54. Skeptic Ben Radford, Police & Psychic Detectives (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Ben Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine discusses his debunking of the Charles Capel psychic detective case.

Click here to read more ...

[Mizzark]

Ya know, Alex, I can't believe that I'm saying this, but Ben Radford was right. Renier's information was not useful in this one particular case. It is true that the police did not find the body. I wish that you would have focused on whether or not Renier was right. I mean, it shouldn't matter whether or not she was useful if once the body was found her information was found to be accurate and not likely by chance.

[mcairo]

At the end of the day, both Alex and Ben are right in their own ways. Ben is correct in saying that Psychic detectives and psychic profilers are frequently making unfounded claims about helping the police solve important cases.

As a medium, I can tell you without any reservation, that the majority of psychics and mediums are attention hungry and in need of self reassurance, even when they claim to be working for free or in the service of a higher calling. Ego does not need cash to reap a reward.

Alex is right in saying that the process of "remote viewing" can lead to information that, if interpreted and applied properly, can be of use in guiding criminal professionals in their investigations.

So, since at the end of the day what is really being discussed is "remote viewing," why not set up an experiment to test remote viewing. If it is science one is after, I can't see any positive outcome in going back to old cases and arguing whether or not the psychic detective was of use.

I say, set up a new experiment that tests remote viewing of data already known to the authorities and not to the psychic detective, and eliminate the criterion of "solving" the case from the equation. What psi supporters need to prove is that information can be ascertained through psychic efforts.

[Open Mind]

May I suggest the experimental set up is Noreen Renier Versus Ben Radford of CSI (CSICOP) to see who provides the more accurate match of information.

What Ben seems to be missing is that the police knew the area Renier was describing because reportedly they went back to look there from that description. Arguably the police couldn't find the body because they didn't believe the psychic would necessarily be right. If police had looked longer and harder in that area with more confidence the psychic was right, then who knows?

Arguably CSICOP (or JREF) have never looked properly for psi phenomena (as they have never tried to replicate a long-term parapsychological experiment in their 30 year history) they are very unlikely to find any conclusive evidence .... does finding no psi, when not looking properly, mean psi doesn't exist? Do CSICOP truly want to find psi?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by mcairo

At the end of the day, both Alex and Ben are right in their own ways. Ben is correct in saying that Psychic detectives and psychic profilers are frequently making unfounded claims about helping the police solve important cases.

As a medium, I can tell you without any reservation, that the majority of psychics and mediums are attention hungry and in need of self reassurance, even when they claim to be working for free or in the service of a higher calling. Ego does not need cash to reap a reward.

Alex is right in saying that the process of "remote viewing" can lead to information that, if interpreted and applied properly, can be of use in guiding criminal professionals in their investigations.

So, since at the end of the day what is really being discussed is "remote viewing," why not set up an experiment to test remote viewing. If it is science one is after, I can't see any positive outcome in going back to old cases and arguing whether or not the psychic detective was of use.

I say, set up a new experiment that tests remote viewing of data already known to the authorities and not to the psychic detective, and eliminate the criterion of "solving" the case from the equation. What psi supporters need to prove is that information can be ascertained through psychic efforts.

As mentioned, I am try to set up an experiment through a university department of criminology to test whether phychic detectives can be effective.

I think it is usful to look at old cases because it shows the process that debunkers use... remember this one was of Ben's choosing. He choose a case where the hunter found the body. The next one will be my choice.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

May I suggest the experimental set up is Noreen Renier Versus Ben Radford of CSI (CSICOP) to see who provides the more accurate match of information.

What Ben seems to be missing is that the police knew the area Renier was describing because reportedly they went back to look there from that description. Arguably the police couldn't find the body because they didn't believe the psychic would necessarily be right. If police had looked longer and harder in that area with more confidence the psychic was right, then who knows?

Arguably CSICOP (or JREF) have never looked properly for psi phenomena (as they have never tried to replicate a long-term parapsychological experiment in their 30 year history) they are very unlikely to find any conclusive evidence .... does finding no psi, when not looking properly, mean psi doesn't exist? Do CSICOP truly want to find psi?

The other missing point --- THIS IS NOT A SUCCESSFUL DEBUNKING!

This was Ben's case. This was supposed to be demonstration of how stupid the Oxford Ohio police were for using a psychic detective like Noreen Renier. Instead, the evidence shows that the information provided did match the location of the body.

We can argue about whether the case is proves the effectiveness of psychic detectives, but as a debunking, it's clearly a failure.

[Mizzark]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

We can argue about whether the case is proves the effectiveness of psychic detectives, but as a debunking, it's clearly a failure.

I agree 100%

[Solar]

I was intrigued by Ben Radford's use of logic, he seemed fixed to this point of whether or not the police found the body; it was intriguing as it had no real bearing on Renier's information. It seems to me that the issue with any understanding of information from a psychic, has to focus on the information the psychic presents, it can't be focused on the police's ability to utilise the information, as this is totally independent of the psychic. His focus on the police result just revealed his moving of the goalposts attitude; because I'm sure he doesn't use this police based argument in cases where the body IS found. In those cases he will no doubt argue that the information was too vague, general and therefore worthless (regardless of the police result). So which is it, the police result or the quality of the information that's important? he can't have it both ways...

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by Solar

So which is it, the police result or the quality of the information that's important? he can't have it both ways...

The problem in a case like this is that it is unclear how good the information was. Its apparent that the psychic had access to information about the investigation - this has been pointed out by a number of people - but its not clear how much information she obtained in a straightforward way (e.g. that telephone conversation with the policeman, google and on and on). I think the information she provided sounds pretty vague and it did not lead the police to a place they had not already considered searching. Then there is the problem of how accurately things are reported after the event. People love to have a good story to tell and things are often presented in a much more intriguing way than accuracy would allow. I think we should just agree that this is an interesting case but not one that provides evidence of psychic ability. Is there another case where the body was found in a totally unexpected location identified by the psychic?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

The problem in a case like this is that it is unclear how good the information was. Its apparent that the psychic had access to information about the investigation

- not really, if anything the opposite is true
1. newspaper accounts say she had only his shoes and a tooth brush and was hundreds of miles away
2. Ben's investigation adds no new facts about what she knew
3. My interview with her was the first that asked the question directly and she stated that she did not have any information about the case

- this has been pointed out by a number of people - but its not clear how much information she obtained in a straightforward way (e.g. that telephone conversation with the policeman, google and on and on).

- again, this is total speculation... contrary to the known facts

I think the information she provided sounds pretty vague and it did not lead the police to a place they had not already considered searching.

- your opinion is not shared by those closest to the investigation

Then there is the problem of how accurately things are reported after the event. People love to have a good story to tell and things are often presented in a much more intriguing way than accuracy would allow.

- the newspaper accounts track the case the whole way... no big time gap

I think we should just agree that this is an interesting case but not one that provides evidence of psychic ability. Is there another case where the body was found in a totally unexpected location identified by the psychic?

I think we should agree this a failed debunking that should never have made its way into the The Skeptical Inquirer.