Ethics of Peddling the Paranormal
Is it OK for non-believers to sell the paranormal?
Filed under Alternative Medicine, Paranormal
| Skeptoid #04 October 24, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
This is where I break ranks with the majority of the skeptical community, and come out, surprisingly, generally in favor of those who peddle the paranormal, in cases where no harm is done.
In our society, people have the right to purchase things they want that are of no benefit, or even harmful. Cigarettes, alcohol, expensive cosmetic products containing questionable ingredients like "extract of oleander" — these are just a few examples. It's a free country, and most people want these things. We've decided, as a nation, that the preferences of a few should not curtail the freedoms of the many. And I believe most skeptics would agree: paranormal services from palm readers to homeopathy stores have every right to exist. I hope my kids don't become customers, but I feel education is a better way to address it than government intervention.
Since we agree that these services have the right to exist, and that people must be free to make their own choices about using them, I personally would have no problem stepping up and selling my own psychic predictions. I would love to be able to perform a good cold reading. My dream is to start a church and become fabulously wealthy, with the world's happiest customers. These customers are people who are already believers, whose minds are not about to be changed by a few skeptics. They are going to buy these services: and if they don't buy them from me, they're going to buy them from the psychic next door. I could do a good job. I could be perfectly convincing and tell them exactly what they hope to hear for their money. In fact, the customer's experience will be identical to that they'd receive from the "real" psychic next door. We agree that customers have the right to spend their money on whatever they want. We agree that a customer is being deceived whenever he buys any supernatural product, no matter who sells it. We agree that no power on earth could convince that customer that he's being deceived. Add it all up, and we have a customer who insists on being deceived, and who has the right to purchase that deception. I believe that it's perfectly acceptable — and perfectly ethical — for me, even as a skeptic, to take advantage and sell the same product.
If you're like most people, you're disagreeing with me. You're probably saying that I'm being dishonest and lying to the customer, while the real psychic (though his powers are no more real than mine) is at least being honest. He's wrong, but he's honest. We're selling the same thing, and both giving the customer a satisfying experience. I see it just like a supermarket manager who allows cigarettes to be sold in his store. He knows they're a bad product, but people want them, and that's the way it is. Yet I never hear my detractors criticize the supermarket manager.
The best argument I've heard against my position is that I'm taking away the customer's dignity, in removing his right to make a choice. I'm being disingenuous, telling him that I'm someone I'm not, when my psychic competitor next door is being honest in claiming psychic powers. The customer chooses to go to a psychic. I'm lying to him, while the psychic next door is not. I understand this argument, and I agree that it's true. But the reason this argument doesn't convince me is that it's irrelevant — the net result is exactly the same. My personal beliefs have no bearing on the transaction (just like the supermarket manager), and focusing on this question is ignoring the elephant in the room: the person wants to buy nonsense. The personal feelings or opinions of the person selling it are simply not part of the equation.
Now, it's time to address the point that's probably foremost on your mind. What about the cases where the pseudoscience being purchased is either harmful, or takes the place of essential medical or psychiatric care? I said at the very beginning: I'm generally in favor of those who peddle the paranormal, in cases where no harm is done. And this is the vast majority of cases. What about the exceptions?
Here's a hypothetical case where the customer really needs medical care: they have treatable cancer, but prefer to pay me for New Age healing by the laying on of hands. I assure you that I am neither completely stupid, nor irresponsible, nor in any particular need of blood money. In this case, I would put on my best New Age hat, and explain to this person in New Age terms that I hope they would understand and accept, that New Age healing can only help when applied alongside conventional cancer treatment. I'm smart enough to realize that if I tell him New Age healing is bunk and he should go to the doctor, he'll write me off as a debunker and not listen, and go instead to the psychic next door. Here is where my New Age services are better — infinitely better — than those of the "real" psychic, who genuinely believes that laying on of hands should be used to the exclusion of real medicine. And people tell me that I'm the one being unethical. The "real" psychic in this case should be imprisoned.
