Repeat after me, everyone, the skeptic's prayer:

"It's all a coincidence!
It's all a coincidence!
It's all just a coincidence, and nothing more!"

And the second refrain: something about the police are completely incompetent - being unable to find a dead body that was exactly where *anyone* should have looked according to this speculation, given that the police were already suspecting (unbeknownst to the public and the actual discoverer of the body) that the older half-brother had murdered the victim.

http://xkcd.com/808/

http://xkcd.com/373/

http://xkcd.com/1235/

Tolstoy, the burden of proof is upon you. If somebody possesses some ability that allows them to do such things, we should be able to conduct some kind of test to confirm this.

The fact that no 'psychic' has been able to do so leads me to the conclusion that they're either frauds or deluded. Its on you to prove otherwise.

Your previous bouts of insane conspiracy theories also leads me to believe that you're probably more than a little deluded yourself.

If you ask nicely, I'll sell you a tinfoil hat for the low low price of $150.00. Its got an extra layer of tin foil to keep the reptilian aliens from reading your mind and replacing it with butterscotch pudding.

"Tolstoy, the burden of proof is upon you. "

I do not know with certainty if Pam Ragland had a psychic vision that showed her where young Terry Smith's body was. But I find the alternative theory put forth by Invictus' link - that it's all coincidence stacked on coincidence stacked on coincidence - to be unconvincing, and as completely devoid of the repeatability you demand as the claim of a psychic vision. I won't bother asking anyone to PROVE that Ragland did not have a psychic vision showing where the body is, (which would involve sacrificing an 11-year old child) to try and reproduce a scenario of someone claiming to have a psychic vision after (possibly, but not certainly) seeing what was a murder scene (unbeknownst to the public, and indeed, even to the police investigating the might-have-been-crime) in a TV news broadcast.

"If somebody possesses some ability that allows them to do such things, we should be able to conduct some kind of test to confirm this."

Yes, let's have some impartial testing conducted by a scientific community that views with extreme hostility any phenomena that it cannot explain. Let's also ask Ptolemy to sit in judgement of Copernicus, or demand that Einstein explain (on pain of excommunication from the community of respectable science) why the universe isn't expanding at just the right rate suggested by his theory of Relativity. The fact is that man's understanding of science is imperfect; there is much, perhaps VERY much, that we do not know about the workings of the universe. The suggestion that anything that cannot be explained by man's present understanding of science is impossible is every bit as ridiculous as belief that the earth is flat, because - duh! - it looks flat (and "Occam's Razor" demands that we always accept the simplest explanation, don't forget!). I believe that if "psychic phenomena" like as in this case actually exist, that the mechanics of them can eventually be explained by science, much as the proper motions of the planets were eventually explained, when - after nineteen centuries of Ptolemaism - the "insane conspiracy theory" of Copernicus eventually triumphed. But so long as we have inquisitors like Jack_Klein ready to burn at the stake anyone who suggests that science doesn't already have all the answers, we can never have a real and honest inquiry.

"Your previous bouts of insane conspiracy theories also leads me to believe that you're probably more than a little deluded yourself."

Aw, how cute - the ad hominem combined with the attempt at humor. Fortunately, America is still not yet to the point where someone can be denounced as an "enemy of reason" and be committed to an insane asylum, like they did in the Soviet Union (that perfect kingdom of scientific positivism).

"If you ask nicely, I'll sell you a tinfoil hat for the low low price of $150.00. Its got an extra layer of tin foil to keep the reptilian aliens from reading your mind and replacing it with butterscotch pudding."

In addition to your insults, you are trying to rip me off. Art Bell has demonstrated a perfectly serviceable tinfoil hat can be made for far less than than the ridiculous and extortionate demand you have made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeJXKmACjFk
The Difference Is In The Savings!

Hey Tolstoy, here's an ad hominem for ya:

You're a gullible moron

Hey, Thucy! Great to see you online. Presumably you're just about done with those debates that we spent many many hours on, right?

Oh, please, Tolstoy.

You make wild claims. And then when somebody asks you to prove it, you rant on about how you're persecuted.

