Talk:Psychic detective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This article presents only the skeptical angle and although it does use neutral language the conclusions are very one sided. The external links also only point to specific 'skeptic' sites. I feel the article needs some restructuring and more discussion of the possible merits of this kind of work. --Solar 10:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 I second that motion. 2 .......And I Third it 3 Since when... 4 .......And yet 5 NPOV 6 OK, show some evidence 7 Sorry if I sounded insulting 8 Court TV 9 A television show? 10 watch this documentary. 11 Wow, this article is MASSIVELY biased 12 Uh, oh, here we go again 13 Report the facts 14 Slicing and Dicing the facts 15 Here we go again, redux, plus a few of the ad hominem attacks us skeptics are used to 16 Wikiproject Law Enforcement tag removal 17 Response to the believers 18 Recent writing error 19 You're putting me to sleep ... 20 how come

[edit] I second that motion.

This article is extremely biassed.

...

This article is not only grossly biased, it is factually incorrect in a number of crucial details. For instance: ""Scotland Yard never approaches psychics for information..." I am a psychic, and I have been approached by Scotland Yard on a number of occasions. And in fact my involvement in at least two major investigations was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard. Furthermore, I receive requests from police forces all over the world (including the US and UK) almost on a daily basis, to assist with intractable murder and missing persons cases.

"There are no official police psychics in England." This is true, but misleading. While there are no "official police psychics", the UK police do keep a database of psychics "who in the past have been helpful" in criminal investigations, at the National Crime Faculty.

"There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution." Again, this statement is misleading. Evidence (or information) provided by a psychic cannot be presented in court; therefore, while a psychic may be able to provide the police with information which enables them to obtain evidence against specific individuals, or to pursue a certain course of action, the psychic's role ends at that point, and his or her contribution to the resolution of a case can never be officially acknowledged, since this would jeopardise the conviction. The fact that there are no *recorded* instances of psychics providing information that led *directly* to the solution of a case does not mean that no psychic has ever solved, or playing a role in solving, police cases.

Zak Martin

[edit] .......And I Third it

You can't get much more biased than this

There is a huge amount of data showing the police in UK worked for at least 16 years with psychic detective \CHRIS ROBINSON.... www.dream-detective.com

I ask why these people are so desperate to hide the fact that psi is real and the police sometimes find it of great value... the police are only reluctant to talk about this subject because of the lies of sceptic like Richard Wiseman and his pals in the so callled sceptic world......

Wiseman is now a discredited scientist read the article that exposes him in Paranormal Review published by the SPR.......

It is the sceptics who are the fruads in this subject.....

[edit] Since when...

..is reporting the truth being biased? There are no repeatable, reputable, believable experiments that have proven the existence of any paranormal forces or abilities. By the same token, stating that the Holocaust happened could be called "extremely biased" because it doesn't pander to the Holocaust deniers. Wikipedia is made for reporting what is verifiably true, not people's pet theories and superstitions.

[edit] .......And yet

If this page was about the flat Earth theory I wonder if the same statements would be made. Maybe it's really hard for this article to be unbiased because there's no real eveidence supporting the effectiveness of psychics.

