How effective are "anti-Sylvia" crusades

[remirol]

This thread was split from http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145751


http://www.badpsychics.co.uk/

This is a good website for info on many psychics and they do have a link to Robert Lancaster's site. I still think that the Sylvia Browne threads in this forum are a very good resource for those of us that follow her trail of failure.

I think they could be in a more useful form (it is clear that removing them entirely is not an option), frankly. But clearly when many are spending so much effort to shout one down, the "one" must be wrong. :oldroll:

It seems that a lot of people are misperceiving or misreading both the original point (info from 10+ years ago is not meaningful for discussion except as a datapoint on those sites) and the other points I've brought up WRT being unable to move on and it actually affecting the perception of those we try to convince:

The habit of trying to "punish" others is a poor one to get into. It leads to dogmatism and crusading, can detract from rational thought, and can be used to attack our own cause (promoting critical thinking) by portraying us as all of the above.

Our goal should be to inform and encourage informed decision-making, not to punish... we should be pro-truth and pro-facts, not anti-(person).

What I see right now is a number of people trying to justify the anti-Sylvia crusade. I don't think crusades do that much good anymore, and I think they do allow critics of skepticism to paint us as the "bad" side; as obsessive, as hope-deniers,... there is no shortage of mischaracterisations used. I believe it is important to have the information available, but dragging it through the forums constantly hoping for discussion?

I took a look at another recently necro'ed thread (from 2 years ago, mind you!) here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81417) and there isn't really anything in the discussion I'd want to show to people other than the facts themselves. Someone coming to the forums brand-new will see that and perhaps take away the information, but perhaps also take away some less than fabulous impressions about the people involved, simply from the vehemency in which they express their distaste for Sylvia. Everything has a "hate" site these days, remember; and while Robert's site is actually full of facts as opposed to blind hatred, I'm just not convinced chasing after _her_ specifically is that productive anymore.

[I could continue wandering down that path as to what might _be_ productive, but it would get far away from the topic of these threads' purpose at this point, so I'll hold off for now.]

[desertgal]

What I see right now is a number of people trying to justify the anti-Sylvia crusade.

I don't see anyone attempting to justify the anti-Sylvia crusade. Primarily, I've noticed that RSL has remained singularly unapologetic about it. What is there to justify? Calling a fraud a fraud?


I don't think crusades do that much good anymore...

Kinda depends on who you ask, doesn't it? I've noticed several people who have read RSL's site and the threads here, and changed their minds about Browne. If a crusade reaches even one person, who is anyone else to say it is a wasted effort?

...and I think they do allow critics of skepticism to paint us as the "bad" side; as obsessive, as hope-deniers,... there is no shortage of mischaracterisations used.

Critics of skepticism do that with many topics that skeptics discuss. It's why they are called "critics". If they didn't, they'd be called "skeptics".

I believe it is important to have the information available, but dragging it through the forums constantly hoping for discussion?

I don't see that. I see several new topics posted this week which offer updated information about Sylvia Browne. I wouldn't say the opening posters are "constantly hoping for discussion" as much as providing information of interest to those who have followed the "crusade" against Browne. Much of this would normally be posted on RSL's site, and he would simultaneously update it here, but, in case you missed it, he's got other things on his mind these days. So, there are a few folks doing it for him. So what?

I took a look at another recently necro'ed thread (from 2 years ago, mind you!) here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81417) and there isn't really anything in the discussion I'd want to show to people other than the facts themselves. Someone coming to the forums brand-new will see that and perhaps take away the information, but perhaps also take away some less than fabulous impressions about the people involved, simply from the vehemency in which they express their distaste for Sylvia. Everything has a "hate" site these days, remember; and while Robert's site is actually full of facts as opposed to blind hatred, I'm just not convinced chasing after _her_ specifically is that productive anymore.

Don't confuse contempt with hatred. I've yet to see anyone spew blind hatred towards SB here, although there is plenty of contempt.

It was only a few months ago that someone new chimed in with her encouragement because a certain thread had helped her solidify the misgivings she was having about Browne. So, the threads are achieving something.

I'm really not clear on what you are attempting to achieve here, other than complain that you don't like what other folks post.

