Norm Pratt: Split from: Psychics and Missing People

[Bri]

Based on the one case I've heard about, 100%.

Obviously, your definition of success differs from the rest of us, but nonetheless I didn't ask what your opinion of his success rate is. I asked what success rate he claims. If you want others to answer the question which you keep asking over and over again, you might want to try answering the questions posed to you.

Specifically, nobody is going to be able to propose a protocol until you describe precisely what Pratt claims to be able to do and how often he can do it.

-Bri

 

[Rodney]

Only if he could do so consistently.

Why? Isn't helping the police solve just one case worthwhile?

Otherwise, if this example is the best one, no it wouldn't be worthwhile. If we take all of the psychics who have tried to find missing persons and compared with those who were successful (even generously counting this one as a hit, which it isn't) psychics hinder far more cases than they help.

If you can document that claim, please do so.

 

[Bri]

Why? Isn't helping the police solve just one case worthwhile?

Asked and answered. No, helping the police solve only one case would not be worthwhile considering that hundreds of other cases that would be hindered. In many cases, hindering the police can result in the missing person's death. So, no, it would be far better if police never consulted psychics, even if one had succeeded in using their abilities to help solve a case (of course, there is zero evidence that any have). Police might as well consult a goat and they'd have the same result. Why don't they do that?

If you can document that claim, please do so.

There are hundreds of documented cases of psychics attempting to use their powers to find missing people and failing to do so. There are no documented cases of anyone using psychic abilities to find a missing person. Pretty convincing evidence that psychics hinder more cases than they help.

-Bri

 

[Rodney]

Asked and answered. No, helping the police solve only one case would not be worthwhile considering that hundreds of other cases that would be hindered. In many cases, hindering the police can result in the missing person's death. So, no, it would be far better if police never consulted psychics, even if one had succeeded in using their abilities to help solve a case (of course, there is zero evidence that any have). Police might as well consult a goat and they'd have the same result. Why don't they do that?

Because no policeman has claimed that a goat helped find a missing person?

There are hundreds of documented cases of psychics attempting to use their powers to find missing people and failing to do so. There are no documented cases of anyone using psychic abilities to find a missing person. Pretty convincing evidence that psychics hinder more cases than they help.

-Bri

Except you haven't done any documentation. By the way, has anyone debunked this guy? See http://www.briansprediction.com/FOUND.htm

 

[Bri]

Because no policeman has claimed that a goat helped find a missing person?

And yet goats have hindered fewer cases than psychics and have helped on just as many! Go figure.

Except you haven't done any documentation.

What does that have to do with the fact that the evidence supports my statement that psychics hinder more cases than they help?

The fact that you're trying so hard to find just a single example of evidence of a psychic using their ability to help find a missing person is a pretty clear indication of how unlikely it is that you can find evidence that the majority of psychics are successful.

-Bri

 

[Ersby]

What if Pratt states that his psychic power is limited to locating missing persons? What would be the protocol for testing that?

See how he does compared to control guessers.

 

[fls]

By the way, has anyone debunked this guy? See http://www.briansprediction.com/FOUND.htm

There was a thread a while ago. One of his claims was that he dreamed winning lottery numbers, but it was discovered that he posted his "proof" (a handwritten note with the numbers on it) after the broadcast and covered it up by lying about the time.

Given that there is a seemingly endless supply of these people, it makes more sense to figure out whether any of them deserve our attention - some way that distinguishes them from the crowd. Any ideas?

Linda

 

[logical muse]

Rodney,

I hate to bring this up, but there are literally thousands, tens of thousands, of missing people. Just recently, there has been a lot of media-attention given to the case of a missing girl.

Would that psychic ability was real and that this poor girl could be found and reunited with her parents. Perhaps you could ask Mr. Pratt where she is. If Mr. Pratt can't find her, surely one of the other psychics should be able to?

Rodney, how do you reconcile the fact that there are many missing people with your belief that psychics can find them?

 

[Rodney]

See how he does compared to control guessers.

You need to be more specific. Bri is arguing that, even though the police sergeant is convinced that Norm Pratt's involvement in the missing woman's case is what led to the discovery of her body, that still doesn't constitute a hit. I'm just trying to figure out how a psychic detective could ever win the million dollar prize.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney,

I hate to bring this up, but there are literally thousands, tens of thousands, of missing people. Just recently, there has been a lot of media-attention given to the case of a missing girl.

Would that psychic ability was real and that this poor girl could be found and reunited with her parents. Perhaps you could ask Mr. Pratt where she is. If Mr. Pratt can't find her, surely one of the other psychics should be able to?

Rodney, how do you reconcile the fact that there are many missing people with your belief that psychics can find them?

I'm not arguing that psychics can find all, or even most, missing persons. But if they can find even one, after the police have failed, that should count for something.

 

[Rodney]

There was a thread a while ago. One of his claims was that he dreamed winning lottery numbers, but it was discovered that he posted his "proof" (a handwritten note with the numbers on it) after the broadcast and covered it up by lying about the time.

Given that there is a seemingly endless supply of these people, it makes more sense to figure out whether any of them deserve our attention - some way that distinguishes them from the crowd. Any ideas?

Linda

My idea would be to focus on alleged psychics who have some police support, such as Norm Pratt and Nancy Weber.

 

[Bri]

Bri is arguing that, even though the police sergeant is convinced that Norm Pratt's involvement in the missing woman's case is what led to the discovery of her body, that still doesn't constitute a hit.

