What if the murder investigation of your loved one was in its 18 month? And police have told you that although the case would remain active, they are no longer actively investigating it? Would you condone the use of a psychic then? Police investigations can be VERY frustrating... sometimes the use of 'other resources' is all thats left.

[JimmytheT]

You can go ahead and use a psychic yourself, your time and your money is for you to use as long as it does not harm others; however I doubt if the Police were able to solve the crime in 18 months searching for real evidence, I'll hazard to guess some "psychic" investigation into the crime will come up with nothing. I do not want my tax dollars spent on something that has never shown any efficacy under the proper testing conditions.

Name a cold case that has been cracked with the help of a psychic? As far as I know, none exist. Cold cases (such as your 18 month old example) are solved by detectives who use physical and circumstantial evidense they uncover through investigation, not just using their "magical minds". DNA testing, new physical clues, a hitherto unknown witness to the crime help crack cold cases, not psychics.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by troutman

Nonsense.

There are mountains of evidence that it is BUNK, and ZERO evidence that it is legitimate. The TV show Medium is fictional.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...um_050204.html

A common pattern occurs in high-profile missing persons cases (such as Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart, and countless others): dozens or hundreds of "psychics" offer tips (for free or for pay), yet when police follow up on the information, the vast majority of it ––or all of it––turns out to be wrong. One trick psychics use is to give very vague information open to later interpretation (most missing persons are likely to be found "near water," even if it’s a lake, puddle, river, drainage pipe, etc.). They also use information already available through normal means, and make so many different guesses that some will almost certainly be right. Police must follow up on all tips, including those from dubious sources, thus wasting precious hours and police manpower. When bodies are found it is always through accident or police work. Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there is not a single documented case of a missing person being found or recovered due solely to psychic information.

http://www.iigwest.com/carla_report.html

From the 14 cases that Carla Baron promotes as her best work, we can positively conclude that her claims of being a psychic detective are unsubstantiated.

“Psychic Detectives” claim to have compassion, but they cannot produce the consistent results that science-based procedures do, so it’s a hollow claim.

Unfortunately, forensic science cannot be utilized when the perpetrator leaves no clues behind, and that's the distressing situation faced by many of the family members profiled in this report. We do not have the answers for them, and we recognize that this is a central element of their grief – the lack of answers.

The only advice we’re qualified to give to someone in that position is this: it would be very easy for someone to take advantage of your confusion and grief, but don’t let them. This does nothing to honor the memory of your lost loved ones, and if they were here, they would want to protect you from this as well.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html

Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.
Common sense suggests that if psychics really had the powers they claim then they would long ago have identified the "Unabomber" or have discovered the remains of missing Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. If they cannot accomplish such missions individually, how much more telling is their collective inability to do so

Yeah, but saying that the t.v. show Medium is ficticious is NOT scientific.

I have never personally visited a psychic, but I have experienced
situations that can not be rationally explained (that I do not even believe are possible because I myself am so skeptical). Yeah, they might be coincidences, or they might not, I just can not definatively say because there is no scientific proof either way.

[transplant99]

Interesting to see the utter disbelief of some regarding this subject.

Psychics are a tool for police, just like anything else they use to solve crimes.

There are actually many documented cases where police have used them to a high degree of success, not necessarily for hard evidence, but moreso for helping to explore other avenues not mormally associated with crime solving.

Here is part of a transcript from an interview with the producer of a TV show called Psychic Detectives...

Question from Alison: have you ever come across fake psychics?

Robyn Hutt: That's an interesting question. We find psychics based on the cases the police department has solved, so it wouldn't be up to us to determine whether they are real or not. In a particular case, they seem to have been helpful -- and that's the way we determine if they're credible or not.

Court TV Host: How do the police departments know and how do you know that it is the psychic's contributions that solved the case?

