Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 18

Animal Pak

will Animal Pak show up on a drug test, lets say for a school sporting event, or a probationary drug test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.252.45 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends what they are testing you for! According to their FAQ Animal Pak is fine for competitive weight lifters though it does advise you "check with your governing body as each has a different set of rules." I would check with a doctor, nutritionist or, at the very least, a coach before risking taking supplements that could be illegal for your sport of choice. Rockpocket 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Crossdressing confusion

After seeing girls crossdressing as guys being used as a plot in fiction (eg. Hana-Kimi) I was wondering how the storylines would work in the real world... say a pretty girl cuts her hair short and successfully disguises herself as a boy, and another guy who is straight becomes attracted to her, without knowing she's really a girl, would this make the guy gay? Or would the girl be giving off subconscious signals that she's female? --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No single attraction makes a person gay or straight. Practically everyone experiences attractions to both genders at one time or another, and an awful lot of people act on those attractions even when they aren't consistent with their general sexual orientation. If you're gay, you're gay, even if you sometimes think a girl is hot. If you're straight, you're straight, even if you check out a guy from time to time. If you think of yourself as straight, but you find that you are more attracted to guys than girls, or that you can't perform with a girl unless you're pretending she's a guy, that's when you should start reevaluating your straightness. As for the crossdressing; lots of people find androgyny attractive; I know I sure do. Male or female, gay or straight, if you find Jaye Davidson attractive, all that means is that you have working eyes and a functional libido. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you? Well, I don't blame you possum.--Dame Edna Everage (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's in your DNA. There is nothing that will turn a previously straight guy into a gay guy. That said, straight or gay is not something black and white - there's a awful lot of grey inbetween. A lot of young adults are unsure of their sexuality and it can take a while to decide where their preference lies. However, due to social or peer pressure, someone may hide their sexuality for a long while, and sometimes forever. Astronaut (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a new plot device. Shakespeare uses it too, for example in Twelfth Night Viola dresses as a young man and finds both that Olivia and Orsino fall for the youth. SaundersW (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're basically asking if being confused or tricked about the gender of someone can make one "count" as a homosexual. It's a pretty silly question. Being a homosexual is not like some sort of game where one gets tagged and one is "it". Think about it for yourself—if you found out that someone you thought was a boy was a girl, would it make you a homosexual if you liked them as a boy? Or would it just make you someone who was fooled? --24.147.86.187 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan

The featured article today says that the Japanese palace was destroyed in 1227, where did the Emperors live after that, and up until the present day, where do they live today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read this. Then they moved to Kyoto Gosho and lived there until 1869. They are living in Kōkyo today. Oda Mari (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perkins, George W. (1998) The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court during the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) states that tow of the sato dairi (town palaces) were the Kan-in Palace (near the intersection of Nijō and Nishi-no-tōin avenues) in the late Heian and Kamakura periods and Tominokōji Palace (north of Nijō and west of Tominokōji avenues) in the late Kamkura period. The Kan-in Palace burned in 1259, Tominokōji in 1312—was rebuilt—then burned again in 1336.—eric 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

bluray or hddvd?

What is the real difference between bluray and hd DVD? Which is better? I want to decide which one to get, but i really don't know anything about them. If i get a bluray player, will i be able to play hd dvds on it?--Dlo2012 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See format war and Comparison of high definition optical disc formats. There may be players than can do both, I don't know, but cross-compatibility is not assumed in the format. They're both backward compatible with standard DVDs, of course. Friday (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. At this point in time, the only question should be: "Which one will win the format war?". It doesn't matter how much better one standard is than the other - it only matters whether you'll find yourself in a few years time with a player for which no more movies are available - and a pile of movies that cost you maybe $1000 (30 disks at $30 each maybe) to buy that you won't be able to play when your aging player finally dies because nobody makes the darned things anymore.

