Let me hasten to add that I think of myself as a skeptic, but I'm of the "okay, now prove it" variety. I think professional psychics tend to be con artists, and these folks can do a lot of psychological damage to people who take them to seriously.
On the other hand, I've experienced many examples of uncanny intuition in my own life and have witnessed some in others. But I don't think of myself as psychic. I tend to think there may be something to the "morphic resonance" thinking of Rupert Sheldrake.
I think animals tend to be highly attuned to their environment and are forced to rely on their senses more than we human animals. In a sense I believe we have drowned out the resonance with too many distractions (loud music, cell phones, television, etc.). If you disagree with my proposition here I will not be offended. Nor would I be willing to press hard for its acceptance. It's just my way of trying to make sense of things which have happened in my life.
Last week a story broke about Pam Ragland, who experienced visions and by them helped investigators locate the body of a missing and now murdered 11 year old. Interesting. Maybe a bit suspicious. I would like more information about this. I'm not ready to point to this story as "proof" of anything. I just say if it is legitimate it would fit into my above suggestion.
While poking around the internet looking for stories on this thing I came across a true skeptic's blog No, Psychics Can't Help Solve Murders by Justin Peters.
Therein Mr. Peters flat out says this was not a case of psychic powers. How does he know this? Because, he says:
Because psychics don’t exist. Psychic powers are not a real thing. A psychic cannot help a detective solve a crime, because there is no such thing as a legitimate psychic.
Now I'm not going to argue that he is wrong about that. The problem I have, however, is that - like Bible Creationists, who take a preconceived idea and then try to bend all evidence to fit that idea - Peters isn't open to the possibility that there are things yet to be discovered about the Cosmos. He starts with a preconceived idea and is unwilling to looking beyond it.
One needn't lapse into supernaturalism or supernormalism (or as skeptics like to suggest: magical thinking) in order to accept "psychic" episodes. Sheldrake's morphic resonance provides, I think, a reasonable natural explanation.
Because Peters rules out psychic intuition out of hand, he is left to explain this as
Maybe she wasn't as involved as she says. Maybe it was coincidence, or luck, or a really good guess. Maybe she is actually skilled at reading landscapes and guessing where bodies might be buried.
But for my part, I must remain an open-minded skeptic. And I will withhold judgment on this particular instance and just say that I find it interesting and not outside the realm of what I think might be possible.