Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Bias
This article presents only the skeptical angle and although it does use neutral language the conclusions are very one sided. The external links also only point to specific 'skeptic' sites. I feel the article needs some restructuring and more discussion of the possible merits of this kind of work. --Solar 10:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
(moved here by --BillC talk 22:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)):
There are no "documented cases" of psychics helping solve any crimes. This article is incorrect. Psychics have been repeatedly proven to be fakes. Recall Sylvia Browne telling a couple on TV that their son was dead, which he wasn't. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.50.110 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Speak To A Psychic Free Video
I second that motion.
This article is extremely biassed. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.69 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
... -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.243.42 (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2005 (UTC)
Come on now, wiki is being edited by the FBI and wiki has already proved this. Psychic abilities have been sought out by all nations intelligence departments and every nations universities before I was born. The Spiritual Realms are fact not fiction. Take this article down as it is bias and unintelligent. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.73.190 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is not only grossly biased, it is factually incorrect in a number of crucial details. For instance: ""Scotland Yard never approaches psychics for information..." I am a psychic, and I have been approached by Scotland Yard on a number of occasions. And in fact my involvement in at least two major investigations was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard. Furthermore, I receive requests from police forces all over the world (including the US and UK) almost on a daily basis, to assist with intractable murder and missing persons cases.
"There are no official police psychics in England." This is true, but misleading. While there are no "official police psychics", the UK police do keep a database of psychics "who in the past have been helpful" in criminal investigations, at the National Crime Faculty.
"There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution." Again, this statement is misleading. Evidence (or information) provided by a psychic cannot be presented in court; therefore, while a psychic may be able to provide the police with information which enables them to obtain evidence against specific individuals, or to pursue a certain course of action, the psychic's role ends at that point, and his or her contribution to the resolution of a case can never be officially acknowledged, since this would jeopardise the conviction. The fact that there are no *recorded* instances of psychics providing information that led *directly* to the solution of a case does not mean that no psychic has ever solved, or playing a role in solving, police cases.
Zak Martin -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.7.28 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Zak, why don't you tell us the precise details? You give us the names of the actual persons from Scotland Yard who have approached you "on a number of occasions" and we can write to them and check. And if your "involvement in at least two major investigations was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard" then you can no doubt give us the date and time this occurred, the names of the investigations and the manner of the public acknowledgment, which can then be researched and verified and cited, and this will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia.
I look forward to hearing from you. This should be most interesting.
Princhester --Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.196.122 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have now posted links to newspaper articles reporting specific cases (including ones that I myself was involved in) at least half a dozen times, and they keep getting deleted, presumably by "critical thinking skeptics" who see it as their duty (to scientism) to refute and deny any and all evidence for psychic abilities. What are they afraid of? Just to prove you wrong, here is a London Evening Standard report of a case in which Scotland Yard publicly acknowledged my involvement. http://www.zakmartin.com/images/cutting14.jpg And here's another: http://www.zakmartin.com/images/cutting4.jpg No doubt these links will disappear in short order, as has every previous link I've posted here. It is certainly true that the police are generally reluctant to acknowledge the help of psychics (in the first place this implies that they have failed to make progress through normal police methods, and in the second place there are tricky legal implications regarding evidence produced by psychics if and when the case comes to trial), but this should not be taken as evidence that police forces do not consult psychics, or that psychics do not contribute to the resolution of cases. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.16.166 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Zak Martin http://www.zakmartin.com/
PS - There is an interesting discussion on this topic here: http://www.ukpsychics.com/charles_capel_psychic_detective_case.html -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.16.166 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I added a section here just a few days ago, with links to reports verifying my earlier statements. Why have my comments been deleted (again)? This is the third or fourth time I have comment to this page and it has been removed almost immediately. The so-called "critical thinkers" must spend every waking hour here looking for information to delete that does not support their skeptical stance. Again, what are they so afraid of? They make dismissive comments and demand evidence; but within hours of that evidence being posted they delete it! Example: "Pinchester", above, challenged me to provide evidence of investigations in which my participation was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard. I posted links to two London newspaper articles (three times, the most recent just a couple of days ago) in which Scotland Yard acknowledged my involvement in two cases. Where did the links go? The fact is, the "critical thinkers" who trash these pages have no interest whatsoever in debating this subject or examining the evidence in an objective way. They are merely interested in forcing their views on other people, even if this means monitoring Wikipedia and removing information which challenges those views. They have zero integrity. Zak Martin http://www.zakmartin.com/ --Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.16.166 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The deleted comments were restored, so why hasn't my Wikipedia page been restored? It was taken down, as I was led to understand, because my "claim" to have been consulted in police cases was queried by certain members of a skeptical organization. My original Wikipedia page entry is now here: http://wikibin.org/articles/zak-martin.html Apart from that, this article is still false and misleading. It still states categorically that the British police never consult psychics, yet I provided links to articles in newspapers like The London Evening Standard, The Observer, The Guardian and so on, reporting on investigations in which I had been consulted by police forces in the UK. To my certain knowledge, other psychics have also been consulted by the British police in murder and missing persons cases. Therefore the information given on this page is simply not true, and has been proved to be false. Yet a number of years have passed and it has not been amended. Even the College of Policing guidelines contradict the claim made on this Wiki page. For example: " Police officers searching for missing people should not rule out the help of psychics, according to suggested guidelines for the profession. The person's methods should be asked for and whether they have any "accredited successes," says a consultation document from the College of Policing, which is the official source of professional practice on police work." - Zak Martin -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.37.171 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
.......And I Third it
You can't get much more biased than this -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.12.115 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of data showing the police in UK worked for at least 16 years with psychic detective \CHRIS ROBINSON.... www.dream-detective.com
I ask why these people are so desperate to hide the fact that psi is real and the police sometimes find it of great value... the police are only reluctant to talk about this subject because of the lies of sceptic like Richard Wiseman and his pals in the so callled sceptic world......
