What's the Harm Website

[Rodney]

I saw this website listed in Robert Lancaster's sig file and decided to explore the first (Steven Linscott) case listed under "What's the harm in interpreting dreams?" -- see http://www.whatstheharm.net/dreaminterpretation.html

I quickly discovered that, while the website claims "368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages" due to a lack of critical thinking, no critical thinking went into the inclusion of this case -- the only one that I've checked -- on the website. Briefly, a young Illinois nursing student was sexually assaulted and murdered in October 1980, and Mr. Linscott had a dream in this same time frame about a woman being murdered in a way that seemed similar to what Mr. Linscott knew about the case. So, he went to the police, thinking they might be interested in his dream. Instead, they arrested him for the murder, and -- based on trumped-up evidence -- he was convicted. Mr. Linscott served three years in prison; however, DNA evidence later excluded him as the perpetrator of the sexual assault, and the murder charges against him were dropped. See http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php and http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096350,00.html

So, while as the website maintains, Mr. Linscott may have been one of the "205 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically", the lack of critical thinking was only on Mr. Linscott's part to the extent that he initially failed to realize: "If you can't prove you didn't do something, you better think twice before you come forward. I realize now that the world is a much harder and colder place than I thought."

As I say, this is the first case I've examined on the "What's the Harm" website. What I discovered does not exactly lead to the belief that the website's author is a critical thinker.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dreams don't predict anything.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Sure seems like he was harmed by it.

 

[Piggy]

So, while as the website maintains, Mr. Linscott may have been one of the "205 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically", the lack of critical thinking was only on Mr. Linscott's part to the extent that he initially failed to realize: "If you can't prove you didn't do something, you better think twice before you come forward. I realize now that the world is a much harder and colder place than I thought."

As I say, this is the first case I've examined on the "What's the Harm" website. What I discovered does not exactly lead to the belief that the website's author is a critical thinker.

Ends up the same either way.

Linscott, the police, and the jury all made the same mistake, but it just so happens that all the harm fell on Linscott and none on the police or the jury.

 

[Puppycow]

This line at the top of the web page needs an explanation:

368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages

Due to what? Based on what? How were those numbers arrived at? Why are they precise to 6 or 7 significant digits? Why are more people killed than injured? Usually its the other way around.

 

[Joey McGee]

The Harm is believing that a dream has real world significance and acting on it. I'd say that he made his point just fine!

That story about an oil rig being evacuated because a woman had a dream about a bomb, that's hilarious.

 

[Emet]

This line at the top of the web page needs an explanation:


Due to what? Based on what? How were those numbers arrived at? Why are they precise to 6 or 7 significant digits? Why are more people killed than injured? Usually its the other way around.

9. The total harm listed seems small for 50 years of data. Why should I care?
Don't make the mistake of comparing anecdotes with data. The cases on this website are culled manually from news reports by a very small group of volunteers on their free time. As a result the totals do not represent any sort of scientific approach to the issues covered here, and are not even close to being comprehensive. They are only meant to be give you a rough idea of the size of the problem. In fact, we believe that the cases seen here represent a mere tip of the iceberg.

Other reasons that the totals shown here could be misleading:

Linking to web-based news stories tends to favor events that have occurred in the last ten years or so.
Many relevant stories disappear from the web very quickly because they are not considered newsworthy.
Many relevant cases never make it into the news media and therefore go unnoticed here.
Dollar figures do not include lawsuits which were settled confidentially and other damages not documented publicly.
Non-English speaking countries are under-represented, because we mostly link to news reports that are available in English.
Countries where there is no free press are also under-represented.

http://www.whatstheharm.net/faq.html

 

[Joey McGee]

This line at the top of the web page needs an explanation:


Due to what? Based on what? How were those numbers arrived at? Why are they precise to 6 or 7 significant digits? Why are more people killed than injured? Usually its the other way around.

You're right, it's a silly rhetorical device. Even if you had references for that number, it wouldn't speak to the true amount of harm done anyway. Nowhere on the site is it explained either.

It hasn't been updated in 3 years... it's a great site, it could be taken over and updated, refined, corrected etc...

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.whatstheharm.net/faq.html

The the way the web page is designed, it's hard to find the explanation for those numbers, which appear on the top of every page without any context.

I browsed to another page on the website:
http://www.whatstheharm.net/children.html

The first case in the list is this:

S.M. Abbott

Age: 5
Benton County, Minnesota


Abused, tortured
August 1994
After her mother was killed in an accident, she behaved abnormally. Her parents used "holding therapy" (aka attachment therapy) to treat her. She was hospitalized for weeks. Custody of the girl was eventually awarded to her maternal grandmother. Read more

But if you read that link, it's not clear that she was either abused or tortured. Misdiagnosed? Perhaps. Given a kind of therapy that didn't work? Evidently. But the therapy, from what I can gather, consisted of holding the child. How is that abuse or torture?

 

[Joey McGee]

it's not clear that she was either abused or tortured. Misdiagnosed? Perhaps. Given a kind of therapy that didn't work? Evidently. But the therapy, from what I can gather, consisted of holding the child. How is that abuse or torture?

Because if she wasn't referred to quacks, maybe she'd have gotten science-based treatment that would have prevented her from spending 5 weeks in hospital? "after her last holding therapy session, the girl reportedly peeled skin off her fingers and entered into an uncontrollable rage during which she threatened to kill both the Abbotts and herself."

