69. Psychic Detective Smackdown, Ben Radford (Podcast)

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

This sort of messy case is ideal for CSIcop, it isn't scientific research....nice and safe to offer skepticism of the gaps.

"Messy case?"

You seem to forget that this case was presented to me as an open-and-shut, slam-dunk, "best case" for psychic detectives. It was featured on TV; it had not one but two respected police officers vouching for it. I went into it assuming it would be neither "nice and safe" nor "messy"; I accepted the case because it was said to be so solid and remarkable. I had never heard of the case until Alex presented it to me, so I can hardly be faulted if the "best case" is "messy" and the evidence is unconvincing.

The reason the case has been revealed to be "messy" is because of the scientific research and investigation that I have put into it. (And, yes, this case does involve scientific research; not all scientific research is experimental.)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by B Radford

"Messy case?"

Ben, you have taken one poorly worded phrase, latched on to that and ignored replying to all my other comments. It is arguably only messy decades after the event since no human has perfect memory recall.

You seem to forget that this case was presented to me as an open-and-shut, slam-dunk, "best case" for psychic detectives.

Nonsense! You pulled the old (non-scientific) psychological stunt of 'raising the bar', demanding 'extraordinary evidence' so you just have to claim the evidence isn't extraordinary enough and not perfect enough to later dismiss it..

Here is your wording arranging it in the very first interview ... at 52 minutes 40 seconds into your first interview with Alex this is what you say 'Tell you what we'll do, you find the 'best case' you can find, look at any psychic you want, pick the one case you think is airtight and give it to me and I will get back to you in a couple of months and we will see what we can find'
Skeptiko Podcast -- Science at the Tipping Point

Alex replies 'fair enough, that is a challenge I can live with' .... but it isn't fair, nor scientific. Now Alex has to go looking for the most impressive case ... that will increase the odds of cases of exaggeration which is exactly what you want, you just need to nitpick errors and claim it is not accurately reported.

James Randi is using the same stunt .... he offers $1,000,000 to justify 'raising the bar' .....therefore chancers and the most self deluded are more likely to enter...... if Randi demands odds of a million to 1 then statistical significance far below this can be stamped 'failure' in the unlikely event of achieving this in such a short preliminary trial ....weaker psi effects can be dismissed.

The reason the case has been revealed to be "messy" is because of the scientific research and investigation that I have put into it.

Ben, there is nothing scientific about what you are doing. Nor have you proven anything other than what everyone already knows, most people don't have perfect memories long after the event. But in the case of the two detectives, it is not what they remember now 20 (or whatever) years later ... it is their testimony that information was remarkable soon after the events.

(And, yes, this case does involve scientific research; not all scientific research is experimental.)

Yes but it is harder to debunk, so CSIcop avoids experimental research?

[B Radford]

"Open Mind":

"To argue with a fool makes two fools." I have no interest in explaining the scientific process to you, or addressing your ad hominem attacks, non-sequiturs, or pathological hatred of James Randi, skepticism, or CSICOP.

I am interested in the facts of this psychic detective's claims, and hearing answers (from you, Alex, Nancy, or anyone else) to the four questions below.


1) Weber repeatedly claimed that Koedatich was "wrongly released" from prison (in Florida, in "the South", or wherever). I have not found any information that suggests Koedatich was "wrongly released," instead he was paroled as normal. Was Weber's information correct about this or not? References?

2) Weber, Hughes, and Moore all stated that Weber's information was 100% correct, that none of her information about Koedatich or this case was inaccurate. Yet on page 119 of her book, Weber gave the following information about the case: "I see a small brown car with a hatchback. In the car I see a man who is extremely wild-looking... I see a woman with pigtails, sitting there terrified...[she is] running out of the car and losing a shoe...." The description goes on, but apparently Nancy's information was completely wrong, and had nothing to do with Hoffman or Koedatich. Hughes agrees (page 167): "Nothing was ever found out about this. No one was ever reported missing."

So how does Weber explain this? Are the three eyewitnesses lying? Or have they all simply forgotten about the information she gave that was completely wrong? If so, what does that say about the accuracy of their memories, if they contradict something that was written as recently as 1995?

3) Can Weber provide the tape made by the unnamed psychotherapist about her visions and information on the case? If she repeated the accurate information the allegedly gave to Moore and Hughes at the time, this could be the "smoking gun" that proves or disproves the case.

4) And, of course, what does she mean when she claims that "In 1972 she studied psychotherapy at the Center For Feelings and Creativity."? Is this an actual school, college, or academic organization? If so, why is there virtually no record of its existence? If it's not an actual place, why is she claiming to have studied there?

I hope we will get some answers from Alex and Nancy about these questions.

[DoctorAtlantis]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Alex replies 'fair enough, that is a challenge I can live with' .... but it isn't fair, nor scientific. Now Alex has to go looking for the most impressive case ... that will increase the odds of cases of exaggeration which is exactly what you want, you just need to nitpick errors and claim it is not accurately reported.