Wiseman is now a discredited scientist read the article that exposes him in Paranormal Review published by the SPR.......
It is the sceptics who are the fruads in this subject..... -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.196.200 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when...
..is reporting the truth being biased? There are no repeatable, reputable, believable experiments that have proven the existence of any paranormal forces or abilities. By the same token, stating that the Holocaust happened could be called "extremely biased" because it doesn't pander to the Holocaust deniers. Wikipedia is made for reporting what is verifiably true, not people's pet theories and superstitions. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinkysan (talk o contribs) 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So according to that logic, meteorites don't fall to the earth. You could not set up a repeatable experiment to prove that they do. Yet in fact they do.89.100.37.108 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And yet
If this page was about the flat Earth theory I wonder if the same statements would be made. Maybe it's really hard for this article to be unbiased because there's no real eveidence supporting the effectiveness of psychics. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.34.42 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear BrandonR, Please read my entry above on NPOV. If you follow Wikipedia policy, which is non-negotiable, and includes the principles of representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias, you will have to note that your comments are not in line with that policy. Statements like "there's no other side to that" after what I have already stated above (with citations of course) shows a huge bias and POV. If you have a problem with fair representation of different views please take this up with the Wikimedia Foundation. - Solar 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
I have replaced the notice as this article still shows only the skeptical POV and makes biased statements. I will be making some changes in the next week in an attempt to bring it closer to the NPOV policy, if this does not meet with consensus approval after discussion I will nominate the article to be checked for its neutrality. - Solar 10:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, show some evidence
This lands in the "Elvis lives" department -- New Age spiritualists always use logic like this. Is there evidence that psychic detectives have ever consistently helped solve crimes, beyond a few attributable to chance? The truth is "biased?" Under NPOV#Pseudoscience we have:
Pyschic phenomena is pseudoscience, without the remotest shred of evidence. It's fine to say some believe in psychic detectives. It is not majority scientific opinion, nor should be presented as such.
dino 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded insulting
Sorry if I sounded insulting. I am used to the forces of superstition using any lie to achieve their ends -- this is the Bush administration in America, that will use anything to shove religion in public life. I do not know who spoke of "the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny." Not me.
But I love the "possibility of ESP being a real phenomena." It's simply so absolutely meaningless. Use of dubious language?
Do you want links to New Age pages? I have never seen a page on New Age -- and I've read a few -- that wasn't rife with lies and dubious logic. They still think Edgar Cayce and Uri Geller had psychic powers, and believe in long-discredited notions such as the Bermuda Triangle, and flat-out nonsense like astrology.
Do we have statements from "police officers who have used PD's"? Let's see them. Can anyone cite any actual evidence?
Should we foster a superstition that leads to police wasting precious resources on usually-useless leads? I cannot agree. While the psychic believer position does deserve mention, it now deserves no credence.
dino 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Court TV
Find on Court TV a show about "psychic detectives". Go to the article Court TV for more on this matter. Martial Law 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)
A television show?
