[QUOTE=lekatt]
No one challenges your right to believe nonsence, believe as you will.
[/QUOTE]
I apologize for putting my selfish interests into an off-topic question, but are there any good psychics in the Stock-picking bidness? My TSO is killing me lately.
I’m all for crime-solving, but those people are dead. What about my IRA?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ll stick with reality, thank you very much. Can you name one real psychic?
[/QUOTE]
He’s already named several people he apparently believes are real psychics. I’m as skeptical as you are, but at least read the guys posts.
Or alternatively, he predicted you’d ask this question, and posted answers ahead of time. whistles X-files music
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No one challenges your right to believe nonsence, believe as you will.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s a little clue for you, Boo Boo-The purpose of this website, and especially this forum, is to challenge the “nonsence” that people choose to believe.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
He’s already named several people he apparently believes are real psychics. I’m as skeptical as you are, but at least read the guys posts.
Or alternatively, he predicted you’d ask this question, and posted answers ahead of time. whistles X-files music
[/QUOTE]
No, this is a very old trick of his, where he throws out a bunch of names as possibilities, and when those are debunked he throws out even more as possibilities. I want him to pick one as the most likely to be an authentic psychic for us to examine.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, I think it is possible, and I think some good psychics would love to participate. I saw a TV show years ago that had five psychics read five clients. The psychics were not aware of the other psychics duplicating their readings. It was amazing how close the five different readings of each client was. Maybe something like this or what would you propose?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what I’d propose because I’m honestly not sure about the abilities that people are claiming. And I say ‘claiming’ there because I remain to be convinced, but I do honestly have an open mind on the issue. I’ve read about the area (books from both sides of the debate), watched countless clips, programs and whatnot, and taken part in experiments. In all that I’ve seen nothing that convinces me beyond doubt that psychic phenomena is real. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s <em>not</em> real, I’ve just not seen it.
Tests of psychics reading people are problematic because you’d ideally have psychics A to E reading clients 1 to 5. Then the clients would look through all 25 reads and pick the five that matched them best. But as the readings are face to face (I’m assuming they are) the clients already know which reading is which and so know which ones apply to them.
You say that each of the different readings of each client were close, but that doesn’t prove psychic ability, it could show something as simple as the fact that the readers made the same assumptions for each client.
It’s only psychic if it applies to the client, and applies specifically to the client (i.e. not to a whole bunch of people).
I think you might have hit on something earlier about cold reading. I’d be interested to see what a set of clients read by a mixed group of psychics and cold readers (double blind, so they nobody involved apart from the readers know who’s who until after the test). The clients rate the readings according to accuracy, if there’s no such thing as cold reading then the psychics should have a clear lead on average.
Psychic readings are a bit subjective and difficult to test, depending on both the client and the reader.
I’d prefer a much simpler test, if psychics are helping the FBI then it should be a simple enough matter to construct a find a person/thing test.
[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
The clients rate the readings according to accuracy, if there’s no such thing as cold reading then the psychics should have a clear lead on average.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t the psychics then claim that the ‘cold readers’ are latent psychics if there is no difference?
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Couldn’t the psychics then claim that the ‘cold readers’ are latent psychics if there is no difference?
[/QUOTE]
They can and they have. James Randi himself has been accused of hiding his “psychic” abilities after he has duplicated the feats of supposed psychics using trickery.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
They can and they have. James Randi himself has been accused of hiding his “psychic” abilities after he has duplicated the feats of supposed psychics using trickery.
[/QUOTE]
Cite:
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
This is a verifiable claim, so if you are sincere about wanting to convince me and other skeptics of the truth of your position (and not just dropping in to take passive-aggressive potshots at skeptics), please provide details. Exactly where and when did this occur, what was the crime committed, and what were the names of the criminal and victim(s)? Was it publicized in the news (regular news sites, not yours or someone else’s blog) that the case was solved thanks to information provided by a psychic, and if so, do you have a link to that article? (I’d think it would be pretty newsworthy.)
Regardless, it should be a simple enough matter to contact the law enforcement office involved and ask them to confirm that Noreen and your group of psychics were instrumental in cracking the case. I would be more than happy to do so myself.
[/QUOTE]
I have, all you have to do is read the information on her site.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Cite:
[/QUOTE]
Crap, you must have to be psychic to read that one. Guess I’m not psychic. 