What the sergeant said was "Without the use of the psychic, I think I'd still be looking for this person,' Bank said Wednesday."

The fact is that all Pratt did was tell them not to search where they had already searched (and apparently continued to search). There is no evidence whatsoever that Pratt led the police to the body.

I'm just trying to figure out how a psychic detective could ever win the million dollar prize.

The psychic detective would pass a double-blind test to win the million. What this particular police sergeant thinks about this particular case is irrelevant to the million dollar prize.

But I suspect you already knew that since you've already been told that many times in this thread.

-Bri

 

[logical muse]

I'm not arguing that psychics can find all, or even most, missing persons. But if they can find even one, after the police have failed, that should count for something.

OK, so you're not arguing that psychics can find all, or even most, missing persons. It sounds like you're also not arguing that they can find some, or even a few, missing persons. What are you arguing then?

You haven't even demonstrated that they can find even one.

At best, you have a media report that a psychic told the police to stop searching where they had already searched.

 

[Bri]

I'm not arguing that psychics can find all, or even most, missing persons. But if they can find even one, after the police have failed, that should count for something.

Unfortunately, psychics haven't even been able to find even one missing person, much less many. Meanwhile, they have hindered many, many cases and caused immeasurable additional harm to many, many families of missing people.

Sad, isn't it?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

My idea would be to focus on alleged psychics who have some police support, such as Norm Pratt and Nancy Weber.

Rodney, I totally agree. These people should take double-blind tests to show that they can do what they claim they can do but repeatedly fail to demonstrate. However, I suspect that there's a reason these self-proclaimed psychic detectives don't want to take the tests.

-Bri

 

[Hardenbergh]

I e-mailed Norm Pratt last Friday and invited him to read this topic of discussion if he was interested. I provided a link to the thread. He responded to my message right away. He was very polite and I don't think that he would mind my quoting his message.

Hi Hardenbergh (not my real name obviously),

thanks for your email. I've learned to disregard this type of attention. Many people don't understand the nature of intuitive guidance and are closed-minded to or threatened by the possibility as it is outside their comfort zones.

Hope you are having an enjoyable summer,

Norm.

 

[Garrette]

I e-mailed Norm Pratt last Friday and invited him to read this topic of discussion if he was interested. I provided a link to the thread. He responded to my message right away. He was very polite and I don't think that he would mind my quoting his message.

And his response is typical of the vacuous statements many psychics give when asked for evidence.

He hasn't read the thread and yet he says we "don't understand the nature of intuitive guidance?"

Separate from him starting out with an unfounded assertion, it is entirely irrelevant if we understand intuitive guidance or not.

What is relevant is whether or not he can do what he says he can do.

Show us, Mr. Pratt.


He also says we "are closed-minded to or threatened by the possibility as it is outside their comfort zones."

Ah, yes. No skeptic has ever experienced the things Mr. Pratt has. No skeptic has ever actually studied such things. We are simply threatened.

It's flat out untrue and insulting and empty of substance.

What it is also empty of is any demonstration that he can do what he says he can do.

Par for the course.

 

[Hardenbergh]

And his response is typical of the vacuous statements many psychics give when asked for evidence.

He hasn't read the thread and yet he says we "don't understand the nature of intuitive guidance?"

Separate from him starting out with an unfounded assertion, it is entirely irrelevant if we understand intuitive guidance or not.

What is relevant is whether or not he can do what he says he can do.

Show us, Mr. Pratt.


He also says we "are closed-minded to or threatened by the possibility as it is outside their comfort zones."

Ah, yes. No skeptic has ever experienced the things Mr. Pratt has. No skeptic has ever actually studied such things. We are simply threatened.

It's flat out untrue and insulting and empty of substance.

What it is also empty of is any demonstration that he can do what he says he can do.

Par for the course.

He was speaking in general terms when he was talking about being closed-minded or threatened. He was talking about skeptics in general, not the JREF forums.

Anyway, he was responding to my e-mail and the invitation to follow along and read the thread. I didn't expect him to write a 50-page dissertation on the subject of skepticism about psychics.

 

[Bri]

He was speaking in general terms when he was talking about being closed-minded or threatened. He was talking about skeptics in general, not the JREF forums.

I find that comment odd, since skepticism is all about being open-minded. It's about questioning one's beliefs, particularly those beliefs which are not based on evidence. I'm guessing that Mr. Pratt isn't interested in questioning his beliefs, nor is he interested in his fans questioning theirs. If they questioned their beliefs too hard, they'd demand some evidence of the claims he makes.

No, Mr. Pratt will not participate in the discussion, nor will he test his abilities. I suspect he may already know what the outcome would be.

-Bri

 

[Garrette]

He was speaking in general terms when he was talking about being closed-minded or threatened. He was talking about skeptics in general, not the JREF forums.

So he paints ALL people who do not believe him with that brush?

That's worse.

Anyway, he was responding to my e-mail and the invitation to follow along and read the thread. I didn't expect him to write a 50-page dissertation on the subject of skepticism about psychics.

Neither did I. Any of the following would have sufficed:

1. "Sounds interesting, but I don't have the time."

2. "I find such discussions are rarely productive."

3. "Sure! Thanks!"

4. "No, thanks."

Instead, he launches into an insulting generality that you agree is vacuous and without substance.

I would say that Mr. Pratt is, well, a prat, but I'm too open-minded to make such a conclusion as yet. I will simply say that the limited evidence to hand lends some support to that hypothesis.