Also, how would you write it less skeptically without embracing the claims and thus making it POV in the other direction? Suggestions please! --Hob Gadling 09:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is a simple concept, where there are opposing views or differing arguments you present both sides fairly and with no bias in either direction. I quote "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1] In the case of the existence of ESP there are, of course, opposing views with up to 50% of the general public, the highly educated and scientific community stating a belief in its existence. (Source: 1996 Gallup poll) Scientific evidence on the subject is controversial, but there is supporting evidence. As an example the research of Cornell University's psychology professor Daryl Bem does not give conclusive evidence but it most definitely does show the possibility of ESP being a real phenomena. It seems to me that the science in this area is an ongoing process. Essentially those who have some personal experience or intellectual reasons for believing in the existence of such phenomena are not alone and are quite justified in their standpoint as present science stands. As far as the more specific area of psychic detectives I feel that the NPOV policy can be easily adhered to, as there are examples of members of the law enforcement community publicly supporting psychic detectives as well as counter arguments [2]. In reply to the flat earth comment, there is no relationship to the flat earth theory for reasons stated above (public opinion, science etc.) - Solar 11:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is very tricky however, as the opposing sides may still conflict over what is a balanced, neutral POV. For example, once people get over the idea that clairvoyance and telepathy are paranormal, and realize that electromagnetism is involved, experimental protocols will change accordingly; the difference between fortune tellers, cold readings, mentalists, psychic detectives, psychotherapists , etc. narrows, leading to an influx of new troll POV edits from neighboring concept space. -- Vansig 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes but psychics in general have about as much hardcore evidence of being real as the easter bunny, yet I'm sure on that page it's listed as fictitious and there's no "other side" to that. Please, this is an encyclopedia, let's stick to concrete, valid claims and not jump around on unproved, supposedly supernatural occurences. -- BrandonR 06:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear BrandonR, Please read my entry above on NPOV. If you follow Wikipedia policy, which is non-negotiable, and includes the principles of representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias, you will have to note that your comments are not in line with that policy. Statements like "there's no other side to that" after what I have already stated above (with citations of course) shows a huge bias and POV. If you have a problem with fair representation of different views please take this up with the Wikimedia Foundation. - Solar 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but why should an academic project support information for which there is no academic backing? This goes beyond the concept of NPOV... -- BrandonR 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please take the time to read NPOV#Pseudoscience, Thanks. - Solar 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Solar, you are not being helpful. I asked specifically: "Also, how would you write it less skeptically without embracing the claims and thus making it POV in the other direction? Suggestions please!"

All you did in response was quote well-known general comments, sounding like a preacher. But how to apply them to this case?

BTW, BrandonR is allowed to speak his mind on the discussion page, and you have no business forbidding him that. --Hob Gadling 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll surrender defeat, but only due to existing Wikipedia policy. This appears to be a clear and evident downfall to Wikipedia, to provide equal sides of all topics (especially the most absurd or scientifically flawed) is not something an academic website should do. After all, I'm sure something like the flat-earth theory wouldn't be represented as having a modern life in other encyclopedias. With that said, I do understand your view on wanting to enforce policies, no matter how ridiculous they may be. -- BrandonR 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Solar, I would like to note: Jimbo says significant backing, and, reading up on NPOV: Pseudoscience, this is clarified as scientific backing. It does fairly represent the significant scientific viewpoint. I think that polls of what people believe show significance, but not a significant scientific view. Research with no conclusion does not support anything, either.

There are huge amounts of people with belief in this, and a lot with experience, but that makes it significant in a social, rather than scientific sense, especially as a mechanism by which such experience could be gained is not recognised. It is therefore my opinion that the article should show the scientific light (which is so far very negative) and the social light seperately and distinctly.

I would also hugely appreciated if, in each case, you could clearly disseminate straw man arguments and logical fallacies.

In response to the first paragraph on this page, so fix it. Clearly a large number of people 'biased against' this have failed - can't you moderate that from your perspective?

fel64 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have replaced the notice as this article still shows only the skeptical POV and makes biased statements. I will be making some changes in the next week in an attempt to bring it closer to the NPOV policy, if this does not meet with consensus approval after discussion I will nominate the article to be checked for its neutrality. - Solar 10:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK, show some evidence

This lands in the "Elvis lives" department — New Age spiritualists always use logic like this. Is there evidence that psychic detectives have ever consistently helped solve crimes, beyond a few attributable to chance? The truth is "biased?" Under NPOV#Pseudoscience we have:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view ...

Pyschic phenomena is pseudoscience, without the remotest shred of evidence. It's fine to say some believe in psychic detectives. It is not majority scientific opinion, nor should be presented as such.

dino 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It really saddens me that so many who claim to be scientific and fair resort to strawman arguments and veiled insults. In this discussion alone I have been met with all manner of strawmen and sensationalist arguments to statements I have not even made, including reference to: the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny and now insulting generalisations like "This lands in the "Elvis lives" department — New Age spiritualists always use logic like this". As far as psi or esp I have only stated that IMHO the work of scientists like Dean Radin and Daryl Bem etc, show the "possibility of ESP being a real phenomena" nothing more (their work is available in book form if you would like to review it). Having said that, my issues with this article have nothing to do with the reality or not of esp. My problems with the article are to do with the fact that we do not hear from police officers who have used PD's, the 'In fiction' section appears above the 'In reality' section, the language is misleading in some parts and all the references point to skeptic pages, as well as the use of the word 'official' in a misleading manner, as many psychics have indeed been praised for example, but not officially, etc. All of this does not result in a factual article, it results in a very misleading one. NPOV is about presenting a subject in a way that allows the reader to shape an informed opinion. In my last statement here (which can be read above) I have only stated I will try to improve things and then put the changes to discussion or neutrality review, why would any fair individual have a problem with this? Please wait for the changes to be made before attacking them. Thank-you, - Solar 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if I sounded insulting