[remirol]

I don't see anyone attempting to justify the anti-Sylvia crusade. Primarily, I've noticed that RSL has remained singularly unapologetic about it. What is there to justify? Calling a fraud a fraud?

The responses to this can all be found in the original thread.

I don't see that. I see several new topics posted this week which offer updated information about Sylvia Browne.

Updated information from over a decade ago. How current!

I wouldn't say the opening posters are "constantly hoping for discussion" as much as providing information of interest to those who have followed the "crusade" against Browne. Much of this would normally be posted on RSL's site, and he would simultaneously update it here, but, in case you missed it, he's got other things on his mind these days. So, there are a few folks doing it for him. So what?

I made a few suggestions, that's what. Again, see original thread.

Don't confuse contempt with hatred. I've yet to see anyone spew blind hatred towards SB here, although there is plenty of contempt.

It sure looks like hatred to me.

I'm really not clear on what you are attempting to achieve here, other than complain that you don't like what other folks post.

It's moot at this point, isn't it, since I've been banished to my own thread? Clearly the mods don't agree and some overly-vocal users don't agree; I've been successfully shouted down, you can all go back now and pretend I don't exist.

[desertgal]

Updated information from over a decade ago. How current!

So what? Do SB's actions somehow become less fraudulent with time, hence less worthy of reporting?

It sure looks like hatred to me.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

It's moot at this point, isn't it, since I've been banished to my own thread? Clearly the mods don't agree and some overly-vocal users don't agree; I've been successfully shouted down, you can all go back now and pretend I don't exist.

Banished to your own thread? Is there a crucial difference between one active thread and another? Since this thread is active, obviously, the subject is not moot. If you had been "shouted down", this thread would be in AAH.

But, hey, whatever. Not sure who you are complaining to or what you are complaining about, but keep on keeping on.

[remirol]

So what? Do SB's actions somehow become less fraudulent with time, hence less worthy of reporting?

No. Yes. See original thread.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Not all eyes will be as sympathetic towards the critical-thinking point of view, or fully comprehend at first glance why people would hold such hatred towards Sylvia.

Not all eyes would even understand why it should be necessary to hate Sylvia, or even to care about her at all other than to provide information and a resource to counter her claims, and to provide that information when possible and/or appropriate to others. I have a certain amount of sympathy with these eyes; she, as a person, is not someone I need to care about in the slightest. In the linked thread, the final post by Eeeny even remarks on that WRT John Edward: that he seems actually a perfectly nice guy and possibly a bit boring, it's just that his chosen profession revolves around fooling people and getting paid for it.

Banished to your own thread? Is there a crucial difference between one active thread and another? Since this thread is active, obviously, the subject is not moot. If you had been "shouted down", this thread would be in AAH.

It might as well be put in AAH as far as I'm concerned; this is was simply a sideline to my original point.

Not sure who you are complaining to or what you are complaining about.

Then perhaps you should read the original thread. It seems obvious to me that many prefer the "anti-(person)" approach; fine. There's only so much time in the day, and it doesn't matter _that_ much.

[desertgal]

It might as well be put in AAH as far as I'm concerned; this is was simply a sideline to my original point.

Yeah, okay, whatever. Seems a bit extreme to be making a fuss over having to post in one active thread over another. But, it's your deal.

Then perhaps you should read the original thread. It seems obvious to me that many prefer the "anti-(person)" approach; fine. There's only so much time in the day, and it doesn't matter _that_ much.

I did. I had the same impression that I had here - so what? If people want to post about Browne's actions, now or ten years ago, so what? You might think it is "anti person", but it doesn't appear that your approach is "pro person" when it comes to other posters and their right to feel the way they feel, about Browne and other 'psychics', or their right to express that.

For the record, I don't hate Sylvia Browne. I don't know Sylvia Browne. I do detest what she, and other 'psychics' do to grieving parents. I know what that grief is like, and I can't think of anything more detestable. I'm interested in seeing her exposed, so that people will be wiser to her methods. If that makes me "anti person", then shoot me, I'm anti-person. Yet, I'm decidedly 'pro-person' when it comes to her victims, and to supporting what James Randi, Robert Lancaster and others like them are doing to expose frauds, and I always will be. I also really fail to see how you could expect otherwise on a forum sponsored by the JREF.

