Reasoning About Weird Things Assignment # 2
There are many limitations of personal experiences that may account for the evidence or details of the case supposedly solved by the psychic, Noreen Renier, in the Norman Lewis missing person case. Without further research on the case there are many issues of skepticism relevant to this case. By evaluating the concepts outlined in chapter 5 of How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, we can determine factors that should be further investigated prior to accepting the any claim. In this case we look at the Noreen Renier’s claims of the having the psychic ability to locate Norma Lewis, the missing person.
Perception in Constructive, clarity in vagueness is an ability used by …show more content…
When Reiner described her visions told the investigators of the clues to help find the missing body. In particular, she mentioned a pile of bricks, a bridge, a railroad bed, and three numbers, 45, 22 and 21, that related to Lewi’s whereabouts. Upon the discovery of the body, the investigator and Chief took Renier’s visions and turned them into a reality. The found Lewis off SR 45 highway, 2.1 miles from home and when investigating the body, they found his watch had stopped on the 22nd month of the year. Now in actuality, the entrance to the mine where Lewis was located was on US 41, however if you look closely and “squint your eyes” it is also on SR 45. Secondly, they number 2.1 is not 21, but again the police made sense of the Renier’s nonsense. Lastly the fact that the watch had stopped on the 22nd month is a convenient coincident, but perfectly illustrates that the police looked hard to find a way to make Renier’s prediction to come true. They could have 22 cracks in the windshield or channel 22 on the radio. The point of the matter is subject validation happen subconsciously all the time. In addition, the pile of bricks found was nowhere near the railroad bed, and the police claimed the “old Fairbanks Morris Scale” could have been mistaken for a …show more content…
And I can also tell you that we wouldn’t have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen.” which illustrates the Confirmation Bias of Renier’s predictions. Renier was accurate in a broad, vague sense, about the clues leading to Normans location. But if you take her predictions at face value, she predicted the truck to be surrounded with vegetation, when in actuality it was under water, the bricks were not near the truck, and there was no bridge. Lastly, the number she gave, also show the confirmation bias, as they really did not do anything for finding the body of Lewis, the correlations were simply an example of subject validation and clarity in
There are many limitations of personal experiences that may account for the evidence or details of the case supposedly solved by the psychic, Noreen Renier, in the Norman Lewis missing person case. Without further research on the case there are many issues of skepticism relevant to this case. By evaluating the concepts outlined in chapter 5 of How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, we can determine factors that should be further investigated prior to accepting the any claim. In this case we look at the Noreen Renier’s claims of the having the psychic ability to locate Norma Lewis, the missing person.
Perception in Constructive, clarity in vagueness is an ability used by …show more content…
When Reiner described her visions told the investigators of the clues to help find the missing body. In particular, she mentioned a pile of bricks, a bridge, a railroad bed, and three numbers, 45, 22 and 21, that related to Lewi’s whereabouts. Upon the discovery of the body, the investigator and Chief took Renier’s visions and turned them into a reality. The found Lewis off SR 45 highway, 2.1 miles from home and when investigating the body, they found his watch had stopped on the 22nd month of the year. Now in actuality, the entrance to the mine where Lewis was located was on US 41, however if you look closely and “squint your eyes” it is also on SR 45. Secondly, they number 2.1 is not 21, but again the police made sense of the Renier’s nonsense. Lastly the fact that the watch had stopped on the 22nd month is a convenient coincident, but perfectly illustrates that the police looked hard to find a way to make Renier’s prediction to come true. They could have 22 cracks in the windshield or channel 22 on the radio. The point of the matter is subject validation happen subconsciously all the time. In addition, the pile of bricks found was nowhere near the railroad bed, and the police claimed the “old Fairbanks Morris Scale” could have been mistaken for a …show more content…
And I can also tell you that we wouldn’t have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen.” which illustrates the Confirmation Bias of Renier’s predictions. Renier was accurate in a broad, vague sense, about the clues leading to Normans location. But if you take her predictions at face value, she predicted the truck to be surrounded with vegetation, when in actuality it was under water, the bricks were not near the truck, and there was no bridge. Lastly, the number she gave, also show the confirmation bias, as they really did not do anything for finding the body of Lewis, the correlations were simply an example of subject validation and clarity in