You have no proof. Psychics, aura readers, and other such hucksters never do.

Propose me a test to prove psychic ability. They've tried it in the past, the deck of cards test, etc. Its never panned out.

You want to be taken seriously? Then I suggest you start providing some proof, instead of blaming everybody else for not taking your crackpottery seriously.

That's something of a misrepresentation of Occam's Razor.

On point, what is more likely? That the woman is a psychic or that it was a series of coincidences? I'd argue a series of unlikely coincidences is STILL more likely than someone with (never properly tested) supernatural powers.

The general points about the hostility of the scientific community to things it cannot explain is another misrepresentation. Scientists aren't hostile to people making incredible claims (particularly supernatural ones) because they're frightened they don't understand it. They're hostile to it because in virtually all instances such things have either been proved not to be true OR because such claimants refuse to subject their claim to proper scrutiny. When thousands of people claim to be psychic, a handful volunteer to prove it and are shown to be frauds and the remainder refuse to have their incredible claims tested they deserve hostility.

"I do not know with certainty if Pam Ragland had a psychic vision that showed her where young Terry Smith's body was. But I find the alternative theory put forth by Invictus' link - that it's all coincidence stacked on coincidence stacked on coincidence - to be unconvincing, and as completely devoid of the repeatability you demand as the claim of a psychic vision."

So, effectively, you believe that the chemical reactions taking place in the wad of fat in some fellow primate's skull can somehow produce an accurate vision of some physical reality wholly unknown to said primate. Something that's never been proven to exist must be the answer and not a series of coincidences, which happen literally all the time.


"Yes, let's have some impartial testing conducted by a scientific community that views with extreme hostility any phenomena that it cannot explain."

As has been said, that's just not true. Scientists love things they can't explain. Explaining new things is how they advance their careers, for one. And whatever hostility may exist to a new theory evaporates once it is proven to be true. Who denies the germ theory any more? If psychics are right then they can prove so, if not then they're frauds and OUGHT to be treated with hostility by science since science, ideally, is just about facts not faith.


"But so long as we have inquisitors like Jack_Klein ready to burn at the stake anyone who suggests that science doesn't already have all the answers, we can never have a real and honest inquiry."

So people who call true believers out on their nonsense are inquisitors? God forbid people who believe in psychics hear from anyone who disagrees.


You're a woo-woo kook, Tolstoy. I wonder how you reconcile the existence of psychics with thinking Bush was behind 9/11. Surely a psychic could have given us a heads up in August 2001?

http://skeptoid.com/

Work your way through these podcasts, Tolstoy. You needn't start with psychics. Go with something you already don't believe in, like chiropractic or UFO abductions, and see if your perceptions on other things start to change.

"Propose me a test to prove psychic ability. They've tried it in the past, the deck of cards test, etc. Its never panned out. "

How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
"Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This 34% hit rate was statistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These experiments were statistically significant with a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in 45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% by chance (mean chance expectation is 25%)."

"On point, what is more likely? That the woman is a psychic or that it was a series of coincidences? I'd argue a series of unlikely coincidences is STILL more likely than someone with (never properly tested) supernatural powers."

The likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the woman had a psychic vision is unknowable (since we do not know how common this phenomenon is, what triggers it, how it works, etc.), unless you're presuming it is impossible - in which case you would be correct (as the likelihood would be 0).

"So, effectively, you believe that the chemical reactions taking place in the wad of fat in some fellow primate's skull can somehow produce an accurate vision of some physical reality wholly unknown to said primate."

It is certainly a possibility. That's how the chemical structure of Benzene was discovered, for instance (it appeared in a dream).

"And whatever hostility may exist to a new theory evaporates once it is proven to be true. Who denies the germ theory any more?"

Semmelweis' paranormal theory of disease took decades to be accepted, as the medical community was still attached to 2300 year old tried and tested theories about "humours". "Evaporation" of the orthodox opinion often doesn't happen until the Old Guard that clings to it dies off, and oftentimes, not even then.

"I wonder how you reconcile the existence of psychics with thinking Bush was behind 9/11."

