There are several famous skeptics and psychic investigators (looking for fraud), such as the Amazing Randi, as well as watchdog groups around the country, who criticize and debunk psychics and channelers, begging intelligent people to stop wasting their time on such nonsense. Their challenges and negative evaluations tend to take the following forms:
randi.jpg)
posner.jpg)
Psychics never predict the future in a way that might stop a crime or tragic event from happening. However, Dutch psychic Peter Hurkos made several predictions and urged people to intervene in ways that did make a difference. As mentioned above, a psychic in Arizona seems to have stopped a robbery by alerting the store the day before. Yet the skeptics tend to dismiss those events as coincidence or good guesses.
hurkos.jpg)
Yet skeptic Ward Lucas claimed that Alexander's hints had not helped the investigation. The "s" had too many potential interpretations to have been useful. She had seen a bridge, and the river had many bridges, so that was an easy guess. Knowing the victim had been missing for months outside, it was also easy to say that the head and hair would be separated from the body. Lucas claims that Alexander had nothing to do with where the search was set up, yet the police say they would not have persisted in looking for so long if she hadn't insisted and would not have found the body in time to prosecute her killer. Of her rather specific prediction of the man with the bad hand, says Lucas, "dumb luck."
If they're so good, why aren't they rich? Why can't they guess the lottery? This is among the seemingly most persuasive objections to psychics and other practitioners of the paranormal, in part because the typical response is usually fairly lame. While some say they can't get self-serving impressions and others say they're more interested in helping others than themselves, most simply indicate that the power is not that specific. Yet if it's all so vague and hit-and-miss, how, then, can they present themselves as reliable police aids?
sleuths.jpg)
One controlled experiment that Nickell includes, which involved a dozen psychics looking at evidence from four crimes and was conducted by the director of behavioral services for the Los Angeles Police Department, indicated that psychics scored no better than estimated chance levels.
Lyons and Truzzi, in The Blue Sense, criticized the study, saying those psychics were not a representative sample.
So the study was undertaken once again, with two control groups added: college students and homicide detectives. The psychics produced more information by far, but the students had a better overall accuracy rate than the psychics in their guesses. No group produced information that would have been useful in solving the crimes.
What do skeptics have to say about the apparent successes of some psychics who work with the police? Nickell lists them:
Some famous cases never happened or could not be verified and checked.
The psychics might have used ordinary means of obtaining knowledge about a crime.
The police later remember what the psychic said as being more specific than it was.
Vague generalities can be made to fit almost anything.
People desperately want to believe that psychic information is true, so they easily accept the tales as told.
Much can be said in support of either side, and how one feels about psychic information will often depend on what one believes. While psychics can (and have) been accused of amassing publicity to "prove" their worth, skeptics, too, have often expended an inordinate amount of time and effort (even finances) to disprove them. Each, it seems, bends over backwards to make a case, and sometimes this can have some damaging repercussions.