The issue of which is the better quality is largely irrelevent in that matter. In the VHS versus Beta versus V2000 videotape wars, the format that died first was V2000 (which was easily the best technologically) - then Beta fell by the wayside (it was the second best format technically-speaking) - and the final winner was the nastiest format with the biggest tape box and the worst playback quality! So quality is no measure of likely longevity - and longevity is what matters if you are planning on buying any significant number of disks for it.

Both sides are working hard to succeed still - a brief glance in Fry's last night suggested that there were more HD-DVD titles out there than BluRay - but that was a very informal "How much shelf space is allocated" kind of a survey!

Right now, I'm not aware of any players that can play both formats. Since both have to be licensed and each needs a different kind of laser, I could easily imagine that a player that could play both formats would be more expensive than two separate players. But your concern shouldn't be the cost or nature of the player. You will spend FAR more on disks than you will on the player. Most movies for these formats are coming in at $30 or more. If you own just 10 disks then the cost of the disks you own will exceed the cost of the player. You shouldn't be asking "Will my player play whatever standard wins?" - you should be asking "When I have $1000 worth of disks in 5 years time - will I still be able to buy a player to view them when mine goes wrong and needs to be replaced?". You shouldn't care as much about the player as the media.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is alleged to be at least one multi-format player out there (a Pioneer, I think), but for the reasons you stated, I'm staying on the sidelines until the dust settles, else "Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again."

Atlant (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have bought Dark side Of the Moon in vinyl,twice,8 track,cassette and now CD.hotclaws 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So let's get this straight - you missed the reel-to-reel tape version and you don't have the DVD-Audio or the Super Audio CD version? I bet you don't have it on iTunes either. Sheesh - call yourself a fan? :-) SteveBaker (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Or as it will inevitably turn out if I write it, unbearably long. I'll try to stay brief. IF you want to know which one is better, on a sheer technical scale? Undeniably Blu-ray. It has far more data storage (50 GB) than HD DVD, which has 30 GB on the same number of a layers. HD DVD can support three layers, but no production plans have been made. A Blu-ray disc with 150 GB on two layers is in development, if memory serves. In terms of sheer capacity, Blu-ray has more promise. In terms of production cost, I believe HD DVD is better. I may be wrong on that though. I do know that Blu-ray is slightly less compatible in a few ways, refusing some standards offered to them. Should they have taken them, they would have actually and officially won the format war. In short, Blu-ray is probably the better format, but it has some weaknesses that should be considered. In sales, they are winning, but not overwhelmingly. And HD DVD seems to have support from some of the bigger industry leaders. And lastly, both dual format players and discs exist. If you're really worried, buy a good Blu-ray drive for your computer, and rip them full quality, then burn them to whatever wins. That oughta do it. DRM is no challenge when there's legions of hacker just waiting to take a crack at it. RockMaster-talk|contribs 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Or wait a year. The eventual loser can survive one Christmas - but I doubt they'll make it through a second. The stores aren't going to stand for having to have three sets of shelves with the same things on them (DVD, HD-DVD and BluRay) for very long - and as soon as a few major stores get pissed off and choose one over the other, it's "game over". SteveBaker (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Industry leaders don't matter, quality of playback doesn't matter, expense doesn't matter, and the size of the disk doesn't matter. The format war will be won, as other format wars have been, based on which technology the porn industry decides to go with. Matt Deres (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's been said of the VHS versus Beta debate many times but I'm not sure it's true. Read our article "Videotape format war" - it doesn't agree with the idea that porn was the reason for the demise of Beta. SteveBaker (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't! I found that section a bit skewed and misleading, though - comparing porn's media dollars to TV and newpapers is irrelevent to the entire argument. I'll withdraw my assertion, but assigning a hard (ahem) number to porn's income seems debateable given its grey-market status to many people. The article cites Playboy's use of both formats, but I wonder if the same is true for the dozens of other, smaller, operators who may have had to choose a single format due to effects of scale. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanx for the advice fellow wikipedians. I guess I'll just wait for a year. But i bet that the HD-DVD is gonna win.--Dlo2012 (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I'm planning to wait too. I agree that HD-DVD stands the best chance of winning - but we don't know that it will. The Playstation-3 is basically a flop and it was at the heart of SONY's strategy for the roll-out of BluRay. They screwed up really badly this time around. However, there is little doubt that BluRay is technologically better - so I guess it's not 100% cut-and-dried. SteveBaker (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

cleverness VS intelligence ... (are they processed in different areas of the brain?)