Seems like just another reason to complain that folks aren't posting the way you want them to. Life is too short. G'bye.

[Questioninggeller]

I'm really not clear on what you are attempting to achieve here, other than complain that you don't like what other folks post.

I agree.

Here, his general objection seems to be he doesn't like a thread for each Browne case nor old threads nor new threads about things in the past involving Browne. Considering he last posted in "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" three months ago, I don't see why he cares or why he can't ignore the threads he doesn't like.

It's moot at this point, isn't it, since I've been banished to my own thread? Clearly the mods don't agree and some overly-vocal users don't agree; I've been successfully shouted down, you can all go back now and pretend I don't exist.

Actually, you were warned on that thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4824246&postcount=20) to comply with Rule 11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744). You ignored the mod's first warning and continued posting off-topic. As a result, this thread was created from a spin off per the OP so you can keep this discussion going without continuing to breach the rule.

If by "shouted down" you mean everyone in the thread disagreed with you, then yes you were. Would you prefer people didn't state their opinion if they disagree with you just like you don't want more Sylvia Browne threads?

No. Yes. See original thread.


I did. Your reasoning and objections aren't clear.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Here's a point you haven't considered: what Browne does is typical of what many, many, many psychics besides her do.

Studying what she does not only tells us a lot about her, it tells us a lot about police psychics and psychics in general. The clue to one of them is the clue to all of them.

And she does something new and something very typical in every case she "works" on. Read some of the stories QG and I have compiled and you will learn a lot about how psychics operate and why people fall for them- indeed, how con artists in general operate and why people fall for them.

Fascinating stuff, not just to a Browne completist like me.

[ProbeX]

My Sylvia "crusade" is motivated by $$ considerations and a grave concern for peoples' physical health.

The lady charges $750 per reading. I figure it's a public service to speak out against her (and other crooks) whenever possible.

I especially speak out against Sylvia Browne because she attempts to give people medical diagnoses. The public needs to be constantly warned away from this person.

So Remirol, thank you for bringing her name up and giving me another opportunity at public service :)

[remirol]

Correcting one misimpression from prior posts: anti-(person) does not mean anti-person-in-general, it means a mentality that is anti-one-specific-person.

Eeeny: Sorry, I have him on ignore (all his threads vanish that way), and I'm really not interested in dredging through "psychic makes prediction, wrong again" in all its numerous trivial variations; hence the original gripe. I already understand the desire that makes psychics succeed; that desire is to find a glimmer of hope, any hope, anything that will give the questioner an answer to something they desperately want. Psychics provide that answer, false and/or random guess though it is. If skeptics want to succeed, they need to try to address both issues; both exposing the false hope and providing what little hope or answers we can -- even if sometimes that is only a method to accept that there may _be_ no answer. I think too many people focus on the former and not the latter.

ProbeX: Don't thank me, I didn't start the thread; it was started for me.

Future posters: Done here.

[ProbeX]

Correcting one misimpression from prior posts: anti-(person) does not mean anti-person-in-general, it means a mentality that is anti-one-specific-person.

I would have been against Hitler. Guess that would have meant having the mentality of an "anti-one-specific-person" person. What's wrong with being against someone, a single person, who is dangerous to the public?

ProbeX: Don't thank me, I didn't start the thread; it was started for me.Well, honestly I'm thankful to anyone, including you, who uses Sylvia Browne's name or refers to her in these forums because it's an excuse to deliver a protective public service announcement about the dangers of one crook Sylvia Browne. Cool, that's my second announcement today ;)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Since you have me on ignore now, you probably aren't going to read this but I want to say it anyway.

QG and I put a lot of very hard work into debunking Browne. It's very challenging, long and boring work. It's time consuming, discouraging and depressing to fill your mind with that woman's evil. It takes an actual emotional toll; that Robert could have stood spending several hours every day on the website and hardly complained speaks volumes about his strength. Our work is worth your time- we spent several hours compiling these stories so that you can read them in 5 minutes. And making them available to people who, unlike us, don't have access to newspaper databases and can't log in and read them themselves.