It's the same in cases where the customer needs psychiatric care. Let's say his mother died, and for some reason he has developed real psychological problems, and wants me to contact his dead mother. This is not someone who wants me to predict tomorrow's horse race, this is someone who probably needs help beyond my pretended abilities. In this case, I'd dim the lights, hold as convincing a seance as I could, and tell him that his mother is worried about him and begs him to seek some professional help. If you tell him in this manner, he's likely to actually listen, and the doctor can handle it from there. If you take the usual skeptical path, and explain to him that talking to the dead is bunk and only a real doctor can help him, he won't listen, he'll go to the "real" psychic next door, and his problems will continue. Again, my services are good because they'll actually lead to a professional solution; the "real" psychic's services are bad, because they perpetuate the harm.
I argue that paranormal services are better provided by people who understand their limitations, rather than by those who believe they can do something they can't. In fact, if paranormal services were regulated, this would be the law. Think how much better off believers would be if the paranormal services they received always led them to trained professionals in cases where such is needed.
However, these cases are in the minority. Most of the time, people who buy paranormal products or services — be it goddess worshipping seminars, homeopathy, acupuncture, or psychic readings — are buying completely harmless services that P.T. Barnum would have been happy to sell. If money is changing hands, and responsible adults are going into it with their eyes open, they receive exactly what they want, and they are completely satisfied with the results, then I would have no problem participating in such a transaction and profiting from it. The customer is happy, the peddler is happy, nobody is hurt, everybody involved is enriched by the transaction. This is their choice. They don't have a problem with it, why should you? It's none of your business.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage Books, 1999. 203-219.
Farley, Tim. "What's the Harm?" What's the Harm? Tim Farley, 18 Jan. 2009. Web. 18 Jan. 2009. <http://whatstheharm.net/>
Irwin, H. The Psychology of Paranormal Belief: A Researcher's Handbook. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2009.
Kelly, Lynne. The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal. New York: Thundermouth Press, 2004. 34-35.
Randi, James. The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World's Most Famous Seer. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993. 140-142.
Smith, Jonathan. Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal. West Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2010. 21-46.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Ethics of Peddling the Paranormal." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
24 Oct 2006. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4003>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I would very much disagree with you here, for following reasons;
First, the client of the psychics isn't knowingly looking to be deceived - he truly believes in the promices of the psychic, and expects to receive the supernatural services. So someone providing these services while knowing that he doesn't have supernatural ability is clearly commiting fraud. (Of course, the case would be hard to prove - most probably most of the high visibilty psychics don't actually believe any of it, but are "good" old fashioned con-men and -women.)
The second objection would be a purely moral one - while you would be a responsible "psychic" and might even do good on some individual cases, at the same time, unwittingly, you'd be peddling the concept of the validity of magical thinking, and contributing to the molding of new exploitable minds to feed this industry founded on deception... And once you have sold, or bolstered the idea of the plausibility of magical thinking, you have no further control whatsoever over the choises of the people so influenced by you - choises which may lead them to less scrupulous salesmen of pseudoscience and magic. What if your client, satisfied with the doctor's care, and atributing the success to your "supernatural" recommendation, then teaches her children to trust psychics, or perhaps starts to see an astrologer to help her make life changing decicions?
Further, even the "benign" psychics and pedlers of "harmless" superstitions rely on the fact that their audience is uneducated in the skills of critical thinking, and unaware of the human fallabilities in the form of the many cognitive errors that we can guide against if
Jarno, Helsinki, Finland
November 06, 2006 1:12pm
All major religions have been peddling the paranormal for centuries. Look at faith healing and tell me if there is any difference.
Wyn, Melbourne
November 07, 2006 8:06am
Wyn - no, I don't believe there is a difference.
I count faith healing among the things contributing to magical thinking, and being potentially very harmful in themselves - seiing that those that believe they have been healed by a faith healer of a serious ailment, may cease genuine medical treatment of the condition.
Jarno, Helsinki, Finland
November 07, 2006 9:16am
You sure would make a good jesuit! To me, it`s a question of my own honesty, not the suckers stupidity.
John Takolander, Finland
November 12, 2006 10:58pm
Two thoughts:
Ciggarettes have a warning label.
Many of us have to live with relatives who base their actions on paranormal beliefs. Call it living with second-hand paranormal smoke. There's the harm. It's not fun.
Mary, Portland, Oregon
November 21, 2006 6:01pm
Oh,I would agree here with anyone who seeks to protect the innocent, so to speak.Our whole legal system is supposed to do this,isn't it? I personally deplore people who use their 'gifts' to degrade or impoverish others.(gifts=ability to cheat,NOT some spooky ability).Like lawyers and insurance reps.
