69. Psychic Detective Smackdown, Ben Radford (Podcast)

[hoggworks]

The only hit on Google for "The Center for Feelings and Creativity" is this:

http://www.primals.org/archives/news...%20Aug-Sep.pdf

There's a reference to a 3-day workshop held in 1978. Beyond that, I don't see anything. That doesn't prove that she lied, but at the very least it means that the center isn't around, I should think. It *does* seem potentially suspicious, though there's too little to go on either way.

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

The only hit on Google for "The Center for Feelings and Creativity" is this:

http://www.primals.org/archives/news...%20Aug-Sep.pdf

There's a reference to a 3-day workshop held in 1978. Beyond that, I don't see anything. That doesn't prove that she lied, but at the very least it means that the center isn't around, I should think. It *does* seem potentially suspicious, though there's too little to go on either way.

I agree. This seems VERY suspicious to me. If Weber "studied psychotherapy" there in 1972, it seems odd that the one and only reference to the Center doesn't appear until 1978, six years later. Even if the center is no longer around (it's true that schools and educational organizations come and go), if it's a legitimate school or learning institution, why can't we find anything between 1978 and 1972, when Weber says she studied there? Did no one else attend, study, work, teach, or graduate from there?

I think if Nancy Weber wants us to consider her a credible source who doesn't exaggerate or fabricate her abilities or accomplishments, she should provide an explanation for why she seems to be the only person to have been a student at this Center. I doubt that even Alex can claim that a psychic's credibility is irrelevant in a case like this, that relies so much on personal statements and recollections.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by B Radford

I agree. This seems VERY suspicious to me. If Weber "studied psychotherapy" there in 1972, it seems odd that the one and only reference to the Center doesn't appear until 1978, six years later. Even if the center is no longer around (it's true that schools and educational organizations come and go), if it's a legitimate school or learning institution, why can't we find anything between 1978 and 1972, when Weber says she studied there? Did no one else attend, study, work, teach, or graduate from there?

I think if Nancy Weber wants us to consider her a credible source who doesn't exaggerate or fabricate her abilities or accomplishments, she should provide an explanation for why she seems to be the only person to have been a student at this Center. I doubt that even Alex can claim that a psychic's credibility is irrelevant in a case like this, that relies so much on personal statements and recollections.

True enough, and I agree completely. I imagine the response will be along the lines of: "Who cares if she's credible when she's right?"

(My response to that would be along the lines of a busted clock being right twice a day, of course ... )

[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?

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? (And note that just because the memories of all three of them agree on this does not mean it is accurate. Alex would say, "All three agree, it must be true." But in this case, either Weber and Hughes were wrong in 1995 or the three of them are wrong now.)

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.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by B Radford

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

I hope we will, too, but I'm going to guess that either Alex will say they're unimportant details, or that he'll ask Nancy -- which would be the better of the two for a variety of reasons -- but that Nancy will say they're unimportant details, and Alex will agree.

Now, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, I think it would be great if they're able to drum up reasonable explanations for this (because while it does seem suspicious, she could be both a shady character *and* genuinely psychic; they're not mutually exclusive).

Here's hoping.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by B Radford

On the back cover of Nancy's book, it states that "In 1972 she studied psychotherapy at the Center For Feelings and Creativity."

I have no idea what that is, but it sounds a lot like a diploma mill or some friend's made-up "college."

A bunch of magicians/philosopher/psychologists made up the grand sounding ' Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal' .... self appointed experts, whose 'scientific investigation' was practically non-existent yet by including the term 'scientific investigation' could present themselves to the media as the opinion of science?

Maybe for some people this issue is irrelevant, but I think this question goes to Weber's credibility.

I don't think co-founders of CSICOP Dennis Rawlins or Marcello Truzzi thought CSICOP had much credibility either .... '....The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.. '

Alex (and Nancy) are asking us to believe her extraordinary claims of anomalous cognition--- with little or no evidence.

Whether a claim is plausible or not, extraordinary or not depends upon prior research ....

Lab Parapsychology = over 1000 psi studies with combined odds of odds of 10^104 to 1 above chance

Number of lab studies conducted by CSIcop = ? Zero?

If she has a provable history of making false or exaggerated claims about her accomplishments

Hmm.... are these false claims on the CSIcop website?

'3. Encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed

6. Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully'

Current CSIcop Project Manager and past Executive Director Lee Nisbet wrote in past '...Belief in the paranormal is]a very dangerous phenomenon. Dangerous to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society…..We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball...'