Why is it that some highly intelligent individuals (say academic high flyers) lack or have very little levels of cleverness (say that they could be ripped off easily)?. Take the opposite case - why some people with very low intelligence (say with very bad academic performence) go on to become successful businessman?. what exactly is cleverness?!.

yes, there are some cases where both traits coexist and since intelligence is a very fuzzy concept, I am taking academic performence as a scale to make things simple. Another presupposition of taking business success as a scale of cleverness reduces the complexity of the problem. If my rather naive approach is right, please try to answer those three questions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.72.230 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, as someone who has had professional training to be a teacher, what I think you are talking about is called "Multiliteracies" in the jargon of educators. This is a very hot idea right now in the teaching profession, and if you Google that word you'll find lots and lots of stuff about it. What it basically says is that different people have natural inclinations to acquire and process knowledge in different ways. What works for one person might not work for another. It also is an attempt at making different types of knowledge (or literacies) more equal. So, for instance, someone who knows how to hear what's wrong with an automobile engine has one kind of literacy, and someone who can discuss from memory how the Holy Roman Empire was founded has another kind of literacy. Another example would be that someone who can learn best when reading a textbook has a different kind of literacy than someone who learns best by hearing a lecture. The idea is not to put someone down because they can't learn the same way as other people, but to try to approach that person through the way that he or she learns best. I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with physiological brain structure or not. Perhaps if you go surfing through Google about it you'll find something... -- Saukkomies 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Serving food on silver platters

Can food safely be served directly on silver platters or should a doily be used?

doilies should never never ever be used unless you are female and over 90. and then still it is taboo.

If you haven't used nasty stuff to clean the plates, then yes, it is safe. After all, people eat quite happily with silver forks and spoons (if they have them). Silver is a disinfectant, apparently. SaundersW (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver has anti-bacterial properties. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A paper liner or doily is used to keep food from sticking to the plate, to make it easier to clean up, to avoid scratches or for decoration.Julia Rossi (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry,that is just vulgar.If you can afford silver plates,you don't worry about scratching them.hotclaws 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it with doilies? Problem: "We need a barrier to prevent food from dirtying up the plate." Solution: "OK! Let's use a piece of absorbent paper that's punched so full of holes that it's nearly all hole - that'll protect the plate pretty good". My wife (who is French and therefore genetically programmed at conception with all possible knowledge about food) claims that certain foods pick up a metallic taste from silver plates...sadly (as a Brit who lacks all genes relating to food knowledge) I can't recall what foods those are...I kinda suspect shellfish...but I'm not sure. SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To Steve: your wife is perfectly right. Special spoons in (for example) horn or mother-of-pearl are available for the serving and consumption of caviare. SaundersW (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm out of town right now - I'll try to get the full list from my wife when I call her tonight. However, as User:RockMaster points out, Silver is rather biologically inert, so it's hard to understand WHY it might do weird things to flavor...also quite a few of us have silver amalgam tooth fillings - are we missing out on the flavor of caviare? SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In all actuality, silver is quite inert as a metal in the human body. It does serve some disinfectant properties, but only when properly prepared as an ion. And if by some stretch of the imagination any significant amount got into the digestive tract, it would most likely pass through undigested. It's not called one of the noble metals for nothing. In addition to this, doilies were actually developed for English gentlemen, who's oiled hair (the latest style after powdered wigs) tended to destroy furniture. Rather than junk it, many people decided to protect it with disposable doilies. They were like the slipcovers of today. So a doily is quite the *ahem* manly thing to do. RockMaster-talk|contribs 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to How the Experts Eat: When indulging in caviar, the right utensil is essential, says Armen Petrossian, owner of Petrossian, a U.S. importer of caviar. Silver causes a chemical reaction with the egg, he says, so “gold or mother-of-pearl is best.” Horn and stainless steel also work. SteveBaker (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just don't use an antimacassar.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Better that than a macassar.... Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What a terrible shame they don't sell macassar oil anymore. Seriously. It had the best smell in the world, bar none. It was worth putting on your hair for the smell alone. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh but they do! [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent. Smithers, have 20 tons of the stuff brought to my office immediately. -- Monty Burns of Oz