Sorry if I sounded insulting. I am used to the forces of superstition using any lie to achieve their ends -- this is the Bush administration in America, that will use anything to shove religion in public life. I do not know who spoke of "the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny." Not me.

But I love the "possibility of ESP being a real phenomena." It's simply so absolutely meaningless. Use of dubious language?

Do you want links to New Age pages? I have never seen a page on New Age -- and I've read a few -- that wasn't rife with lies and dubious logic. They still think Edgar Cayce and Uri Geller had psychic powers, and believe in long-discredited notions such as the Bermuda Triangle, and flat-out nonsense like astrology.

Do we have statements from "police officers who have used PD's"? Let's see them. Can anyone cite any actual evidence?

Should we foster a superstition that leads to police wasting precious resources on usually-useless leads? I cannot agree. While the psychic believer position does deserve mention, it now deserves no credence.

dino 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See below, Re.:Court TV. This even shows the "psychic detectives" at work. In one case I've seen, a psychic detective was arrested for murder because this person knew more about the murder than the police. She has sued the police for false imprisonment. That got me "hooked" watching that sort of thing. Martial Law 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Court TV

Find on Court TV a show about "psychic detectives". Go to the article Court TV for more on this matter. Martial Law 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] A television show?

We are ready to quote from a television show? I don't watch TV, precisely because I consider it garbage. A television show? That's really dependable. TV is about entertainment — not truth. In the distant past I have seen TV give credence to say, the Bermuda Triangle. Space aliens. Nostradamus. April 24 - 30, 2006 is TV Turnoff Week, http://tvturnoff.org/

Doesn't it seem kind of dangerous to give the remotest credence to psychic phenomena? Young children read wikipedia. Should they grow up to believe lies? Should police waste precious resources on useless leads? Let me re-iterate:

While the psychic believer position deserves mention, it deserves no credence.

dino 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] watch this documentary.

http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/psychic_witness/psychic_witness.html

[edit] Wow, this article is MASSIVELY biased

Like an advertisement for "when skepticultists attack". How about a little bit of information from the OTHER side? Mention the fact that most psychics who claim to have worked with police also claim that they had to sign documents stating they wouldn't reveal their involvement with any specific case. That is a neutral enough statement, and it certainly explains the level of 'hush-hush'. Omigosh, you mean the authorities might LIE? Let's get something very straight here--the question of whether or not psi abilities exist has not been answered, and those who promote a belief in them are not telling lies. Any claim to the contrary is a mere faith--hence, skepticult, not skepticism. Skepticism is about keeping an open mind. Present your evidence, but don't draw conclusions that aren't fully supported by it. Lack of evidence is not equal to evidence of lack in the scientific method. Should we lie to our children, and tell them that this question has been fully resolved, when it has not? One look into quantum physics tells us just exactly how little we actually know, as opposed to what we think we know. New discoveries in the field of physics are made every day, as our technology continues to improve. It is the height of arrogance to draw a conclusion on something which has been reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet, without enough evidence to directly indicate a conclusion--EITHER conclusion. However, what we do have evidence for is this: Psi phenomena exist. We don't know what they are, how they work, or anything else about them, but at the very least repeated testing has shown that something currently unexplainable is indeed happening. Also, the argument seems silly to the some 5 to 10% of the population who report actually having these abilities. You can tell them it's not real until you're blue in the face, but their personal experiences have given them the evidence THEY need to believe it. You're going to have to do better than merely yelling about the lack of objective evidence. You're going to have to prove what IS happening in all of these cases. Until that happens, the only rational stance is the same one that has come up time and time again in psi testing: INCONCLUSIVE.