Robyn Hutt: Ultimately, good old fashioned police work usually solves the case. However, often psychics force the investigation to look in a place it might have overlooked, or go down a path they might not have thought of. But ultimately both the psychics and the police say it's the police that solved the case, and it's the psychics who provided a new light on the case -- in the same way a forensic profiler might provide a new way of looking at a killer, and that helps police to solve the crime. They are one more tool for police investigators to use.

I don't think anyone should dismiss them outright, as it has been documented, they can and have been a valuable resource for police in the past.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_tra...hics-hutt.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You really missed the point... or maybe I wasnt as clear as I could have been.
Fact is, ANY FORM OF EVIDENCE or SUSPICION that can be gleamed from the use of a psychic could be used in an investigation. To me, that single fact alone, makes it a worthwhile resource. Whether it can be used as a tangible form of 'real evidence' is not for us to decide (although, I doubt it would ever be admitted untill further study completed).
As far as your questions go, I will not go into further detail, however, if you are interested there is a decent book entitled , Practical Homicide Investigation by Vernon Geberth.
Do I think psychics are provide police with reliable information? NO
Do i think psychics have the ability to provide information on events and persons using some sort of paranormal ability? PERHAPS
Do I think it is worth using as a resource to aid criminal investigations? PROBABLY
What I think most investigators are aware of is that psychics are to be treated as a resource and for the most part a very unreliable one just as informants. The information offered must be checked and rechecked for its reliability and validity.
What if the murder investigation of your loved one was in its 18 month? And police have told you that although the case would remain active, they are no longer actively investigating it? Would you condone the use of a psychic then? Police investigations can be VERY frustrating... sometimes the use of 'other resources' is all thats left.

I didn't miss your point, you're saying that anything that can lend information to a case can be helpful. My point remains that psychics don't actually add any information to a case.

Let me ask you this.. Would a magic eight ball be considered a useful? A magic eight ball could be used as a source of information couldn't it? I don't think you'd disagree, the magic eight ball answers direct questions. Now the question becomes is it a good source of information. I think you'd agree, of course not.

Now take a psychic. No proof has ever been given that a psychic can provide information any better than a magic eight ball. Ever. There's $1 million ready for the taking for any psychic that can prove their ability.

So now why should police use a psychic, a tool that has never shown any mre reliability as a tool over that of a magic eight ball?

And you bring up another good point.. "evidence" from a psychic is inadmissable in court. Why is that? Because it isn't "evidence" at all, it's simply information.

If psychics were so useful and reliable it should be easy to establish their record of success and have their abilities recognized by courts. Except you can't because that record doesn't exist.

In fact, this has been studied:

One interesting project was set up by Joe Nickell, a confirmed skeptic. He assigned 12 psychic investigators (who ranged from journalists to professors) to take on one famous psychic each to study for a period of one year, and their results were reported in Psychic Sleuths. They were to find a single case in which the psychic actually found a missing person or solved a crime. The overall results indicated that psychics fail to come through on scientific tests, and that when put into such conditions, their powers "invariably desert them." In some instances, they've shown they guess about as good as anyone else. (Of course, just because a psychic is famous doesn't make that person's powers authentic, and looking at only 12 of them is far from conclusive.) One controlled experiment that Nickell includes, which involved a dozen psychics looking at evidence from four crimes and was conducted by the director of behavioral services for the Los Angeles Police Department, indicated that psychics scored no better than estimated chance levels.
Lyons and Truzzi, in The Blue Sense, criticized the study, saying those psychics were not a representative sample.
So the study was undertaken once again, with two control groups added: college students and homicide detectives. The psychics produced more information by far, but the students had a better overall accuracy rate than the psychics in their guesses. No group produced information that would have been useful in solving the crimes.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal...ics/index.html

Bold is mine.

She also talks about that book you mentioned.

In conclusion, 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.

and

Thus far, a psychic's reliability for law enforcement has not been established. Anecdotal information is sometimes impressive and even surprising, but nothing can be concluded about using psychics as resources in solving a crime.