Incidentally Ben Radford, I think you are possibly suffering from false memory too when recently you wrote an article '.....Previous scientific experiments by the U.S. government failed to find good evidence for psychic powers. Starting in the 1970s, a project called Stargate explored the possibility of using psychic powers to gather military intelligence. The research went on for about two decades until CIA scientists concluded that the psychics did no better than chance , and that psychic information was neither validated nor useful.

In 1995 CSICOP skeptic Ray Hyman admitted ....
(1) The effect sizes were too large to be dismissed as statisical flukes
(2) Hyman could not find methodology errors in experiments or statistical analysis

CSICOP skeptic Richard Wiseman admitted in 2008 "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do....

[FastEddieB]

Open Mind,

It may just be me, but that entire post seemed to be a huge non sequitur.

Nancy allegedly implied professional training and/or academic credentials from a questionable institution.

CSICOP is merely a "committee" and I don't know of anyone claiming they provide professional training and/or academic credentials.

I really don't see your post as responsive to the issue at hand.

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

A bunch of magicians/philosopher/psychologists made up the grand sounding ' Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal' .... self appointed experts, whose 'scientific investigation' was practically non-existent yet by including the term 'scientific investigation' could present themselves to the media as the opinion of science?...

Wow. Fascinating. Instead of addressing any of the legitimate questions I raised about Nancy Weber's claims regarding the Koedatich case, "Open Mind" (I assume the name is meant ironically) tries to change the subject to an attack on CSICOP.

Sorry, "Open Mind," it's not going to work, people here are smarter than that. You are welcome to your anti-CSICOP opinions and rants, but please don't try to derail inquiry and discussion into this topic. The rest of us are trying to understand this case and claims.

It is ironic that I am here representing CSICOP (now CSI), and while you rant and rehash your venom about how unscientific the organization is, and how they avoid doing any real substantive analysis or investigation, here I am trying to do just that. I have spent much of the past six months doing exactly the careful, close investigation of anomalous phenomena that you claim CSICOP never does and is not interested in doing.

I have worked with Alex, studied transcripts, conducted archival research and interviews, and so on. I probably know more about this case as a whole than anyone else. I am trying to stick to the facts, do good research and analysis. I don't see you, or Alex, or anyone else, putting in nearly as much time and effort into trying to understand or solve this case. It is you who is resorting to non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks, not me or CSICOP.

[B Radford]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

Open Mind,

It may just be me, but that entire post seemed to be a huge non sequitur.

Nancy allegedly implied professional training and/or academic credentials from a questionable institution. CSICOP is merely a "committee" and I don't know of anyone claiming they provide professional training and/or academic credentials.

I really don't see your post as responsive to the issue at hand.

Non-sequitur indeed. It's a typical response of a person who is frustrated because they have no evidence to back up their position. If you can't refute their claims or answer your opponent's questions, try to change the subject!

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by B Radford

It is ironic that I am here representing CSICOP (now CSI)

Yes I know that , I am just making sure all the readers know that.... and that they also know CSIcop's tactics....

'...CSICOP has a policy of not conducting research itself, and this has reduced its vulnerability to criticism. Sociologists of science Pinch and Collins (1984) examined the benefits of this policy. They noted that CSICOP’s tactics:

'... can only be used in complete safety by organizations that do not engage in controversial science themselves. Only by avoiding having to face up to the problems of doing controversial science, and by avoiding the changed consciousness concerning scientific method which accompanies such engagement, can an attack from the canonical model be sustained without difficulty. (p. 539) ...'

In fact, they specifically suggested that the critics not engage in empirical research if they were to be effective in promoting their agenda. They pointed out that in controversial areas, qualified scientists are often engaged in disputes over research findings and interpretations and that a large component of establishing scientific knowledge involves human negotiation and not just “consulting the facts.” If CSICOP had continued to undertake its own research, scientists might again point out errors in its CSICOP and the Skeptics procedures and ambiguities in its interpretations. That could threaten CSICOP’s image of authority

CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview by George P. Hansen

In otherwords, CSIcop do revisionism, look for ways to discredit a claim, imagine errors and present these like facts....they will avoid risking experiments that might not go their way.... unless raising the bar to demanding 'extraordinary evidence', not normal evidence.

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

The rest of us are trying to understand this case and claims.

Please continue .... I will respond to your points later.