We are ready to quote from a television show? I don't watch TV, precisely because I consider it garbage. A television show? That's really dependable. TV is about entertainment -- not truth. In the distant past I have seen TV give credence to say, the Bermuda Triangle. Space aliens. Nostradamus. April 24 - 30, 2006 is TV Turnoff Week, http://tvturnoff.org/
Doesn't it seem kind of dangerous to give the remotest credence to psychic phenomena? Young children read wikipedia. Should they grow up to believe lies? Should police waste precious resources on useless leads? Let me re-iterate:
dino 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
watch this documentary.
http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/psychic_witness/psychic_witness.html -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.24.182 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this article is MASSIVELY biased
Like an advertisement for "when skepticultists attack". How about a little bit of information from the OTHER side? Mention the fact that most psychics who claim to have worked with police also claim that they had to sign documents stating they wouldn't reveal their involvement with any specific case. That is a neutral enough statement, and it certainly explains the level of 'hush-hush'. Omigosh, you mean the authorities might LIE? Let's get something very straight here--the question of whether or not psi abilities exist has not been answered, and those who promote a belief in them are not telling lies. Any claim to the contrary is a mere faith--hence, skepticult, not skepticism. Skepticism is about keeping an open mind. Present your evidence, but don't draw conclusions that aren't fully supported by it. Lack of evidence is not equal to evidence of lack in the scientific method. Should we lie to our children, and tell them that this question has been fully resolved, when it has not? One look into quantum physics tells us just exactly how little we actually know, as opposed to what we think we know. New discoveries in the field of physics are made every day, as our technology continues to improve. It is the height of arrogance to draw a conclusion on something which has been reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet, without enough evidence to directly indicate a conclusion--EITHER conclusion. However, what we do have evidence for is this: Psi phenomena exist. We don't know what they are, how they work, or anything else about them, but at the very least repeated testing has shown that something currently unexplainable is indeed happening. Also, the argument seems silly to the some 5 to 10% of the population who report actually having these abilities. You can tell them it's not real until you're blue in the face, but their personal experiences have given them the evidence THEY need to believe it. You're going to have to do better than merely yelling about the lack of objective evidence. You're going to have to prove what IS happening in all of these cases. Until that happens, the only rational stance is the same one that has come up time and time again in psi testing: INCONCLUSIVE. -- Preceding comment signed as by WingedWolfPsion (talk o contribs) 6:41 PM (Mtn), 6 June 2006 actually added by 69.145.224.250 (talk o contribs) 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You should get your facts straight, Occam's Razor indicates that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Note the word tends. And Occam's Razor says nothing about scientific method. For example, the existence of atoms were theorized long before there was any scientific evidence to prove their existence. Black holes were theorized long before there was proof of their existence. To say that lack of evidence proves something doesn't exist is really quite sad. -- General Disarray -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.66.235 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh, oh, here we go again
There is no evidence of psychic phenomena. Period. For now, the psychic believer position deserves mention, but it deserves no credence. Police in general will not touch psychics, and for good reason.
The logic in the last was so poor I debated writing anything, "reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet" -- meaningless. So are ghosts.
Cite? Evidence? Books and magazines about spirituality don't cut it. Cites about quantum physics are no more than a recent fad in New Age. No evidence. Us skeptics must live in an America extremely hostile to us, from the Bushies on the right to New Age spiritualists on the left. And we're tired of it. Should we feed our children lies? That there is a mysterious spirit world that the enlightened can contact, for which no evidence is ever provided? That psychic phenomena exist?
dino 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a very simple fact: *Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced positive findings. The reality of psychic abilities has been scientifically proven over and over again. Furthermore, surveys carried out in the same period have consistently shown that *most people* - including scientists - accept the reality of psychic abilities. The only people who reject the substantial body of scientific and anecdotal evidence for psychic abilities are self-styled "skeptics" who see it as their mission in life to promote a materialistic/mechanistic view of the world, and who are prepared to go to almost any lengths - and stoop to any depths - to attack psychics and discredit scientists who carry out research into this subject.
Zak Martin http://www.zakmartin.com/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.7.28 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Report the facts
Until someone can produce real evidence to even suggest that psychics are anything more than middle-aged women with nothing better to do, dont claim this article to be biased. While it does show a certain point of view, that view is that of the evidence available. No credible source outside of the psychics themselves or entertainment media claims their legitimacy. All facts point to the conclusion that 'Psychic detectives' are completely bogus and ineffective, and this article reflects that. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandgt (talk o contribs) 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Slicing and Dicing the facts
There is plenty of evidence for someone with the correct motivation. All the Skeptics seem to suffer from fear of a contact disease. As if actual contact would mark them with a modern form of a scarlet letter. Part of it's a money motivation.
There are enough books with almost a "cake mix" set of instructions. Any person who follows such instructions, as they were intended, will have the desired results. With the most elementary use of common sense, no men in red pajamas will ever appear.