If an antimacassar collided with macassar would it release a photon? And how is silver a "noble metal whjebn it reacts with so many chemicals? Sounds like a downright slutty metal. Edison (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never thought of silver as a noble metal - it tarnishes far too easily. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was told in long-ago chemistry lessons that the noble metals were metals that were found native in nature in nugget form and did not need chemical extraction. Chemistry and terminology may have changed since then. SaundersW (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver can be found native, as can gold and copper, can't remember what else is. DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic, Antimony, Bismuth and Iron are also found native, but I doubt anyone would refer to them as noble. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP PRESS: Silver DOES affect human metabolism! At least according to this video clip. That's it - I'm going out to buy doilies...NOW! SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool vid! And we have an article - Argyria. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Who started Matrixism?

Where, when and by whom was Matrixism started? 206.188.56.70 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's been over a month since someone from your IP range asked about Matrixism. Is this as new record? Seriously though, the article/section says it was "Conceived by an anonymous group in mid-2004". As for the 'where' part of your question, I'm pretty sure it's wholly an internet phenomena. (if 500 people can be called a phenomena.) 72.10.110.107 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be called "a phenomena". --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire: Nothing should be called "a phenomenon" :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You think there's something phenomenal about nothing? Oh, that I had such powers of perception; to be able to perceive nothing, and at such a distance too.

But seriously, everyone, please never use "criteria" or "phenomena" in the singular. It's absolute nails on chalkboard time. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the criteria for a phenomena should include carefully looking for a data. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will choose my word more carefully in the futures. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Are there any news?"

"No; not a single damn new." [2] TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee hee hee hee. --Masamage ♫ 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The pluralisations of certain foreign nouns adopted by English have proven to be conundra, and their misuse often drive linguists to tantra.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Arabic and Welsh plurals... Steewi (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tantra? --Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! I know this one! It's the plural of 'tantrum' - right? SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to the top of the class, Steve! For your prize, I award you a brand new guitar with a week's supply of plectra. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychics and police investigations

While watching an episode of the New Zealand show 'Sensing Murder' last night I must confess my initial scepticism was somewhat shaken by the rather impressive details that the two psychics claimed to have received from the victim. One went so far as to name who she thought was the murderer while both said that his accomplice had lived in the area and later committed suicide. The accomplice's sister later claimed that this was so.

