• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Norm Pratt: Split from: Psychics and Missing People

But you can't say definitively that the antibiotics cured the patient. It seems logical, but it's not absolute proof. So why apply an absolute proof standard to psychics?

Just to be clear, the question is, "is it necessarily through paranormal methods that psychics assist police?" The difference that you perceive in proof requirements is that there is independent evidence that antibiotics have a pharmacologic effect. There is no independent evidence of paranormal effects. When taking alternate explanations into consideration, the possibility that the antibiotics cured the patient is still reasonable. When taking alternate explanations into consideration, "magic" is unreasonable.

Linda
 
I doubt that anyone will argue with the proposition that "doctors use medicine to cure illness." ;)

I should hope not, since evidence clearly indicates that doctors use medicine to cure illness.

Of course, my point is that the evidence does not indicate that the recovery of the patient can be attributed to the the first doctor's medical abilities, nor does it provide any indication that the first doctor even has any medical abilities. Just as the evidence does not indicate that the recovery of the body can be attributed to Pratt's psychic abilities, nor does it provide any indication that Pratt has any psychic abilities.

But you can't say definitively that the antibiotics cured the patient. It seems logical, but it's not absolute proof. So why apply an absolute proof standard to psychics?

There is little absolute proof of anything, including psychic abilities, medicine, or most anything else. Can you point out where I said that an absolute proof was required of psychics?

No, I simply said that the evidence in favor of psychic ability must outweigh the evidence against psychic ability. In this case, the evidence doesn't seem to indicate that Pratt has psychic ability at all, much less that psychic ability was used to help find the body.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, the question is, "is it necessarily through paranormal methods that psychics assist police?" The difference that you perceive in proof requirements is that there is independent evidence that antibiotics have a pharmacologic effect. There is no independent evidence of paranormal effects. When taking alternate explanations into consideration, the possibility that the antibiotics cured the patient is still reasonable. When taking alternate explanations into consideration, "magic" is unreasonable.

Linda
So what would it take to cause you to think a psychic had assisted the police?
 
Your question wasn't directed at me, but it would take a lot of evidence for me to think a psychic had assisted the police using psychic powers, given that there is very little evidence of psychic powers and plenty of evidence against it.

However, we're just talking about whether this particular report constitutes evidence of psychic powers being used to assist police, and it doesn't.

-Bri
 
So what would it take to cause you to think a psychic had assisted the police?
Speaking for myself only, I don't want to see police work being interfered with by psychics any more than I want drug companies testing new drugs on humans before they have shown any benefit in lab trials. Police work is too important to be so trivialized.

I would like to see a psychic, any psychic, show in a controlled study that they have any of their so claimed powers. First things first.
 
Speaking for myself only, I don't want to see police work being interfered with by psychics any more than I want drug companies testing new drugs on humans before they have shown any benefit in lab trials. Police work is too important to be so trivialized.
So assisting the police in finding a body is trivializing police work?

I would like to see a psychic, any psychic, show in a controlled study that they have any of their so claimed powers. First things first.
How would a controlled study work for a psychic who was right, let's say, 30% of the time? What would be the protocol?
 
So assisting the police in finding a body is trivializing police work?


How would a controlled study work for a psychic who was right, let's say, 30% of the time? What would be the protocol?

Ten cases. Get three right? By right I mean something other than "still alive" or the body is "near water". Even I can do that. :D
 
How would a controlled study work for a psychic who was right, let's say, 30% of the time? What would be the protocol?

I find that funny. There are few psychics who only claim a 30% success rate. Most claim well over 85%. A 30% success rate wouldn't be very impressive, would be lower success than a cold reader could do in most cases, and probably wouldn't even make sense considering that most claim to be getting their information straight from God, an angel, a spirit guide, an ancient mystic, aliens, a dead relative, or some other entity who the psychic has reason to believe knows the answers to the questions asked.

Personally, I think it might be useful in a missing person's case if the psychic could prove in a controlled, double-blind test that they have a 10% success rate of finding missing people. Of course, none have ever even gotten above chance in a controlled, double-blind test.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think it might be useful in a missing person's case if the psychic could prove in a controlled, double-blind test that they have a 10% success rate of finding missing people. Of course, none have ever even gotten above chance in a controlled, double-blind test.

-Bri
Please be so kind as to name one psychic detective that has ever been tested in a controlled, double-blind test.
 
Please be so kind as to name one psychic detective that has ever been tested in a controlled, double-blind test.

The post to which you were responding from YoPopa suggested that in order to avoid wasting time and resources, psychics should be given a controlled test to demonstrate that they can do what they say they can do before police consider consulting them to help solve crimes. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

How does your question "Would Norm Pratt have been credited with a hit in the missing woman case under discussion here?" address that point given that it wasn't a controlled test? How does whether or not I can name a "psychic detective" who has agreed to be tested address that point?

Rodney, you really seem to be trying hard to make a point, but I don't really get what your point is exactly. Care to state it outright, or at least address the points others have made that you seem to take exception to?

-Bri
 
See my previous post. And I am also interested in your proposed protocol for testing a psychic detective.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, but the answer to your question is that it would depend on exactly what the claim is. In other words, what exactly can they do and how often can they do it?

