An Experimental Test of Psychic Detection

Most of these claims are supported by only anecdotal evidence. This is unfortunate because it is often extremely difficult to rule out non-psychic explanations. For example, Hoebens (1985) has described how some psychics have made several (often conflicting) predictions relating to an unsolved crime. Once the crime was solved the incorrect predictions were forgotten whilst the correct ones were exhibited as evidence of paranormal ability. Rowe (1993) cites examples of psychics making vague and ambiguous predictions which were later interpreted to fit whatever was discovered about the crime. Finally, Lyons & Truzzi (1991) have noted that it is often difficult to obtain ‘baseline’ information for many of these predictions. For example, a psychic may state that a murder weapon will be discovered ‘near, or in, a large body of water’. Although this may later prove to be accurate, it is difficult to know how many criminals dump incriminating objects in areas that could be seen as ‘large bodies of water’ (e.g., streams, lakes, rivers, the sea etc.) and therefore establish a statistical baseline for the prediction.