My question is has there ever been a case anywhere where a criminal has been identified and later convicted based upon information supplied by a psychic? I note that our article on Psychic detectives does not contain any examples of such a success, but thought I might try here. So reference deskers can I return to my happy scepticism or is there indeed something tangible behind the psychic's claims? Lisiate (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as we know, oddly. see psychic detective --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There was this one woman that did help in police investigations, but i don't remember her name. She appeared on Oprah. No i don't watch oprah, but i just stumbled upon that once.--Dlo2012 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the clairvoyant who put up a sign outside her shop - "Closed today due to unforeseen circumstances". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re on Oprah, was that Alison Dubois? Anyway, your comment might inspire some research if you put it on the talk page for psychic detective.Julia Rossi (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the sentence in our article: "Said law enforcements have since denied any such cooperation happened" would tend to put a damper on the proceedings. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a reputation for being some kind of nutcase, I'll mention that I have actually met someone whom the police used in finding a missing girl's body. It took place in Idaho - but more than that I'll not disclose because this woman does not want to have people know about her. I know, this sound very fishy, and I wouldn't believe me either. But I knew her - she worked at a local hardware store in the paint section (she'd mix peoples' paints for them). I got to know her, but knew nothing of her work helping the police. When an 8-year-old girl in the area came up missing, a huge search was conducted for her, to no avail. After a week had gone by I happened to be in the store having this woman mix some paint for my boss (who was renovating his store at the time), when the police came in and approached her and asked if she could come with them. Later that night they found the girl's body - she had fallen into an irrigation ditch, drowned, and had been swept miles away to get stuck in a culvert that went under a back-country dirt farm road. The girls' parents, though heartstricken with grief over the loss of their daughter, still were somewhat relieved to have closure on this, knowing that she had indeed drowned and was not out there somewhere brought them a degree of peace. The next time I was in the store, the woman took me aside and explained what had happened. She wanted to explain because she didn't want me to get the wrong impression about her being taken away by the police. She said that she helped them out on rare occasions, but refused to take any form of recompense for her work. Further, she never used her "gifts" as she called them for anything other than to help people in need, and only when they asked. She was adamant that her identity never be revealed publicly, and insisted that when she helped the police that they would not tell anyone they had used her. At any rate, according to what she told me, the police took her to the station, where they had some of the girls' toys (they knew before hand what to do). She put her hand on a toy, and then immediately asked for a county road map, and when she got it pointed out precisely where the girl's body was to be found in the culvert pipe under the road. Within the hour they'd recovered her body. So, I do not say that her story is true or not - but I will state that this actually was a conversation I had with this woman, who will remain anonymous. I don't think it's anything anyone can really use on Wiki, since it's completely non-verifiable. So just chalk it down to someone's account of an unverifiable phenomenon. -- Saukkomies 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's PRECISELY the trouble with this stuff though - nobody ever "is" the person who does this work - nobody ever "is" the cop who relied on this person. It's always someone who heard a story from someone who claimed (with minimal evidence) to know someone who claims (without proof) to have done this. They'll tell you all sorts of stories about how the police won't admit that they do this. It's always a 3rd or 4th hand story.

In your case - because we like you - let's play nice and believe every word you just said about what you ACTUALLY know to be true.

The actual facts that you know are:

• That a woman gets taken away by the police.
• Somewhere else, the consequences of an accident is solved (by the bloody obvious technique of looking downstream of where she was last seen in all likelyhood).
• Subsequently, she claims that she was taken away for psychic consultations - and wants all of the details hushed up.

That's all that YOU really know...everything else is 'hearsay'.

Given these cold, hard facts - ask yourself honestly: Which is more likely? (a) that psychic phenomena are real (despite ALL evidence to the contrary) and that (b) police routinely believe in and consult psychics and that (c) she can't tell people about it (although she blabbed to you - a complete stranger!) and that (d) her activities never get reported by the press....or is it more likely that (e) the woman was a suspect in a petty crime or that her car had been towed or any one of a million mundane reasons and had to talk to the police...and that to save her personal embarrassment, she comes up with a cover story about being a psychic and that everyone has to keep this a secret? I'll grant that (e) is a little unlikely - but it's definitely possible - and that's vastly more likely than a conjunction of (a) and (b) and (c) and (d) - which requires a complete overhaul of pretty much all of modern science, plus some unlikely police practices and some suspicious secrecy.

No - as a society we absolutely have to put aside all of this dubious crap until/unless something clearly, provably, demonstrably happens to change that. If we continue to believe all of the lies and deceptions from people like this woman, we'll forever be in the dark ages. If something clearly demonstrable EVER happens, science will immediately rush off and dig up and study all of these cases - but in the meantime, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case, we don't even have mundane evidence. We have the word of someone whom the police took away unexpectedly and who could easily have a motive to lie.