However, the whole point of interest here is the term 'supernatural'.If something exists...it is simply NATURAL,no matter how fantastic it is...like Marilyn Monroe!
It's like the term ALTERNATIVE medicine...if it works at all, it is just medicine.
The use of SPECIAL terms to describe them is just a slack attempt to bring them in to the main stream...yet IRONICALLY they claim to be outside, even better.Self praise has no merit.
Neil,Cardiff,uk,13:19 GMT
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
November 28, 2006 5:20am
I agree with Jarno.
I also want to point out that the skeptic movement would be pushed back a great deal if prominent skeptics (Randi, Shermer) were exposed as partners of van Praag, Sylvia Browne, and their ilk.
What you are suggesting is not only immoral, but also harmful to the skeptical movement.
R. Ladewig, Houston, TX
December 01, 2006 9:04am
Ghosts, spirits and the like are all hum-bug. This links to the 'new' use [misuse] of the term 'energy' by charlatans calling themselves mediums or other.
Energy and mass are interchangeable because they are one-in-the-same. You can measure both. These ridiculous ideas put forward [that 'we' have some 'new' sort of energy] that can last beyond death are preposterous. No scientific evidence exists [anywhere] for such an energy field. They claim it interferes with lights, computers or cameras...If it did, we'd be able to measure it or manipulate it.
On thing I've learned from years of tutoring...You can't educate PORK!
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
December 14, 2006 11:27am
A good one for this is the use of planets by sharletons like Mystic Meg [UK]. She quite confidently talks of PLUTO as the planet affecting this or that!
This rubbish [astrology] has been around for who knows how long, and yet they claim, now, to be able to use recently discovered planets [circa.1900] in their 'vocation'. What did they use before that?
What rubbish!
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 10, 2007 5:45am
Here's another. There's this guy in UK that likes other people to believe he's saint paul.
He puts on a stupid voice, pretends to heal people and charges £30. 20 people a day, that's £600, so I make it £200,000 with 5 wks off, before stoppages. [That's if he pays any tax at all].
You'd think SAINT paul would do it for free and this guy would wait for his blessing in heaven.
There must be a maths equation out there somewhere that relates 'number of con-artists' as proportional to 'the cube of the stupidity of the mugs they con'.
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 24, 2007 4:40am
Here again, but what no faithers into the paranormal?...funny god isn't exactly 'normal', is IT.
Has anyone heard of Mr.Alex Patterson [former pilot, so thinks he can use the sciences to corroborate god]. HELL, he thinks he IS god!
I don't do this often but:-
Quote: ''There is a (delicious irony) in all this. Most people perceive 'death' as one of the worst evils..., then the most beautiful experience a human being {can have} is his/her own death.''
Further:''...I look forward to my own death...''
Bye, then, Alex!
Although he goes on to deny he has suicidal thoughts, it's easy to see where the 'suicide bomber' in all of us comes from.
His near death experience prompted him to this rubbish [he was 7yrs then, a horse kicked him - wow!].
I've been 'under the knife' 10 times [major stuff], nearly killed on a M.bike but I don't look forward to my death.
Maybe we could use him as weapon against the muslims!
All faithers BRAG :''I would die for my god/faith''.
Well go on then! Meet #your# maker...please!
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 24, 2007 6:01am
Watched a program recently about John of god...What a load of 'faith'!
An English woman when to see him in Brazil with cancer, and after being given the run-around was told that there was nothing they could do for her!
This is then saying there's nothing god can do for her, as John 'claims' god acts through him, noting well that the healing crystals sold on site all come from his own mines, on his farmland!
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 07, 2007 1:23am
Opps, forgot. 10 days after returning to UK, she died!
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 07, 2007 1:24am
Here's a nice on from the bible to let all you paranormal practitioners know where you stand with God...(Lev.27)...
'Now a man or a woman (A)who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'
So this tells us that the bible does not regard a spiritualist as worth living...
But again this is a contradiction, since isn't the whole idea of 'speaking' with God in prayer a type of spiritualism?
What this actually means is that : YOU do as WE tell you, YOU worship OUR God and no one else's, or YOU die by stoning...
This means the bible hates all those who are spiritual...including it's own followers, for to be a follower, involves spirituality!
Griff...up to my eye-balls in crap...
Spell check found 2 errors in the bible's quote! It's full of errors!
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 30, 2007 6:22am
Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."
Response
1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.
2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.
3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!
Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!
I thought this was so good it had to come here too!
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 03, 2007 6:27am
I just love the Griff. I think he is actually Karl Pilkington. He's the only other person I know who debates himself.
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
June 06, 2007 3:59am
A famous person once said...actually I think it was a megalomaniac on a film? : "I talk to myself because I'm the only person who understands me"...but I'm glad to say that people seem to understand (and appreciate) what I do .... try to enlighten.
Some people (in philosophy classes etc) have been switched on to skepticism for ages but with the Internet I think it's time to branch out...spread the word...so to speak!
I often debate my self actually...mostly I agree with him, but sometimes he's an ass!
My inner 'she' always knows better though!
I watched that great illusionist Derren Brown recently give "readings" to lots of people from around the globe...they were all 70-99% accurate...according to each person's opinion!
Yeah! Until Derren dropped the bombshell! He asked them to swap readings and pretend they were reading the others as their own...they kept swapping and looking confused to get the same one each time...that's because they were all the same!!!!!!!
Look into my eyes...I feel very sleepy...
Griff...
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 08, 2007 11:20pm
Derren Brown rocks!
He also gives the lie to your too-easy justification of skeptics lying to the gullible. Not only is Derren a skeptic and a fabulously cool performer - he is successful without having to take advantage of people's ridiculous beliefs.
The astrology gag you mention is an excellent example of entertaining people at the same time as you educate them - showing them what their beliefs actually amount to.
He did something similarly admirable in his Messiah program (which I think you can watch online now).
If entertaining people and taking their money while lying to them is acceptable (a problematic position at best), entertaining them and taking their money while telling them the truth - even educating them - is better. And it seems to require no more talents and only a little more ethical fortitude than the lying option.
Tim Mills, Edinburgh, UK
June 28, 2007 2:53am
I may have said this before:
Mystic Meg (of UK newspaper fame) STILL goes on&on about how PLUTO can affect your this&that!
PLUTO for Pete's sake!
It's not even a real planet anymore but what did she (they) use before the 1930's when these far out objects weren't even known of??????????
I feel sorry for us all when these crack pots are so numerous.
Griff...
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 09, 2007 12:54am
I couldn't disagree more with the idea in this episode. It is ethical to take advantage of someone because there are other people who are willing to take advantage of them? That is just terrible.
Jeff, NYC
January 21, 2008 9:28am
"I see it just like a supermarket manager who allows cigarettes to be sold in his store. He knows they're a bad product, but people want them, and that's the way it is. Yet I never hear my detractors criticize the supermarket manager."
This is a false analogy. A BAD product/service is not the same as a FRAUDULENT product/service.
From dictionary.com
"Fraud (frawd)
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur."
A person who is deluded enough to make psychic claims and truly believe them, whether profiting from that delusion or not, would have my pity. A person who knowingly encourages that delusion, especially while accepting their money, would have my contempt.
Intent is important.
Colin Terry, Vancouver, Canada
January 24, 2008 3:18pm
I've provided such services twice. “Juana” confided to me her mother purchased a mirror and it was haunted. I took the mirror home for my team of experts to examine. I and two guys examined the mirror sober, drank alcoholic beverages, examined it some more, then discussed the effects of temperature changes on the wall it'd hung on. It was not haunted; a refrigerator heated the wall behind the cold mirror causing the cracking and ticking sounds as the wall warmed the mirror. Juana translated and her father's response to her mother were words to the effect of, “Ha, I told you so.” The mirror was moved and the “hauntings” ceased. Later, Juana's brother was cursed. I took Juana into my kitchen. I explained that a brujo imagines the result during the process of cursing. I explained that thinking about the possible results is how these curses recharge themselves. I offered until then, usually one lunar phase or month, her brother could carry the talisman that I was preparing. I “cleansed” a piece of dried orris (Iris) root in “running” tap-water, “purified it” with salt, “anointed it” with olive oil, and added perfumed oil for an esoteric smell-factor. I accepted my standard fee of good wishes as Juana left wide-eyed that I was a curandera after all. Oh, by the way, the $100 curse purchased by the brother's ex-girlfriend didn't hurt him; but, I expect you'd already guessed that. Barnum would have enjoyed my Los Angeles and the Valley; but, I don't miss them.