Sounds like the therapy was driving her insane. As the guardian tried to explain, they thought they needed to "outcrazy the crazy".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I saw this website listed in Robert Lancaster's sig file and decided to explore the first (Steven Linscott) case listed under "What's the harm in interpreting dreams?" -- see http://www.whatstheharm.net/dreaminterpretation.html

I quickly discovered that, while the website claims "368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages" due to a lack of critical thinking, no critical thinking went into the inclusion of this case -- the only one that I've checked -- on the website. Briefly, a young Illinois nursing student was sexually assaulted and murdered in October 1980, and Mr. Linscott had a dream in this same time frame about a woman being murdered in a way that seemed similar to what Mr. Linscott knew about the case. So, he went to the police, thinking they might be interested in his dream. Instead, they arrested him for the murder, and -- based on trumped-up evidence -- he was convicted. Mr. Linscott served three years in prison; however, DNA evidence later excluded him as the perpetrator of the sexual assault, and the murder charges against him were dropped. See http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php and http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096350,00.html

So, while as the website maintains, Mr. Linscott may have been one of the "205 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically", the lack of critical thinking was only on Mr. Linscott's part to the extent that he initially failed to realize: "If you can't prove you didn't do something, you better think twice before you come forward. I realize now that the world is a much harder and colder place than I thought."

As I say, this is the first case I've examined on the "What's the Harm" website. What I discovered does not exactly lead to the belief that the website's author is a critical thinker.

I'd call 3 years in prison harm. And are you saying that Mr. Linscott was displaying critical thinking when he reported a dream to the police? No? Then his lack of critical thinking caused him harm.

 

[Squid]

I was, at one point, asked to contribute to that site, due to something in my past. However, I have lost contact with the founder. If he reads this post, please contact me. We met at DC 2008 during one of Randi's panels in the Skeptic Track.

 

[Rasmus]

But if you read that link, it's not clear that she was either abused or tortured. Misdiagnosed? Perhaps. Given a kind of therapy that didn't work? Evidently. But the therapy, from what I can gather, consisted of holding the child. How is that abuse or torture?

First of all, I would consider withholding a working therapy in favor of a bogus treatment to be abuse.

Secondly ... did you google "holding therapy", or did you only assume it consisted of holding the child simply because it was called "holding therapy"?

Did you follow the links on the page itself?

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9708/76.htm

S.M.A. was not allowed to eat for three days until she accepted food from Carol Abbott; (2) the Abbotts used holds in a random and punitive manner to "take down" S.M.A. by lying on top of her for up to five hours, during which time she screamed, "get off me--you're hurting me"; (3) the Abbotts used various parenting techniques learned from the RAD support group in an excessive and punitive manner; and (4) a child psychotherapist and social worker with experience treating RAD children testified that the Abbotts went overboard in using holding therapy and became punitive.

 

[Rasmus]

So, while as the website maintains, Mr. Linscott may have been one of the "205 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically", the lack of critical thinking was only on Mr. Linscott's part to the extent that he initially failed to realize: "If you can't prove you didn't do something, you better think twice before you come forward. I realize now that the world is a much harder and colder place than I thought."

I find it ironic that after all this years in prison he still thinks that his mistake was "coming forward" rather than not realizing that he had no reasons to come forward in the first place!

He was unjustly imprisoned in part because he presented himself as a suspect.

Forgive me for being uncritical myself, but it appears that he described details of the murder that matched what actually happened. I, too, would find that suspicious. The evidence that his conviction was then based on was later found to be inconclusive, but it didn't rule him out. (Also, the DNA evidence that contributed to his release seems to be closer related to the rape than to the murder. The guy was never found guilty of the rape.)

Innocent or not, he painted himself into a corner and should not be too surprised that the court and jury viewed that as evidence for his guilt. Innocent or not: What would you expect would happen if you revealed details of a crime that you had no other way of knowing about besides being there when the crime was committed?

 

[Garrette]

So the bottom line is that even when psychics (or dream interpreters) have information actually consistent with the crime, their assistance is still of no value in solving said crime.

 

[Rasmus]

So the bottom line is that even when psychics (or dream interpreters) have information actually consistent with the crime, their assistance is still of no value in solving said crime.

No, not at all. The bottom line is that a person who has information about a crime that they couldn't have unless they were there when the crime was committed are suspicious.

If, for some specific reason, they are not suspicious then whatever they have to say is not "information" to begin with.

 

[Garrette]

No, not at all. The bottom line is that a person who has information about a crime that they couldn't have unless they were there when the crime was committed are suspicious.

If, for some specific reason, they are not suspicious then whatever they have to say is not "information" to begin with.

Oh, I get that. My comment makes more sense to me because of historical context involving numerous exchanges with Rodney.

So while what I wrote might not be the actual bottom line, it is still a line, and one quite near the bottom.

 

[Rasmus]

Oh, I get that. My comment makes more sense to me because of historical context involving numerous exchanges with Rodney.

So while what I wrote might not be the actual bottom line, it is still a line, and one quite near the bottom.

My reply makes a lot more sense once I admit that I imagined a question mark at the end of your post.

I should stay off the computer when I'm sick ...

 

[Garrette]

Bad Rasmus.

Bad, bad, Rasmus.

 

[TraneWreck]

So the bottom line is that even when psychics (or dream interpreters) have information actually consistent with the crime, their assistance is still of no value in solving said crime.

Exactly. It's just coincidence.

I'd be willing to bet that if we had access to the dreams of all 6,000,000,000 people on the planet in any given night, a fair number of them would line up closely with some crimes, somewhere.