[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
I’m not sure what I’d propose because I’m honestly not sure about the abilities that people are claiming. And I say ‘claiming’ there because I remain to be convinced, but I do honestly have an open mind on the issue. I’ve read about the area (books from both sides of the debate), watched countless clips, programs and whatnot, and taken part in experiments. In all that I’ve seen nothing that convinces me beyond doubt that psychic phenomena is real. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s <em>not</em> real, I’ve just not seen it.
Tests of psychics reading people are problematic because you’d ideally have psychics A to E reading clients 1 to 5. Then the clients would look through all 25 reads and pick the five that matched them best. But as the readings are face to face (I’m assuming they are) the clients already know which reading is which and so know which ones apply to them.
You say that each of the different readings of each client were close, but that doesn’t prove psychic ability, it could show something as simple as the fact that the readers made the same assumptions for each client.
It’s only psychic if it applies to the client, and applies specifically to the client (i.e. not to a whole bunch of people).
I think you might have hit on something earlier about cold reading. I’d be interested to see what a set of clients read by a mixed group of psychics and cold readers (double blind, so they nobody involved apart from the readers know who’s who until after the test). The clients rate the readings according to accuracy, if there’s no such thing as cold reading then the psychics should have a clear lead on average.
Psychic readings are a bit subjective and difficult to test, depending on both the client and the reader.
I’d prefer a much simpler test, if psychics are helping the FBI then it should be a simple enough matter to construct a find a person/thing test.
[/QUOTE]
I think it could be done. On the TV show all five psychics said they saw a young girl and described her alike standing behind one of the clients. The girl was spiritual of course. Readings are subjective, but the best way is to get a reading from a psychic that can tell you things about yourself that you never told anyone. It happens all the time.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Cite:
[/QUOTE]
What would be a proper cite for someone who thinks that science is just another belief system and that conflicting realities can coexist?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I think it could be done. On the TV show all five psychics said they saw a young girl and described her alike standing behind one of the clients. The girl was spiritual of course. Readings are subjective, but the best way is to get a reading from a psychic that can tell you things about yourself that you never told anyone. It happens all the time.
[/QUOTE]
What television show was this, when did it air, and why do you accept uncontrolled “tests” shown on an entertainment show as evidence of anything?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I As for “cold reading”, it has never been proven there is such a thing. No contests between real psychics and cold readers has ever been conducted that I know of. No research, no studies, just a lot of skeptical talk.
[/QUOTE]
Wait…isn’t one of the posters *on this very message board * the guy who wrote the book on the use of cold reading by “psychics”?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Cite:
[/QUOTE]
Here is a discussion of 20 cases where “psychics” claim to have helped the police, along with an explanation of what actually transpired.
Is there a “pro psychic” rebuttal cite?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I have, all you have to do is read the information on her site.
[/QUOTE]
You want to cite her site to prove the authenticity of the claims on her site?
Rejected.
Try again.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
… so they charge large fees in order to limit the demand. …
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I have to jump in. This is, by far, the funniest thing I’ve read today.
[QUOTE=Tully Mars]
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I have to jump in. This is, by far, the funniest thing I’ve read today.
[/QUOTE]
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
I think you mean
You aint second-seen nothin’ yet.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I have, all you have to do is read the information on her site.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. Can you specifically tell me which case you were involved in?
As an example, I read the one about finding the missing remains of the man in Texas, for which two news articles are cited. One of them (from the Gainesville Sun) mentions it was necessary for Renier to explain to the family “by telephone over five Sunday afternoons” where to look for the man’s remains.
Renier, quoted in the article, explains that it was taking so long because “they didn’t seem to be understanding very clearly” her instructions. After consulting an aerial map (and apparently giving them instructions at least a sixth time) the remains were found “within a few hundred yards” of where she indicated.
Now, did it really take 5+ weeks and multiple consultations because the searchers weren’t following directions, or could it be that she was playing a guessing game, giving vague instructions and hoping they’d find the remains? Did the directions she gave them change on each successive attempt, as they searched and found nothing? Did she have knowledge of the areas already searched, and simply pick a spot that hadn’t been searched yet?
More information is needed, and it’s unlikely to come from the psychic’s own PR site.