What does not work is standing frozen at the doorway and never taking that first step for fear of ridicule. What does not work is taking someone at their word simply because they have a title. Doctors and Lawyers lie on the witness stand for personal gain every day of their lives. What does not work is not giving it the amount of thought it deserves.
All worthwhile evidence is going to be subjective initially. No one's going to come up with an ESP pill soon.
Any amount of meditation will bring power and genius with time. That power and genius surpasses anything science will find for the next century and it's immeadiately avaliable, by degree, in the present time.
Actually, reading the commentary of so called professional skeptics is amusing. Anyone with familarity with the construction of propaganda, language arguements from basic logic books or Noam Chomsky books will see a raving child looking for attention, and failing.
The least they could do is spend time with their comments and make them "appear" professional. Also examining the subconcious motivations of the Skeptics for creating a deliberate fraud, by falsifying evidence and filling a magazine with it while ignoring valid and frequent applications for Randi's money.
The magazine does have a value, but it serves the psychic community more than anyone else. They should expand the content to attract a wider readership, it's becomming redundant. Don92707 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, redux, plus a few of the ad hominem attacks us skeptics are used to
Seriously, I am unsure of why I responded to these ad hominem attacks. Can we have some politeness?
dino 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject Law Enforcement tag removal
Response to the believers
It won't help to try and save the pseudoskeptical soul on here. If any of you can go to library and do the research, and if there are WP:V sources, then we can get them in. Otherwise, beyond basic NPOVing and de-weaseling, there's nothing to be done. Unless anyone just wants to make a Parapedia wiki. Martinphi (Talk ? Contribs) 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent writing error
A recent addition read,
That should read,
Careful about those writing errors. There is not the remotest evidence that physic phenomena exist. Take the Randi Challenge and prove psychic phenomena, be it that it exists.
Oh, a few studies have revealed positive results. Their methodology was always flawed. Reading Zak Martin's web site, he sound pretty impressive. Let's see him put his "skills" to the test. Take the Randi Challenge.
dino 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
____
Actually, I did accept the so-called Randi challenge. Mr. Randi did a "no-show". That was before the "Randi challenge" included clauses and conditions that made it into nothing more than a publicity-seeking scam.
That aside, the opinion of a second-rate magician (with a poor grasp of physics) can be disregarded. The simple fact is that, whenever researchers find positive evidence for psychic abilities, skeptics dismiss them on the basis that their "methodology was flawed" (without, of course, providing any proof to substantiate this claim).
You claim that: "Every major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced *negative* findings."
Please name just *one* major independent scientific study into psychic abilities which produced negative evidence.
I can name a dozen studies which found positive evidence for psychic abilities. Name one that produced negative evidence.
Zak Martin -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.7.28 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're putting me to sleep ...
Look, I'm sick of the ad hominem attacks from New Agers. A "second-rate magician?" A "poor grasp of physics?" And the frauds who made What the Bleep Do We Know!? had a good grasp of physics? In short, take your bad manners elsewhere. I am not giving you the time of day.
dino 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Randi is a second-rate magician. He made his name as Uri Geller's stalker-debunker. He certainly has a poor grasp of physics, if his chapter on quantum mechanics in "Science and the Paranormal" is anything to go by. In this book he exposes his complete lack of grasp of the subject he's expounding on. I think I might have to write a book titled "Debunking the Debunkers", because some of the stuff many of these soi-disant "skeptics and critical thinkers" come out with is outrageously dishonest and/or misinformed.
Zak Martin95.16.59.26 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
how come
just a little note to skeptics.. as irritating as paranormal beliefs are and as annoying as the tactics of proponents to their cause may be, they still represent quite a sizeable portion of the worlds population and therefore their claims should be represented if just to give wikipedia a sense of the complete picture.. at the end of the day even the sceptic POV is just a claim to a point of view (as right as that POV might be or seem to be) 89.125.107.234 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In fiction
"There is a long history of psychic detectives in horror and crime fiction, and in other genres as well." Is this statement true, and if so can someone back it up with some solider examples? I came to this article because I wanted to find out if there was any fiction written about these sorts of detectives, and this statement is tantalizingly vague! A psychic detective, as defined in the article, is someone claiming to have paranormal abilities who investigates (generally) normal, non-paranormal crimes. Jules de Grandin, on the other hand, is a normal, non-paranormal detective (a la Hercule Poirot) who specializes in investigating crimes that involve (or appear to involve) the paranormal. That's quite a different thing, really, and quite commonplace in fiction (where supernatural things happen more often than in the real world). If you mean there's a long tradition of the latter I'd agree with you, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If there really is a long tradition of psychic detective fiction, you really need to give another couple of examples dating back to the twentieth century at least. 81.76.62.39 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon