Consumer Reports for the Paranormal

[Luke T.]

Easy, Luke. Easy.

How about Sylvia Browne dispensing medical advice that can kill people? How about psychic detectives who claim to be able to find dead or missing relatives, thereby sending the police on wild goosechases, and giving false hope to the families?

How about creating a dangerous emotional dependency on the psychic? How about spending money on fake psychics?

I doubt that any believer will deny that fakes exist. So, how do we find out which are fakes and which are real? We need to do that, don't we? By not doing anything, then the believer is actively helping the frauds cheat other people.

This makes me thing of those charts you see in Consumer Reports where they compare different manufacturers of the same product together. Along the top are various options, along the side are the manufacturers. Black dots signify what options each manufacturer provides.

Browne, Edward, Van Pragh. Past life regression, medical advice, predictions, ADC, exorcism...

I repeat: So, how do we find out which are fakes and which are real? We need to do that, don't we? By not doing anything, then the believer is actively helping the frauds cheat other people.

I think this should be about education and not confrontation. Explaining how to think critically. Instead of seeing a believer as an abetter to fraud, to see and welcome them as a seeker of knowledge. Because that is what everyone is. It is not within our ability to prove anything to anybody. This is an anecdotal world for the most part. So we should show a person how to interpret what they are seeing with their own eyes and hearing with their own ears.

If a person has has a profound paranormal experience and are convinced there is something out there, nothing you or I say will ever convince them otherwise. But an education for future use can erode the picture of the past, which may cause a later re-evaluation.

Not "should", but "would". It's based on experience, of course. But, if there are other patterns of behavior, let's hear them, so we are prepared.

Yeah. We've all been around long enough to know the patterns. So how come we keep feeding trolls?

 

[CFLarsen]

I think this should be about education and not confrontation. Explaining how to think critically. Instead of seeing a believer as an abetter to fraud, to see and welcome them as a seeker of knowledge. Because that is what everyone is. It is not within our ability to prove anything to anybody. This is an anecdotal world for the most part. So we should show a person how to interpret what they are seeing with their own eyes and hearing with their own ears.

If a person has has a profound paranormal experience and are convinced there is something out there, nothing you or I say will ever convince them otherwise. But an education for future use can erode the picture of the past, which may cause a later re-evaluation.

I'm for education, no problems. But my point here is that believers hear only the success-stories - at least, they only tell that kind. We need to show that there are verifiable cases where it went horribly wrong. And then, we need to explain why.

Yeah. We've all been around long enough to know the patterns. So how come we keep feeding trolls?

It's better than watching Sylvia on Larry King!

 

[IllegalArgument]

It's better than watching Sylvia on Larry King! [/B]

Well, if that isn't damnation by faint praise, I don't know what is.

 

[Luke T.]

I'm for education, no problems. But my point here is that believers hear only the success-stories - at least, they only tell that kind. We need to show that there are verifiable cases where it went horribly wrong. And then, we need to explain why.

Cautionary tales are certainly educational. And giving people secret knowledge of how a con man/woman does their thing empowers them, and enables them to instantly recognize the con when they see it.

I have my own anecdote along those lines. When my wife and I were first dating, her employer brought a psychic in to where she worked. At the time, my wife's father had just died and her mother was dying from cancer, so she was quite vulnerable to a psychic. And she fell for it, despite my lamentations, gnashing of teeth, and cynical remarks before and after the event.

Well, the internet was a relatively newfangled thing at the time, but I went on and searched around and came across this web site right here. Long before this forum. And on it, Randi had put a sample cold reading that psychics use. My wife hit the ceiling. It was almost identical to what she had heard from the psychic at her workplace. My wife got so pissed she wanted to go find the psychic and beat her up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

How about Sylvia Browne dispensing medical advice that can kill people?

There are police and other law enforcement authorities that are more capable of addressing that.

How about spending money on fake psychics?

How much $? Could you give us some actual numbers?

Which is why we need as many stories on as many psychics as possible.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[Garrette]

I'm answering on behalf of CFLarsen without his knowledge:

Originally posted by jzs:
There are police and other law enforcement authorities that are more capable of addressing that

Besides the fact that this type of scam is rarely prosecuted, you seem to be suggesting that the existence of law enforcement agencies means civilians shouldn't point out frauds or possible frauds.

If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.

Originally posted by jzs:
How much $? Could you give us some actual numbers?

Yesterday I saw a palm reader advertising for $5.

I think Sylvia's going rate is $750.