[photon]

Sorry transplant99, but those quotes I just posted regarding the lack of real proof that psychics help (not just participate) in investigations are article linked directly (!!) from the "Psychic Detectives" site! If their best evidence is an article where a real expert in the field debunks them...

In your quote the show's producer says they pick solved cases where the psychic appears helpful; hardly a an accurate cross section of police activity. "There are many cases where a psychic has been brought in, but the case has not been solved -- so that kind of case would not be on Psychic Detectives." So they can't be used as "proof", only anecdotal evidence.

The producer also says "Ultimately, good old fashioned police work usually solves the case. However, often psychics force the investigation to look in a place it might have overlooked, or go down a path they might not have thought of. But ultimately both the psychics and the police say it's the police that solved the case, and it's the psychics who provided a new light on the case -- in the same way a forensic profiler might provide a new way of looking at a killer, and that helps police to solve the crime. They are one more tool for police investigators to use."

So you say "but moreso for helping to explore other avenues not mormally associated with crime solving". And since there's a study that shows students were more accurate than psychics for this function, why aren't students used? That's more proof than psychics have ever provided for their claims.

The last statement reveals the true intent - "Watch as many programs as you can!" It's all about entertainment.

[troutman]

Psychics are con-artists or mentally-ill. If you consult with one, you are a SUCKER.

http://www.skepdic.com/psychic.html

It seems clear that psychics can be explained in one of three ways: (1) they truly are psychic; (2) they are frauds, taking advantage of people's gullibility and weaknesses; or (3) they're deluded and self-deceived. Of the three options, the least probable is option number one. "Psychics" who are honest about their deception call themselves mentalists and call their art magic or conjuring. Yet, it is the "psychics," not the mentalists, who are the darlings of the mass media. Thus, when the mass media promote "psychics" for their entertainment or news value, they are either promoting fraud or encouraging delusions. Perhaps the media think that because most parties in the psychic game are consenting adults, that makes it okay. Perhaps the police agree and that is why telepsychics like Miss Cleo can practice without fear of arrest for fraudulently claiming to have psychic powers.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by photon

Sorry transplant99, but those quotes I just posted regarding the lack of real proof that psychics help (not just participate) in investigations are article linked directly (!!) from the "Psychic Detectives" site! If their best evidence is an article where a real expert in the field debunks them...

In your quote the show's producer says they pick solved cases where the psychic appears helpful; hardly a an accurate cross section of police activity. "There are many cases where a psychic has been brought in, but the case has not been solved -- so that kind of case would not be on Psychic Detectives." So they can't be used as "proof", only anecdotal evidence.

The producer also says "Ultimately, good old fashioned police work usually solves the case. However, often psychics force the investigation to look in a place it might have overlooked, or go down a path they might not have thought of. But ultimately both the psychics and the police say it's the police that solved the case, and it's the psychics who provided a new light on the case -- in the same way a forensic profiler might provide a new way of looking at a killer, and that helps police to solve the crime. They are one more tool for police investigators to use."

So you say "but moreso for helping to explore other avenues not mormally associated with crime solving". And since there's a study that shows students were more accurate than psychics for this function, why aren't students used? That's more proof than psychics have ever provided for their claims.

The last statement reveals the true intent - "Watch as many programs as you can!" It's all about entertainment.

All well and good.

However, and this is where your argument hits a snag, the fact is that many a detective have used these folks to varying degrees of success before. I've seen them saying as much several different times and NOT on that particular program.

Were they lying? If so...for what possible purpose?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

All well and good.

However, and this is where your argument hits a snag, the fact is that many a detective have used these folks to varying degrees of success before. I've seen them saying as much several different times and NOT on that particular program.

Were they lying? If so...for what possible purpose?

There is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime.

Were they lying? Again, it is called subjective validation, selective thinking and confirmation bias.