When have I ever suggested that Bush was behind 9/11?

The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy might be fallacious.

Yeah. If that's the best you can do, I suggest you go back to the lab and keep working.

Just ask yourself this: How many people throughout history have claimed to have supernatural powers. How many of them have been able to prove it in a controlled, scientific environment.

The answer is zero. So until we get something better than a statistical anomaly, I'm going to operation on the assumption that psychics are frauds or deluded.

So, first of all, I thought that Invictus' link was fairly convincing. Oh, not all of it. I don't know if the explanation it gave was fully correct or not.

But I do think that it made one very important point -- his body was found at his own house, which was overwhelmingly more probable a place than any other place in the state for it to be found. This does substantially reduce the impressiveness of Ms. Ragland's accomplishment, I think increasing quite a bit the liklihood of coincidence and taking everything well under the needed statistical confidence levels.

I also am unaware of any reason to believe in psychics.

That said, Invictus, you did go on to make some fairly bad points.

"So, effectively, you believe that the chemical reactions taking place in the wad of fat in some fellow primate's skull can somehow produce an accurate vision of some physical reality wholly unknown to said primate."

I don't think this is an accurate description of what psychic believers believe, so it's not a fair characterization. They believe in immaterial influences on the "wad of fat" (it's not fat, by the way), which is completely distinct.

"As has been said, that's just not true. Scientists love things they can't explain. Explaining new things is how they advance their careers, for one. "

*Most* scientists do not love things they can't explain that couldn't be reduced to material explanation, i.e., things that couldn't be explained scientifically. So while you're right that scientists love unexplained *physical phenomena,* Tolstoy is right that they most often hate ideas that they could not, even in principle, explain.

"Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy might be fallacious."

You can say this about any experiment. But only for experiments on telepathy does this constitute an obstacle to drawing a conclusion, apparently.

"Just ask yourself this: How many people throughout history have claimed to have supernatural powers. How many of them have been able to prove it in a controlled, scientific environment."

How many of those people have been examined in a "controlled, scientific environment" by people who weren't intent on 'disproving' their claims?

So clearly its because those mean people aren't willing to BELIEVE hard enough. You fail miserably at understanding how science works. You're SUPPOSED to try to disprove a new idea. You subject it to a rigorous critique to ensure that the evidence for it can stand up on its own.

It amuses me, Tolstoy. When it suits you, the standards of evidence is absurdly high (proving a conspiracy theory wrong). But when it suits you, they're also absurdly low (wow, there just MIGHT be psychics! You can't prove there aren't!).

They're both the products of a deranged mind.

By your standards, I should also take your word on it if your ham sandwich starts talking to you, regardless if you're the only one to hear it.

" *Most* scientists do not love things they can't explain that couldn't be reduced to material explanation,
i.e., things that couldn't be explained scientifically. So while you're right that scientists love unexplained
*physical phenomena,* Tolstoy is right that they most often hate ideas that they could not, even in
principle, explain."

Would you call electro-magnetism a 'material' phenominum? It is inherently immaterial, the idea of an electric field - doing work at a distance - was considered magical and supernatural for many years, and the link with magnetism only understood in the 1860s (roughly)

This is scientifically testable, and thus does exist, but remains elusive and immaterial.

As stated, scientists loves new things; if they can be shown to actually exist. But immaterial doesn't get you off tests on actual existing; we've got lots of immaterial things...

Yes, orathaic, I would certainly call electromagnetism a material phenomenon. It is a field, exactly like an electron or a proton.

Scientists love those things that behave in law-like ways. They love unexplained things that promise to be reducible to new physical laws. They do not love things that promise to remain outside the orbit of what can be reduced to physical law. (You're quite right, of course, in implying that if psychics were proven to exist, there would be significant attempts by scientists to work it into a fully naturalistic explanation of nature).

Incidentally, electromagnetism was considered rather *less* magical than gravitation, which was already formulated by Newton in the 17th century. And scientists were indeed quite unhappy about those laws until the twentieth century when the "immediate action-at-a-distance" aspect went away.