Mrs. Sherman, Spokane, Washington
January 26, 2008 2:48pm
I used to think that a skeptic selling paranormal was a wrong idea all together. Now, i am not so sure. What I do think, though, is that if a non-believer sells paranormal or any of that nonsense, they are only promoting this ideas. Selling the products is not so bad, but what we are ignoring here is the fact that we are not helping our own cause.
John, Mexico City
February 15, 2008 11:51am
Even the "real" psychics have to have a sign reminding you this is for entertainment purposes only. People who want to believe it see the sign and chose to ignore it. New age healers generally cannot make claims about things that are not proven by the FDA unless they tell you its not a substitute for medical science.
Fraud and misrepresentation is illegal and most of these hucksters (even the ones who believe their own act) are not shy about telling you these warnings lest they be jailed or sued.
What I am saying is, the law basically agrees with you. If you see a sign that says something is fake and choose to buy it anyway you are a fool. Buyer beware :-)
dogcow, tampa
February 26, 2008 5:45pm
I've noticed that since the "ex-" planet Pluto has been down graded, Mystic Meg (UK newspapers) has since stopped using it to refer to, when giving "a reading"!
Does she think it's gone off it's orbit and thereby doesn't influence world events any further?
Nice to know I don't have to worry any more about the "dark influence of Pluto" in my life!
TheGrave. Read me on JREF.
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 12, 2008 12:36pm
Even the "real" psychics have to have a sign reminding you this is for entertainment purposes only. People who want to believe it see the sign and chose to ignore it. New age healers generally cannot make claims about things that are not proven by the FDA unless they tell you its not a substitute for medical science.
----------------
martin
<a href="http://www.drivenwide.com">buzz marketing</a>
martin, america
September 21, 2008 10:59pm
I encourage all skeptics and believers alike to read the book "The Psychic Mafia". It's an autobiographical narrative about the mediumship business and one man's experiences in it. (Hint: he uses the word "mafia" in the title deliberately and with justification.) I bring it up because it illustrates that the line between believing practitioners and frauds is not as well-defined as you may think.
Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
October 12, 2008 2:19am
Okay. As if to make me out to be a liar, Mystic Meg has started using {and I quote} "The Planet Pluto" in her readings in the Sun newspaper!
1- Meg. It's not a planet anymore.
2- I wonder if any Piss-icics out there would be kind enough to inform us all as to when THEY first knew Pluto even existed!!!
3- Me-e-g-g.... can you hear me? When did you know Pluto was there?
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 16, 2008 7:04am
I work full time as a psychic medium. I am real and very ethical with what I do. I am not deluded.
When I do a session generally people recognize the communicating spirit people as I am able to bring through specific details that they are able to identify.
I do not ask questions but merely give out the info as I receive it. Believe it or not, psychic abilities really do exist and just like artistic or musical abilities can be cultivated with proper training.
Daniel Taub, Austin, Texas
December 22, 2008 7:54pm
This power of yours is amazing Daniel. To be able to communicate with the dead and have them tell you their secrets is finally proof of psychic powers.
Please, I implore you, take the Million dollar challenge. Prove you and countless others right. I know you probably don't do this for the money but you can still take that skeptic's money and give it to one or more charities. This site has an excellent article with references for choosing suitable ones.
So, How about it?
Surely your well practiced ability is repeatable and testable.
Dave Sullivan, Toronto, ON
January 05, 2009 12:41am
So come on then Daniel, you must know someone who knows me over there in Never-Never land.
I'd love you to communicate with - Richard - whom I haven't seen in a while... he's my uncle.
Starter for 2... now the rest is up to you...
Waiting....
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 06, 2009 3:38am
And silence was the deafening reply...
Brenton, New Zealand
February 23, 2009 5:23pm
Love the rest of the site, and am largely in agreement, but wait, what?
Is it ethical to sell a product you don't believe in, that in fact you know (or at least believe) to be deceitful? It might be profitable, even practical, but ethical?