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.

http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html

Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus, while ignoring unfavorable evidence for a belief. This kind of thinking is the basis for most beliefs in the psychic powers of so-called mind readers and mediums.


http://www.skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html


Subjective validation is the process of validating words, initials, statements or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant.

http://www.skepdic.com/selfdeception.html

Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves.

http://www.skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html

Wishful thinking is interpreting facts, reports, events, perceptions, etc., according to what one would like to be the case rather than according to the actual evidence. If it is done intentionally and without regard for the truth, it is called misinterpretation, falsification, dissembling, disingenuous, or perversion of the truth.

[photon]

Exactly. Saying something is a fact and is successful doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by troutman

There is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime.

Were they lying? Again, it is called subjective validation, selective thinking and confirmation bias.

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.

http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html

Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus, while ignoring unfavorable evidence for a belief. This kind of thinking is the basis for most beliefs in the psychic powers of so-called mind readers and mediums.


http://www.skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html


Subjective validation is the process of validating words, initials, statements or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant.

http://www.skepdic.com/selfdeception.html

Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves.

http://www.skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html

Wishful thinking is interpreting facts, reports, events, perceptions, etc., according to what one would like to be the case rather than according to the actual evidence. If it is done intentionally and without regard for the truth, it is called misinterpretation, falsification, dissembling, disingenuous, or perversion of the truth.

Im not sure posting links to a 'skeptic' sites validates your point.

Along the same vein, is hypnosis a valid investigative tool?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Im not sure posting links to a 'skeptic' sites validates your point.

Along the same vein, is hypnosis a valid investigative tool?

Your first point: Why? Do you understand anything about skepticism?

http://www.skepdic.com/skepticism.html

Ordinary skeptics are not credulous or gullible. They don't take things on trust, but must see the evidence before believing. Ordinary skeptics doubt the miraculous claims of religions, the claims of alien abductions, the claims of psychoanalysis, etc.

Your second point:

http://www.skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Hypnosis is a process involving a hypnotist and a subject who agrees to be hypnotized. Being hypnotized is usually characterized by (a) intense concentration, (b) extreme relaxation, and (c) high suggestibility.

The common view of hypnosis is that it is a trance-like altered state of consciousness. Many who accept this view also believe that hypnosis is a way of accessing an unconscious mind full of repressed memories, multiple personalities,mystical insights, or memories of past lives. This view of hypnosis as an altered state and gateway to occult knowledge about the self and the universe is considered a myth by many psychologists.

Originally Posted by troutman

Your first point: Why? Do you understand anything about skepticism?

http://www.skepdic.com/skepticism.html

Ordinary skeptics are not credulous or gullible. They don't take things on trust, but must see the evidence before believing. Ordinary skeptics doubt the miraculous claims of religions, the claims of alien abductions, the claims of psychoanalysis, etc.

Your second point:

http://www.skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Hypnosis is a process involving a hypnotist and a subject who agrees to be hypnotized. Being hypnotized is usually characterized by (a) intense concentration, (b) extreme relaxation, and (c) high suggestibility.

The common view of hypnosis is that it is a trance-like altered state of consciousness. Many who accept this view also believe that hypnosis is a way of accessing an unconscious mind full of repressed memories, multiple personalities,mystical insights, or memories of past lives. This view of hypnosis as an altered state and gateway to occult knowledge about the self and the universe is considered a myth by many psychologists.

No need to insult me troutman.

Getting information from a site with the word skeptic invalidates your point to a certain extent because the whole premise of the site is to disbelief. For example, I'm sure you would have issues if i sent you a link from the psychic association of america supporting phychics used in an investigation..

Considering all of your posts on this thread are actually from other sites, do u have any rational thoughts of your own that aren't copied and pasted from another site? (since you started the insults)

Please answer the question. Is hypnosis a valid investigative tool?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

No need to insult me troutman.

Getting information from a site with the word skeptic invalidates your point to a certain extent because the whole premise of the site is to disbelief. For example, I'm sure you would have issues if i sent you a link from the psychic association of america supporting phychics used in an investigation..