If she truly can do this - why doesn't she go and claim her milion dollars? If her story is true, how could she POSSIBLY deny that opportunity? Maybe she doesn't need the money - but why not do it for charity - or for the betterment of mankind? The reason is because it's complete and utter hogwash and she knows damned well she can't do it for real! If you see her again...ask her this and wait for the hard-to-believe, evasive replies.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people wouldn't go on Survivor or Millionaire for a million dollars - what kind of argument is that? No wonder people keep their privacy in the face of so much bias and outrage. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty specious comparison. Sure, some people wouldn't do go on Survivor or Millionaire - but an awful lot do - those shows are never short of contestants and lots of people walk off with the big money prizes. Why doesn't one single "genuine" psychic come forward and agree to be tested under controlled conditions? Not ONE? Don't you find that just the tiniest bit surprising? How come James Randi can't find a single contestant for his million dollar game show? If this stuff works, then how come not one single "genuine" psychic will come forward to prove conclusively that this stuff is real, claim the megabuck and erase this so-called-"bias" once and for all? It's not even that Randi's is the only prize - we have an entire pageful of unclaimed big money psychic/paranormal prizes: See List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal. Come on - think about this! It's just not credible. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi SteveBaker, firstly "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox." Okay? Secondly lots of people in many fields don't feel the need to prove themselves in the public arena. Maybe you can take this discussion somewhere more suitable. Not my page by the way. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I claim a share on this page! Stop trying to own it! :p --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So when you contest my answer - that's OK - but when I contest your reply it's a diatribe. Sounds like you've run out of good debating points. Cool! SteveBaker (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SteveBaker's answer was perfectly reasonable. He pointed out that a previous answer(Saukkomies's) was very logically suspect and a bit naive, then he explained why.