WingedWolfPsion 6:41 PM (Mtn), 6 June 2006

That's convenient. You know, I'm the one who discovered where Saddam Hussein was hiding, but the military made me to sign a document saying that I'd keep it confidential. That's why they won't say anything about it. To rely on one person's claim that they did something extraordinary that no one else can back up is illogical. Lack of evidence for something in the scientific method means it isn't there; that's Occam's Razor. If the only rational stance is inconclusive, then those who argue for it are every bit as irrational as those who argue against it.--Prosfilaes 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You should get your facts straight, Occam's Razor indicates that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Note the word tends. And Occam's Razor says nothing about scientific method. For example, the existence of atoms were theorized long before there was any scientific evidence to prove their existence. Black holes were theorized long before there was proof of their existence. To say that lack of evidence proves something doesn't exist is really quite sad. -- General Disarray

[edit] Uh, oh, here we go again

There is no evidence of psychic phenomena. Period. For now, the psychic believer position deserves mention, but it deserves no credence. Police in general will not touch psychics, and for good reason.

The logic in the last was so poor I debated writing anything, "reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet" — meaningless. So are ghosts.

"Mention the fact that most psychics who claim to have worked with police also claim that they had to sign documents stating they wouldn't reveal their involvement with any specific case."

Cite? Evidence? Books and magazines about spirituality don't cut it. Cites about quantum physics are no more than a recent fad in New Age. No evidence. Us skeptics must live in an America extremely hostile to us, from the Bushies on the right to New Age spiritualists on the left. And we're tired of it. Should we feed our children lies? That there is a mysterious spirit world that the enlightened can contact, for which no evidence is ever provided? That psychic phenomena exist?

dino 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion and I will probably not stay long since I have limited expertise in this area.

"Psychic detective" is a pop culture reference to a special instance of mediumship, clairvoyance and especially remote viewing. It might be mediumship in that some practitioners seek to gain information via an etheric third party. In all cases, it satisfies the definition of clairvoyance or one of the "clair-*" abilities, but current research usually approaches it as remote viewing. The basis of evidence for all three views are or should be documented in the associated Wikipedia entries. I believe that it would be more realistic to replace the contents of this entry with a simple: "Psychic Detective: a special application of mediumship or remote viewing intended to acquire information about lost items or details of a crime. See also, psychic architecture ..." and whatever else there is in Wikipedia that is a special instance of one of the basic abilities. You can stop there because it is just a definition. Then you can concentrate on making sure the wording in the other entries are balanced. Just a suggestion.

dino, I understand your concern. My field is EVP, but I am very concerned that so many people -- proponents and skeptics -- represent EVP without regard to the research. When I encounter a person who believes something that I feel is irrational, and that goes for religiously skeptical, religiously New Age and just plain very religious, I ask them to examine the source of what they believe. Who taught them what they believe and what were that teacher's qualifications. I ask them to learn the difference between tradition and empirical evidence. Too much of what we believe to be true has been taught to us by our culture and is really lore. Finally I say that people should believe what they wish, but they should also know what they believe and the implications of that belief. None of us would have you lie to your kids, what we want is for you to teach them to be critical thinkers. The evidence will speak for itself. Tom Butler 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's a very simple fact: *Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced positive findings. The reality of psychic abilities has been scientifically proven over and over again. Furthermore, surveys carried out in the same period have consistently shown that *most people* - including scientists - accept the reality of psychic abilities. The only people who reject the substantial body of scientific and anecdotal evidence for psychic abilities are self-styled "skeptics" who see it as their mission in life to promote a materialistic/mechanistic view of the world, and who are prepared to go to almost any lengths - and stoop to any depths - to attack psychics and discredit scientists who carry out research into this subject.

Zak Martin http://www.zakmartin.com/

---

[edit] Report the facts

Until someone can produce real evidence to even suggest that psychics are anything more than middle-aged women with nothing better to do, dont claim this article to be biased. While it does show a certain point of view, that view is that of the evidence available. No credible source outside of the psychics themselves or entertainment media claims their legitimacy. All facts point to the conclusion that 'Psychic detectives' are completely bogus and ineffective, and this article reflects that.

[edit] Slicing and Dicing the facts

There is plenty of evidence for someone with the correct motivation. All the Skeptics seem to suffer from fear of a contact disease. As if actual contact would mark them with a modern form of a scarlet letter. Part of it's a money motivation.