1) Do you think Alex did find the "best" case here? The most impressive?

2) What specifically do you think it would require to convince the scientific community that psychic detectives "work"?

3) Why haven't psychic detectives solved any high profile cases? If their information is so specific - why are there so many unsolved crimes?

4) Which psychics predicted Fawcett and Jackson would die on the same day?

5) Did you listen to the additional audio material on the website I linked to?

Life is hard even at it's best. It would be very, very cool if psychics could see visions that made it a little easier for us mundanes to get by. But I'm not seeing it. And all the whining about how nit-picky skeptics are doesn't change the fact that even if psychic powers are real they are apparently flaky, vague and useless when it comes to solving crimes.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by B Radford

"Open Mind":

"To argue with a fool makes two fools." I have no interest in explaining the scientific process to you, or addressing your ad hominem attacks, non-sequiturs, or pathological hatred of James Randi, skepticism, or CSICOP

I hate no one ....it is just sheer hypocrisy, you approve when skeptics behave rudely or agressively towards claimants however if you face questions that are not possible to ask politely you claim it is wrong?

Originally Posted by B Radford

Yes. I think it's up to Alex and/or Nancy to explain the following things:

1) Weber repeatedly claimed that Koedatich was "wrongly released" from prison (in Florida, in "the South", or wherever). I have not found any information that suggests Koedatich was "wrongly released," instead he was paroled as normal. Was Weber's information correct about this or not? References?

The point is that she correctly said he was previously in jail. It is quite common for people to judge with hindsight that people locked in jail who get out and commit another crime were 'wrongly released' i.e. not reformed, regardless of whether term of sentence is up or not. You are assuming everything the medium states must be taken literally and if not literally perfect an error..

2) Weber, Hughes, and Moore all stated that Weber's information was 100% correct that none of her information about Koedatich or this case was inaccurate.

When did Hughes or Moore directly state '100%' and none of her information was inaccurate? Why do you think all of Nancy's information must be 100% accurate or she should be judged 0% psychic?

Yet on page 119 of her book, Weber gave the following information about the case: "I see a small brown car with a hatchback. In the car I see a man who is extremely wild-looking... I see a woman with pigtails, sitting there terrified...[she is] running out of the car and losing a shoe...." The description goes on, but apparently Nancy's information was completely wrong, and had nothing to do with Hoffman or Koedatich. Hughes agrees (page 167): "Nothing was ever found out about this. No one was ever reported missing."

You claim 'completely wrong' ... I don't know the details of what you are referring to but it might be partially wrong, partially correct, you don't know. Again it is a fallacy to assume a psychic must be 100% accurate or has no ability whatsoever

if they contradict something that was written as recently as 1995? (And note that just because the memories of all three of them agree on this does not mean it is accurate.

If the matching was better in past. How does that prove your point?

Alex would say, "All three agree, it must be true."

Which interview did Alex say this? I didn't hear that.

[quote] But in this case, either Weber and Hughes were wrong in 1995 or the three of them are wrong now.) [/B]
Memory errors generally increase over time .... that is how memory commonly works. Earlier reports more trustworthy

3) Can Weber provide the tape made by the unnamed psychotherapist about her visions and information on the case? If she repeated the accurate information the allegedly gave to Moore and Hughes at the time, this could be the "smoking gun" that proves or disproves the case.

You would just pick different theoretical flaws

4) And, of course, what does she mean when she claims that "In 1972 she studied psychotherapy at the Center For Feelings and Creativity."? Is this an actual school, college, or academic organization? If so, why is there virtually no record of its existence? If it's not an actual place, why is she claiming to have studied there?

What is so special about 'academic' psychotherapy? It is struggling to be a materialistic science ... you seem to be defending anything conventional and opposing anything unconventional, proper evidence or not ...

In 2001 Bruce Wampold of the University of Wisconsin published "The Great Psychotherapy Debate"[17]. In it Wampold, a former statistician who went on to train as a counseling psychologist, reported that

- psychotherapy is indeed effective,
- the type of treatment is not a factor,
- the theoretical bases of the techniques used as well as the strictness of adherence to those techniques are both not factors,
- the therapists strength of belief in the efficacy of the technique is a factor (!),
- the therapists as a person is a large factor
the alliance between the patience and the therapist (meaning affectionate and trusting feelings toward the therapist, motivation and collaboration of the client, and empathic response of the therapist) is a key factor.
Wanpold therefore concludes that "we do not know why psychotherapy works".
Psychotherapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by DoctorAtlantis

1) Do you think Alex did find the "best" case here? The most impressive?

Why is the 'most impressive' even important? Do some people have anomalous cognition signficantly above chance under controlled conditions is a more important question.