Perhaps SteveBaker would get less complaints if he gave more fun answers like "Sure! Neutrino-based cellphones are a brilliant idea! But you'd only really need it if a negative aura is interfering with your latent psychic ability." 72.10.110.107 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! No fair! Check out this thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#i.27m_sure_there.27s_a_name_for_this.2C_tell_me_it - notably my last addition to it. SteveBaker (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of psychics make a lot of predictions, nearly all of them inaccurate. However, occasionally, just by chance, a few match actual events closely enough to be claimed as successes. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. See Infinite monkey theorem. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, watching the South Park episode Cartman's Incredible Gift is advisable for a more animated take on the psychic detective phenomena. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew this topic was going to crop up. Can i haz milllion now plez? Lanfear's Bane | t 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to relying on the word of others for phenomena that cannot be reproduced under controlled circumstances, I have to agree with Steve 100%. What is more likely: that something which all systematic study tells us is impossible has occurred, or that someone is lying/is mistaken/is fooled/is just wrong? In my experience, humans are excessively fallible, even assuming the best of faith, and I of course include myself in this (if I were reporting psychic/ghost/magic/extraterrestrial/whatever phenomena I'd be just as critical and dubious of my own perceptions of it as I would be of others'). As has been long said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is often those making the most extraordinary claims who say that they can't give any hard evidence. It all stinks a bit too much of charlatanism, at worst, to be a coincidence. Charlatans I have seen; psychics, I have not. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The thought that always springs to mind for me is that if were a policeman on a case and a psychic offered to help and reveals details about the scene that are accurate and even provides details that hadn't been mentioned to the general public,that person would immediately go to the top of my suspect list. Lemon martini (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other side of the equation, various psychics have been called in by the police to see if they can help with solving cases, eg. Peter Hurkos on the Boston Strangler case, and Gerard Croiset on the Beaumont children case and others. They may have had no success, and they may have generally been considered charlatans, but if the police thought that it was absolutely impossible they could be of any assistance, why would they have been brought on board in the first place? The police must have thought they had some chance, however slim, of solving the cases. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this says nothing at all about whether any "psychic" actually has any extraordinary gift that might help them solve a crime. It merely proves that there exist some police who are gullible enough to think that a psychic might help them. That's not really all that surprising. Police are authority figures in that they are experts at how to enforce the law, but they have no expertise at evaluating whether some supposed paranormal phenomenon might have some basis in reality. MrRedact (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that policemen are not the paragons of science or reason? (I've got nothing too personal against cops, but none of the ones I've met have been exactly what I'd call intellectuals, or what they'd probably call intellectuals either.) Personally I would see appealing to prayer/psychics/magic as a rather sad form of desperation. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the contributions - so far as I can see there's no clear example of psychic's being successful at all. I can remain sceptical I guess. Lisiate (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite millions of police cases and thousands of Psychic over the years there is not ONE credible well documented case of a Psychic solving a crime. You would be much better off reading books than watching TV shows, which are always biased to make them entertaining (its boring if everything proved to be non-Psychic). What you have to remember about Psychic is they play 'word' games. This is generally how they get credibility it goes like this: Claim to have a vision etc. about a murder. Police are interested and contact them. Psychic now goes around saying they have 'assisted' police in investigations (Silvia Brown for example claims to have assisted police is over three hundreds of investigations). If or not their information was useful or even used in the case is never known. If the Psychic turns out to know nothign about the case, the whole 'assistance' thing isn't even reported or documented with the case - because it had nothing to do with the case. Thus you can get all the documents for police cases were 'Psychic's assisted, not find a SINGLE mention of any interview with any of them.--Dacium (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hold on here everybody. I actually agree with SteveBaker! That is why in the story I clearly stated that it was "someone's account of an unverifiable phenomenon". Did anyone see anywhere in that story that I was saying: "This is real"??? No, and I am a tiny bit offended by some of the responses from people who seem to be saying that my story is not based in logic or full of beans. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean I cannot repeat what I experienced and leave it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. I regard myself as a man of science, and as such I do NOT reject anything out of hand without proof one way or the other that it is either false or true. Some people have difficulty being comfortable about NOT KNOWING about some things or not being able to accept that it might be possible for certain phenomena in the natural world do not coincide with their philosophy. How I feel about this story I told about what this woman told to me is simply: I do not know. And I am not uncomfortable with that. I do not have to fit it into any logical construct, either, but to just let it stand as it is - a piece of data to reflect on and perhaps use later if other data come in that will add some understanding to it, whether to prove or disprove what it is. THAT is the real Scientific Method. -- Saukkomies 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - exactly. I went out of my way to say that I don't disbelieve the facts that you laid before us. I merely offer a mundane way in which those facts could come about. Once you have a mundane interpretation then you have to place side by side the mundane explanation (she lied to cover her embarrassment over being hauled away by the cops) and the fanciful one (she really can find bodies by touching things the dead person owned). When you do that, you have to choose between accepting the findings of thousands of great minds like Newton and Einstein upon which the fabric of modern society is based - or the word of some random person who has a motive to lie. Laid out clearly like that - who, in their right mind, is going to take the word of this woman without an ENORMOUS amount of corroborating evidence...of which we have none, even though we are happy to believe every word that Saukkomies said! SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old Chinese proverb: To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable. But to be certain is to be ridiculous. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a proverb is old and Chinese doesn't make it right! SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right? Since when is any proverb "right" - or "wrong" for that matter? Beyond a certain point, a focus on rightness/wrongness as a framework for everything is unhealthy, my friend. I believe the point of the proverb is open-mindedness. But there's no law that says anyone has to be. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the Chinese version of the proverb? Chinese proverbs are quite a bit shorter than that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No I don't, and I really can't claim to know exactly where it’s from. I’ve had it on my list of favourite quotes and anti-quotes for quite a while. There are lots of Google hits that say it’s a Chinese proverb. One I’ve found even says it’s by Confucius [3]. But some say or suggest it’s from Goethe [4] and [5]. Who knows – all I know is it speaks the truth to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a Chinese proverb; the original is from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." (Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.) One of my all-time favorite quotes. --24.147.86.187 (talk)