First thing is to define a psychic. Personally I don't like the term when it comes to serious research. When I hear the word psychic, what comes to mind is the fortune teller sitting behind a crystal ball. It equates with a circus atmosphere, someone out to give you a cold reading for a fee. Someone to take your money, not the person who is at all serious about actually investigating anything.
If Psychics Know All and See All,
How come they all haven't made millions in the Stock Market?
Instead I prefer to consider those who claim an ability to gain an impression beyond the five senses as a sensitive. This includes those who claim the ability to remote view as well as those who can pick up on a person's emotional or conditions about that person. And it might also include those who claim telepathic abilities as well as Extrasensory perception.
The subject of using a sensitive is varied among investigators, especially those of us who use scientific methods. Many groups who take a more spiritual approach do use sensitives and base much of their investigation around them. However I do not use them for my research, at least not in the manner many do.
Now before any sensitive reading this takes offense let me say that I have personally witnessed sensitives who have obtained information in ways that defy logic. In other words I have seen them gain information that they should not have been able to obtain through conventional means. It appears that at times they do have some ability that go beyond what most of us non-sensitives have. So why do I not use them?
The same sensitives who have sometimes confounded me with their ability have at other times experienced just as amazing misses. In other words sometimes they hit, sometimes they don't. An investigation however requires consistency. The scientific method demands repeatability. And if it can't be repeated then at least a reason must be given as to why not.
To do that requires we understand how the information is obtained, that is how the sensitive does what they do. In other words, if the sensitive fails because "X" was not present then they have made their case explaining the failure. But what is this "X" factor? For that we need to understand how the ability works, how a sensitive operates. Clearly we do not yet have that ability, therefore the information obtained by the sensitive is not reliable in all cases. And as such cannot actually make a case regarding drawing a conclusion to an investigation.
But that does not mean that I dismiss them without consideration either. I do use them if appropriate in conjunction with other methods. For example I will certainly pay attention if the sensitive says I should concentrate my investigation to a certain area because he or she has picked up on an impression. If they say I should take a picture of a certain area, the picture is taken. If nothing comes of it, then that is what it is, nothing. But if something is captured then the evidence is treated as valid and studied just as any other picture. Plus it has the added weight that possibly the sensitive actually was on to something. In the end though it is handled just as all other evidence. It is either validated or debunked on its own merit.
A sensitive is also helpful when doing a witness interview. Often they may pick up on something the more logical person may miss. This may not even be paranormal in nature; it seems many sensitives do seem to have an ability to "read" a person's responses or mannerisms. Many sensitives do seem to relate well to people, sometimes they just connect. For this reason I never brief the sensitive prior to going in on an investigation. I allow them to form their own impressions, then use their input as a factor in determining the direction the case will take.