2) What specifically do you think it would require to convince the scientific community that psychic detectives "work"?

Use open minded and (non-political) skeptical scientists to do research together.

3) Why haven't psychic detectives solved any high profile cases?

Detectives solve cases from the leads of others, the psychic would have to be a qualified detective.

If their information is so specific - why are there so many unsolved crimes?

I am not claiming psi is highly accurate, just above chance in some people more so than others. ... if people can do better than chance expectation, that is useful.

4) Which psychics predicted Fawcett and Jackson would die on the same day?

I find it astonishing that 'skeptics' think psi must be extremely accurate or completely false .... give me a good reason why?

5) Did you listen to the additional audio material on the website I linked to?

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about.

Life is hard even at it's best. It would be very, very cool if psychics could see visions that made it a little easier for us mundanes to get by. But I'm not seeing it. And all the whining about how nit-picky skeptics are doesn't change the fact that even if psychic powers are real they are apparently flaky, vague and useless when it comes to solving crimes.

If weak psi effects are real, the consequences are major...for example it could prove that the brain doesn't work like a classical computer, it would modify/clarify theoretical physics potentially bringing new discoveries. ....it would also mean organized skeptic groups have been jumping the gun and hindering the progress of science for the past 30 years .

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by DoctorAtlantis

1) Do you think Alex did find the "best" case here? The most impressive?

Why is the 'most impressive' even important? Do some people have anomalous cognition signficantly above chance under controlled conditions?

2) What specifically do you think it would require to convince the scientific community that psychic detectives "work"?

Use open minded and (non-political) skeptical scientists to do research together.

3) Why haven't psychic detectives solved any high profile cases?

Detectives solve cases from the leads of others, the psychic would have to be a qualified detective.

If their information is so specific - why are there so many unsolved crimes?

I am not claiming psi is highly accurate, just above chance in some people more so than others. ... if people can do better than chance, that is useful.

4) Which psychics predicted Fawcett and Jackson would die on the same day?

I find it astonishing that 'skeptics' think psi must be extremely accurate or completely false .... give me a good reason why?

5) Did you listen to the additional audio material on the website I linked to?

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about.

Life is hard even at it's best. It would be very, very cool if psychics could see visions that made it a little easier for us mundanes to get by. But I'm not seeing it. And all the whining about how nit-picky skeptics are doesn't change the fact that even if psychic powers are real they are apparently flaky, vague and useless when it comes to solving crimes.

If weak psi effects are real, the consequences are major...for example it ould prove that the brain doesn't work like a classical computer, it would modify theoretical physics potentially bringing new discoveries. ....it would also mean organized skeptic groups have been hindering the progress of science for the past 30 years .

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

you approve when skeptics behave rudely or agressively towards claimants

No, I do not and have never approved of skeptics or anyone else behaving rudely or aggressively. I don't know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect when applied to me. In all my interviews with Weber, Hughes, or Moore, I challenge you to find even one example of when I treated any of them with rudeness or disrespect.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

You are assuming everything the medium states must be taken literally

That is correct. The basis of Weber's claim in this case is her amazingly specific and accurate information. As I have said before, psychic detectives operate on ambiguity: "the body will be found near water." Thus it is very important to know whether the info she gave was specific or not. She claims in most cases it was, both police officers claim it wasn't (listen to the interviews, read the transcripts).

Originally Posted by Open Mind

When did Hughes or Moore directly state '100%' and none of her information was inaccurate?

.

In the final interviews with Alex and myself. Listen to the interviews and/or read the transcripts.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Why do you think all of Nancy's information must be 100% accurate?

.

I don't, that is the claim of Moore and Hughes. The issue is their memories: Alex says their memories are excellent and reliable. If they don't remember Weber giving inaccurate information, then what else don't they remember?

[B Radford]

5) Did you listen to the additional audio material on the website I linked to?

>> Sorry I don't know what you are talking about.


Of course not. Dr. Atlantis, "Open Mind" doesn't bother to do much research, listen to interviews, read transcripts, or otherwise educate himself about this case... When you are not familiar with the claims, and haven't heard what Weber, Moore, Hughes, Alex, or myself has written or said about this case, you can't expect he will actually click on the link you provided a week ago in your post with all the interview audio clips carefully organized and arranged so you can clearly see the contradictions.

No, doing actual research and analysis takes effort, and it's easier to just post anti-CSICOP rants out of the blue that have nothing to do with anything. Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the link again. Want to put money on whether he will actually read and listen to it before commenting on it?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by B Radford

No, I do not and have never approved of skeptics or anyone else behaving rudely or aggressively. I don't know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect when applied to me.

I said 'skeptics'. So you disapprove of Randi or other well known skeptics being rude to people?

In all my interviews with Weber, Hughes, or Moore, I challenge you to find even one example of when I treated any of them with rudeness or disrespect.

I don't need to, you called me a 'fool' above