Originally posted by jzs:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Which is the whole point.

 

[IllegalArgument]

There are police and other law enforcement authorities that are more capable of addressing that.

[/b]
[/B]

I think it's important for people to bring things like this to the attention of law enforcement. Otherwise it will probably not show up on their radar. This is what advocacy groups do, bring attention to subjects that are not in the public eye, or at least not preceived as important.

 

[CFLarsen]

There are police and other law enforcement authorities that are more capable of addressing that.

Why should skeptics not address it? Why should skeptics keep silent about it?

How much $? Could you give us some actual numbers?

Sylvia Browne claims to do 15-20 readings a day. At $700 a pop. You do the math.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Read my first post in this thread. Then, you will see this:

I'm not saying that we should replace evidence with anecdotes. There is no substitute for evidence. I'm saying that we can counter the faceless anecdotes with real, verifiable stories of how dangerous paranormal beliefs are.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: I'm answering on behalf of CFLarsen without his knowledge:

Besides the fact that this type of scam is rarely prosecuted, you seem to be suggesting that the existence of law enforcement agencies means civilians shouldn't point out frauds or possible frauds.

If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.

They are more capable. They could do something like actually arrest somebody for a certain offense.

Yesterday I saw a palm reader advertising for $5.

I think Sylvia's going rate is $750.

$ spent.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: I'm answering on behalf of CFLarsen without his knowledge:

$ spent.

That's $750 spent.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why should skeptics not address it? Why should skeptics keep silent about it?

Never said they should.

It is just that the law enforcement can do stuff about it, not just write and educate, but enforce.

Sylvia Browne claims to do 15-20 readings a day. At $700 a pop. You do the math.

Not what she or anybody claims, what the amount actually is. You don't seem to want to deal with actual data, which is disturbing.

I'm saying that we can counter the faceless anecdotes with real, verifiable stories of how dangerous paranormal beliefs are.

You're saying we counter anecdotes by more anecdotes. Got it.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:
They are more capable. They could do something like actually arrest somebody for a certain offense.

Okay. So you do think skeptics shouldn't bring it up.

I think this is a completely indefensible position.

Originally posted by jzs:
$ spent.

Okay,

People who go to the palm reader I saw will have spent $5.

People who go to Sylvia will have spent $750.

 

[CFLarsen]

Never said they should.

It is just that the law enforcement can do stuff about it, not just write and educate, but enforce.

D'oh! So why raise the point at all, then? Nobody said that skeptics should play vigilantes.

Not what she or anybody claims, what the amount actually is. You don't seem to want to deal with actual data, which is disturbing.

What are you talking about? That's what she charges.

You're saying we counter anecdotes by more anecdotes. Got it.

No, Justin. Now you are misrepresenting again:

I'm saying that we can counter the faceless anecdotes with real, verifiable stories of how dangerous paranormal beliefs are.

UNVERIFIABLE vs. VERIFIABLE.

If you are going to misrepresent someone, could you at least be a little less obvious?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but it looks like this thread is about to derail. Let's stay on topic.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indeed.

Let's see what people can contribute.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Nobody said that skeptics should play vigilantes.

Except the superhero vigilante skeptics who would take out anyone on an airplane with a gun, no questions asked. They play vigilantes, at least in their heads.

What are you talking about? That's what she charges.

She claims to do that many readings per day, etc. I'm asking for actual data, not numbers based off of what someone, you or her, claim.

You never seem to have these numbers, yet that doesn't bother you in the least to write that people are spending (ie. actually spending) a lot of money for it to be a serious issue.

Any time you'd like to present the actual data, please do so.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Like I said above let's stick to the topic. What things do you, jzs, think we can do to better advocate?

 

[The Bad Astronomer]

At TAM3 one of the speakers commented that he saw, around the time of the Heaven's Gate mass sucide, Micheal Sherman wearing a shirt that said. "So, many cults, so few comets".

That was my mistake. It actually said (I think) "Got Cult?"

 

[T'ai Chi]

Okay. So you do think skeptics shouldn't bring it up.

No, I don't.

They should bring it up, but not have it as a main focus, as there are law enforcement agencies that do have this as their main funcion. Skeptical organizations shouldn't spread themselves thin.

People who go to the palm reader I saw will have spent $5.

People who go to Sylvia will have spent $750.

What are you not understanding about actual data?

 

[T'ai Chi]

[zammit]Prove he didn't.[/zammit]

Well that is actually very easy to do.

All the texts from the Sherlock Holmes 'Canon' are online.