-Bri
 
The post to which you were responding from YoPopa suggested that in order to avoid wasting time and resources, psychics should be given a controlled test to demonstrate that they can do what they say they can do before police consider consulting them to help solve crimes. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

How does your question "Would Norm Pratt have been credited with a hit in the missing woman case under discussion here?" address that point given that it wasn't a controlled test? How does whether or not I can name a "psychic detective" who has agreed to be tested address that point?

Rodney, you really seem to be trying hard to make a point, but I don't really get what your point is exactly. Care to state it outright, or at least address the points others have made that you seem to take exception to?

-Bri
The point is simple: To my knowledge, no psychic detective has ever been tested under controlled conditions, and I believe the reason is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to devise an objective protocol. So, it appears to me that the only way psychic detectives can be evaluated is to look at their track records. However, if you or someone else here can devise an objective protocol for testing psychic detectives, bring it on.
 
I've already mentioned Alex Tanous.

Alex Tanous was a renowned psychic and parapsychologist who believed very strongly in testing his paranormal abilities according to the standards of scientific research (he is discussed at length in Chapter 5 of Lives of the Psychics). The Alex Tanous Foundation has carried on this work since his death in 1990.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/265862.html
http://www.alextanous.org/

Psychic Alex Tanous was being interviewed by Lee Spiegel for NBC radio’s "Unexplained Phenomena" show. The two were sitting opposite the street from the Dakota Apartments in New York City.

Spiegel asked for a prediction that would be of special interest to the station’s listening audience, eighteen to thirty-four year old rock enthusiasts.

"The prediction I will make," said Tanous, "is that a very famous rock star will have an untimely death and this can happen from this moment on. I say untimely death because there is something strange about this death, but it will affect the consciousness of many people because of his fame." Without mentioning a name, he added that the star may be foreign-born but living in the United States.

The show was aired on September 8, 1980. Three months later, John Lennon, the English-born rock star living in New York City, was short and killed outside the Dakota Apartments, visible through the windows of the office in which Alex Tanous had been sitting when he foresaw the tragic event to come.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007446F/psychics.htm
 
Last edited:
The point is simple: To my knowledge, no psychic detective has ever been tested under controlled conditions, and I believe the reason is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to devise an objective protocol. So, it appears to me that the only way psychic detectives can be evaluated is to look at their track records. However, if you or someone else here can devise an objective protocol for testing psychic detectives, bring it on.

No psychic detective would have a "track record" that would be meaningful in any way. We've already discussed why the report in question (which is likely the best example you can come up with) can't even be counted as a success. As far as I can tell, Pratt has a 0% success record. If you really want to use their track record as a determining factor, then police definitely shouldn't use psychics at all.

That said, it is almost certain that a protocol could be devised to test a psychic's claims. Of course, the protocol used would depend on exactly what the claim of an individual psychic is. There is likely no one test that will work for all psychics since they each claim to be able to do different things with different degrees of success.

-Bri
 
Was Alex Tanous tested using a controlled double-blind test? If so, can you please post a reference to the protocol used and the results?

-Bri

The only thing I've been able to find is on the biographical page of his website:

The offspring of psychic parents, he was born with a veil, the mystic cross and a five-pointed star on his left hand, the traditional markings of a psychic. By 1960, Alex realized that he possessed not only the traditional psychic power of predicting the future, but also a wide variety of other abilities. With an eye towards furthering scientific knowledge in this area, he submitted himself to the American Society for Psychical Research for testing. Dr. Karlis Osis, Director of the ASPR, has said, “In a series of ESP tests given to Dr. Alex Tanous in which he scored very high, the law of probability that it was chance was 1 out of 3000.” The odds that his test scores could have been coincidence were 99.9% against.

Dr. Tanous completed a classical education at Boston College and collected an impressive array of degrees—M.A. in philosophy from Boston College in 1960; M.A. in Sacred Sciences and Ph.D work at Fordham University; M.S. Ed. Counseling from the University of Maine in 1973; Doctor of Divinity from the College of Metaphysics in Indiana in 1965. Between 1965-1967 Alex taught Theology at Manhattan College and St. Johns University, both located in New York City. In recent years he taught classes on Psychic Phenomena and related topics at the University of Southern Maine.

From 1968 until the time of his death, he was associated with the American Society of Psychical Research. During this time, he served as the ASPR’s leading “gifted” subject in many experiments. Alex also applied his talents to the diagnosis and treatment of disorders at a psychiatric clinic in Pennsylvania and to studies of Psychic Healing conducted at McGill University in Canada.

Also documented by the ASPR are his powers of astro-projection, bilocation, ESP, psychometry, the Bergman test, and all of his past predictions. In addition, he demonstrated the ability to practice teleportation, faith-healing, communication with ghosts, solidifying light and projecting his thoughts on a screen.

http://www.alextanous.org/research/biography.php
 
With all the psychics around jumping in on missing persons cases, sooner or later we should expect something that could be called a hit, just by chanse alone. If he and other psychics could do it again and again, then it would be interesting.
 

Back
Top Bottom