Considering all of your posts on this thread are actually from other sites, do u have any rational thoughts of your own that aren't copied and pasted from another site? (since you started the insults)

Please answer the question. Is hypnosis a valid investigative tool?

Sorry, no offence intended. I'm not sure why anyone would think links to a skeptic site would be deemed unreliable, unless you did not understand what skeptics do. I'm very busy at work, so I don't have time to write long treatises, and the information there is easy to locate.

Anyway, if you distrust skeptics for some reason, (and I'm not sure why a rational person would), the site is full of footnotes if you want to refer to the source material and scientific research.

The premise of skepticism is not disbelief. That would be cynicism. Skeptics merely insist that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think it would be a very interesting thing if psychics were real; there just is NO reliable evidence for this.

If you have reliable evidence from the "psychic association of america" I would happy to look at it.

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

I'm really not qualified to talk about hypnosis. The psycholigists I know seem skeptical about its reliability. I do know that recovered memories are no longer deemed as admissible evidence in courts:http://www.fmsfonline.org/lipton.html

Courts have increasingly found repressed memory testimony to be unreliable and therefore inadmissible. A growing number of jurisdictions are making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring repressed memory claims, citing the suggestive circumstances under which "repressed memories" are often "recovered" and the lack of any reliable scientific basis for the notion that memories can be repressed and later recovered intact. In the last decade, clinicians, memory researchers, and professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending the avoidance of suggestive therapy techniques. In recent years, psychotherapy clients injured by repressed memory therapy have begun to file malpractice claims against their therapists and many have won substantial awards. State agencies have also become involved, bringing criminal fraud charges and de-licensure proceedings against some therapists who have engaged in repressed memory therapy.

There is a $1 million prize available to anyone that can prove paranormal phenonemons. No one has claimed this prize. Don't you think if psychics were legit, someone would have claimed this prize by now?

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html


At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't miss your point, you're saying that anything that can lend information to a case can be helpful. My point remains that psychics don't actually add any information to a case.

Let me ask you this.. Would a magic eight ball be considered a useful? A magic eight ball could be used as a source of information couldn't it? I don't think you'd disagree, the magic eight ball answers direct questions. Now the question becomes is it a good source of information. I think you'd agree, of course not.

Now take a psychic. No proof has ever been given that a psychic can provide information any better than a magic eight ball. Ever. There's $1 million ready for the taking for any psychic that can prove their ability.

So now why should police use a psychic, a tool that has never shown any mre reliability as a tool over that of a magic eight ball?

And you bring up another good point.. "evidence" from a psychic is inadmissable in court. Why is that? Because it isn't "evidence" at all, it's simply information.

If psychics were so useful and reliable it should be easy to establish their record of success and have their abilities recognized by courts. Except you can't because that record doesn't exist.

In fact, this has been studied:


http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal...ics/index.html

Bold is mine.

She also talks about that book you mentioned.




and

How can you make a claim that psychics provide no useful info what so ever? You can't and thats the Truth.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How can you make a claim that psychics provide no useful info what so ever? You can't and thats the Truth.

I can and do make the claim, as do many others. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence otherwise. I'm still waiting.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

I can and do make the claim, as do many others. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence otherwise. I'm still waiting.

Your a pretty arrogant person. One does not have to prove something inorder for it to be true. If I have a headache, I cannot prove that to you other than you taking my word for it.

[photon]

Your a pretty arrogant person. One does not have to prove something inorder for it to be true.

Personal attacks aside, I think I'll let your statement stand by itself. Let me know if you want to actually discuss something.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

Personal attacks aside, I think I'll let your statement stand by itself. Let me know if you want to actually discuss something.

If you read the rest of my post you would understand who that statement fits in. Seems to me you try to win your arguement by being a reporter and only reporting half the facts to try and suite your own position.