Obama weighs in:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPo5Ya2CMAAJa2-.jpg:large

As opposed to thucy, who has only stuck his little rod into little boys...

@smeck, yes, of course we'd attempt a naturalistic explanation - though even if there was any evidence whatsoever that god existed, we'd attempt a naturalistic explanation; Interestingly we now have an understanding of chaos and complexity. Though the laws that govern these types of systems are beyond what Newton would have imagined - that are not 'reduced' to physical laws, the show that complex systems have unpredictable behaviour, that explaining the underlying laws does not describe the features of the larger system - we now understand that there are limit to our ability to simplify and understand.

Though perhaps this hasn't become obvious, i think it really says something about the nature of the Universe. We like to reduce things, break them up into simple parts and try to understand them, but this reductionist thought fails - it fails to add understanding, it reaches a point where it is almost meaningless to continue. And so we have to try a new approach of putting things together. (i'd like to reference the quark not being found on it's own, but lets avoid digression)

Only in the 60s and 70s were these system really studied, up until that point they were considered too hard. Which says a lot about science - we study the easiest stuff first. (well I suppose that makes tonnes of sense, explain what is easiest to explain, and only then try to expand your understanding to more difficult subjects)

Anyway, what does this say about the universe? The nature of it that complexity is not explainable in simple underlying terms. However well we understand things, that doesn't mean you can make predictions about what will happen tomorrow (though this psychic only post-dicted, a vision of the past, that it was possible doesn't mean i believe it was likely)

orathaic,

Well, chaos theory really isn't to the point. We're talking about a belief that somebody can know things at a distance or about the future due to communication from the spirits of dead people. This would be quite a lot more a radical, as a suggestion, than just saying that we could predict the weather a little bit more precisely than chaos theorists previously thought.

It would violate a lot of the laws of physics, including conservation of energy, and it would not promise any kind of law-based explanation (whether chaotic or no) in return. Scientists are extremely resistant to such ideas.

I'm not sure why you're talking about God -- theism was no part of the discussion.

Finally, I would say that "we now have an understanding of chaos and complexity" is a good deal too flattering to us. We are now aware that they exist and have a vague sense of some of their more obvious properties, would be a more accurate account.

Why do people get so vexed about psychics yet happily accept that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5000 people with a packet of M&Ms and a bowl of strawberries and came back from the dead.
How much stick are we giving the guy that told us Pluto was a planet? They sold 100 million astronomy books perpetuating that lie. Does Pluto even exist, I've never seen it, it must do though right because a real smart guy in a lab coat says so.

Nigee Is 100% correct - religious people that don't believe in ghosts and psychics are either terribly confused, are religious frauds, grossly misinformed or hypocrites.

The Bible specifically has examples of ghosts - spirits raised from the dead to tell the future, psychics and medians, healers that workunder demonic powers as well as those that worked for God....there is even an examle of human teleportation in the Bible....so, yeah, if you claim to be a Christian but don't believe in the spirit world, you're a bit of a dumbass.

I've been agreeing with krellin a lot lately, but now I agree with krellin *and* Nigee in the same thread. What the...?

Or you could, you know, not take the Bible literally.

If you don't take the Bible literally, you don't fall into the "Jesus walked on water" category.

Please don't pretend to be angry about something as trivial as Pluto. Pluto as an entity hasn't changed; how it is classified as a large rock does. Semantics.

krellin,

The Bible does have mediums in it. Is there a psychic in it anywhere? I can't recall one off-hand, although I suppose the servant girl in Acts was kind of what we call a psychic. In any case, I do believe the truth of those stories, but that does not at all mean that I have to believe there is any cause to believe in the continued existence of psychics today. It does mean I would never write off the possibility, but I have seen little evidence, and there are fairly good theological arguments for why such things would have largely died off.

Ditto for ghosts.

Nigee, I'm not sure if you were talking to me, but if so, I don't get "vexed" about psychics. I haven't yet seen very convincing arguments for their current existence, but I wouldn't write off the possibility.

Many would call a prophet who foretold the future to be a psychic. And as far as ghosts, are not the words Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit interchangeable?