There are enough books with almost a "cake mix" set of instructions. Any person who follows such instructions, as they were intended, will have the desired results. With the most elementary use of common sense, no men in red pajamas will ever appear.

What does not work is standing frozen at the doorway and never taking that first step for fear of ridicule. What does not work is taking someone at their word simply because they have a title. Doctors and Lawyers lie on the witness stand for personal gain every day of their lives. What does not work is not giving it the amount of thought it deserves.

All worthwhile evidence is going to be subjective initially. No one's going to come up with an ESP pill soon.

Any amount of meditation will bring power and genius with time. That power and genius surpasses anything science will find for the next century and it's immeadiately avaliable, by degree, in the present time.

Actually, reading the commentary of so called professional skeptics is amusing. Anyone with familarity with the construction of propaganda, language arguements from basic logic books or Noam Chomsky books will see a raving child looking for attention, and failing.

The least they could do is spend time with their comments and make them "appear" professional. Also examining the subconcious motivations of the Skeptics for creating a deliberate fraud, by falsifying evidence and filling a magazine with it while ignoring valid and frequent applications for Randi's money.

The magazine does have a value, but it serves the psychic community more than anyone else. They should expand the content to attract a wider readership, it's becomming redundant. Don92707 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again, redux, plus a few of the ad hominem attacks us skeptics are used to

"Plenty of evidence?" Cite some.

"Money motivation?" Millions are made on books and seminars about New Age, while us skeptics scarce survive.

What does not work is taking someone at their word simply because they have a title. I've noticed books about spirituality are always written by "So-and so, comma, Ph.D." Why is absolute nonsense given credence because of a (usually) diploma-mill Ph.D.?

"reading the commentary of so called professional skeptics is amusing" Reading New Age books is a screaming riot. Us skeptics do not appreciate the ad hominem attacks.

Skeptics ... creating ... deliberate fraud, by falsifying evidence Wow. Sounds like how us skeptics look at New Age, for inventing / borrowing frauds like crop circles, Atlantis, psychic phenomena, "psychics" like the fraud Uri Geller, ... You want falsified evidence?

Seriously, I am unsure of why I responded to these ad hominem attacks. Can we have some politeness?

dino 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Law Enforcement tag removal

I removed the WP:LE tag as this is not a recognized form of Law Enforcement officialEMT1871 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the believers

It won't help to try and save the pseudoskeptical soul on here. If any of you can go to library and do the research, and if there are WP:V sources, then we can get them in. Otherwise, beyond basic NPOVing and de-weaseling, there's nothing to be done. Unless anyone just wants to make a Parapedia wiki. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent writing error

A recent addition read,

*Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced positive findings.

That should read,

*Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced negative findings.

Careful about those writing errors. There is not the remotest evidence that physic phenomena exist. Take the Randi Challenge and prove psychic phenomena, be it that it exists.

Oh, a few studies have revealed positive results. Their methodology was always flawed. Reading Zak Martin's web site, he sound pretty impressive. Let's see him put his "skills" to the test. Take the Randi Challenge.

dino 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

____

Actually, I did accept the so-called Randi challenge. Mr. Randi did a "no-show". That was before the "Randi challenge" included clauses and conditions that made it into nothing more than a publicity-seeking scam.
That aside, the opinion of a second-rate magician (with a poor grasp of physics) can be disregarded. The simple fact is that, whenever researchers find positive evidence for psychic abilities, skeptics dismiss them on the basis that their "methodology was flawed" (without, of course, providing any proof to substantiate this claim).
You claim that: "Every major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced *negative* findings."
Please name just *one* major independent scientific study into psychic abilities which produced negative evidence.
I can name a dozen studies which found positive evidence for psychic abilities. Name one that produced negative evidence.
Zak Martin

[edit] You're putting me to sleep ...

Look, I'm sick of the ad hominem attacks from New Agers. A "second-rate magician?" A "poor grasp of physics?" And the frauds who made What the Bleep Do We Know!? had a good grasp of physics? In short, take your bad manners elsewhere. I am not giving you the time of day.

dino 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how come

how come many skeptics (not all of them, but many) tink that they have the r ight ot damage wikipedia with thier stupid assertions and then dont want to back them up excep tby saiyng "ad-hominem"??? Smith Jones 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)