I am a libertarian, so I believe hard drugs, prostitution, and virtually everything else that doesn't harm someone (without his or her permission, that is) should be legal. Yet I would consider it unethical to promote certain of these activities.
I might do it if hard-pressed economically, I admit, but I consider in unethical to sell hard drugs, for example. Even though it's giving people exactly what they want. Like I'd consider it unethical to knowingly serve drinks to a dying alcoholic.
And yes, it WOULD be unethical to sell cigarettes if you were personally convinced that the harm they did outweighed their benefits. People can decide for themselves what they want, but YOU decide whether you should profit from what you have determined are irrational behaviors.
You can rationalize it all you want, and it might even be necessary in these hard economic times ("Officer, I'm just trying to feed my kids!"), but it's still wrong.
Billy Kang, Long Beach, California
February 26, 2009 12:26pm
Just a data-point - prostitution is legal in NZ.
Brothels can (and do) advertise.
Brenton, New Zealand
February 26, 2009 1:47pm
I held off commenting on the broadcast because i knew all the things the commenters would write.
Sometimes, ahead of broadcast, I wonder if the comments section people really consider Brian's posits.
Any way.. my football odds spreads are much fairer than Brians and we dont think its unethical to tell you the actual winners.
Over to you Brian, keep up the fun and my great great grand mother says you are very Handsome!
Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Ausralia
March 30, 2009 7:46pm
Ah a true believer...
Did you know that Adam was still alive when his great great great great great great grandson was born.
Utter tripe.
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 24, 2009 3:18pm
If I were a supermarket manager, I'd only be okay with selling cigarettes if all the info and risks were readily available to the consumer, i.e. printed on every package.
That said, I only agree with you if the prices you charge are cheap. What of swindlers that charge hundreds or a thousand bucks per treatment? On the show Penn and Teller Bullshit there are con artists that charge 100 dollar(-ish) per session and have people come back many times over a long period of time, such as hypnosis to "remember" alien abductions.
If it's cheap crap, then it's fine
If it gets costly, I draw the line
Jonathan, Earth
January 07, 2010 4:01pm
Hey Brian,
Gotta say your argument seems flawed. "People want nonsense". They clearly dont want nonsense, they want psychic guidance (which unknown to them is nonsense). The key difference is whether people are informed.
Take cigarettes. People dont buy them thinking "I want to die", they want a cigarette. But if they are informed in a compelling and tactful way that this cigarette will also kill them then they may not want it anymore.
Placing people into two camps, skeptics, and those who want nonsense and shoudl be given it is probtbaly the worst use of the word skepticism imagainable.
Dann, Melbourne
February 16, 2010 5:02pm
Unfortunately, though this was one of your earliest arguments and this fact adds some mitigation, this episode is fairly flawed.
Most importantly you assume somewhat myopically that events occur in isolation, namely, that if seemingly congenitally deluded Mr X wishes to be deluded to no immediate harm to any party then the entrepreneur taking advantage of his self-deception is doing no wrong as no party is immediately harmed by the act (be it psychic reading, chi healing, whatever). However, this presumes that Mr X (who we've unrealistically agreed cannot be proselytized to the ways of science, for the sake of argument) and his entrepreneur are the only two parties potentially harmed by the entrepreneur's actions, yet this is incorrect; in order for the entrepreneur to partake in the deception (s)he must appear to agree with the flawed premises of Mr X's particular incorrect belief and this act increases the amount of social reinforcement of the incorrect belief as a valid belief.
This effect would be catastrophically worsened were you, Brian Dunning, to take the place of the entrepreneur because, as you rightly pointed out in #167, when a sceptic appears to seriously consider pseudoscience as comparable to science this presents the illusion that the two are equivalent in verity.
Ben, London
March 28, 2010 6:06pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
I agree with your thesis 100%. One comment that may be of interest: with all the more or less regular media attention that paranormals get, has there been no scientific study to either confirm or debunk their abilities? I mean, if I am to belive the media (of which I am skeptical), some police outlets have used paranormals to solve the unsolvable crimes!? How did they know whom to hire? A web page with a bibliography (including both pros and cons) referencing serious scientific studies of this issue would be a great asset. If anyone has compiled and posted it already, then a link alone would be great.
Nash, Calgary, Canada
November 06, 2006 11:17am