You underestimate the power of a single story to change one's mind. Any of these could be "aha!" moments for anyone reading. Or "the final straw". Or any combination of them could lead to a "skeptical epiphany".

Another thing- other psychics do not appear regularly on TV and in the paper. If John Edwards had the kind of wealth of material available on him as Browne does, I'd give them both equal treatment. He, however, does not. This is a good thing, come to think of it...but since Browne is the only psychic I can debunk using my research skills, she's the only one I do debunk.

And FYI, I am not only involved with Browne. I contribute to many topics on the forum so putting me on ignore may make you miss out on valuable information on subjects you deem more worthy.

[Questioninggeller]

I already understand the desire that makes psychics succeed; that desire is to find a glimmer of hope, any hope, anything that will give the questioner an answer to something they desperately want. Psychics provide that answer, false and/or random guess though it is. If skeptics want to succeed, they need to try to address both issues; both exposing the false hope and providing what little hope or answers we can -- even if sometimes that is only a method to accept that there may _be_ no answer. I think too many people focus on the former and not the latter.


Critical thinking only offers hope regarding truth. Skepticism shows what's likely to occur given what we know from evidence. You cannot dismiss test cases (evidence) if you want to make a larger argument. That is what you are doing. (Though as demonstrated above and noted by other posters, your rant is more about control and telling other people what to do then about skepticism.)

Each case (111 of them) with Browne being wrong/useless demonstrates that Browne doesn't even have a record of being 1% correct. This does not take away hope, but rather shows people they should put hope in things that have an actually basis to help them. Through the compliation of threads (which your whole rant is against), we have an actual number and percentage showing the chances of her being correct.

Please point me to ONE place that has better documentation of Browne's failed track record than the JREF board (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128402).

[LONGTABBER PE]

If you will, I'm going to throw my personal observations in regarding the thread title just based on my experiences.

Just to establish a baseline, I personally have no belief in or use for anyone who claims "psychic" ability and their ability to "prove" same is pretty much around zero. Always has been, always will be.

The only experience I have had with psychics was in my LE career when sometimes victims or their families asked for them to help a case. ( Now in my case, I never had to deal with one but know other peers who on occasion did and they made their comments and opinions quite clear and they were universally far from positive)

Bottom line, these people thrive and always will because they fill a niche in the human psyche that standard methods never will be able to.

People seek these people out ( I suppose you could fit every woo into this as well) because sometimes the answer is no.

Your family member is probably dead, you have a terminal disease etc.

Greed, despair, fear, hope,desire, distrust, cultural/religious beliefs and all these other states of mind exist in humans.

Thats what these people feed on.

Then you have the natural human reaction that in many cases people will go to people who tell them what they want to hear rather than what the truth actually is. ( various states of denial)

So, in my opinion, as long as these conditions exist in humans, the charlatans such as psychics et al who fill that niche will never go away or will effectively be dealt with.

[desertgal]

Correcting one misimpression from prior posts: anti-(person) does not mean anti-person-in-general, it means a mentality that is anti-one-specific-person.


Correct away, but I didn't form a false impression about your meaning.

[Uncayimmy]

Correct away, but I didn't form a false impression about your meaning.

In other words his explanation didn't falsify the claim. Besides, it wasn't a test anyway. So, do antipersonnel weapons only work on people who are anti-person?

[slingblade]

Updated information from over a decade ago. How current!

"Updated" in this sense means "newly made available," not "newly generated or created." :rolleyes:

[chillzero]

I think the great effect on the situation with StopKaz is an excellent indicator of what can be done with a good and informative .... campaign. I don't really like the word, although I guess that's what it is. I look forward to Robert getting his health back to a point where he can continue working on the site, because frankly, I think that works better than all these disparate threads - particularly with his even tone compared to the anger of posters here.

[Flo]

IM(H)O, keeping some lights on what S.B. is currently doing and giving a follow-up on what she's been on is a necessity, if only to dispell the idea that she is out of opponents now that R. Lancaster is, momentarily, out of the way.

I'm pretty sure all the debunking in the World will never suffice to make that kind of frauds go away (there' d be a need for a miraculous cure for gullibility ...). However, I'm certain that deciding that the ... lady ... should not be talked about again because enough has been done and it might get boring to some or give the wrong impression to others, is a very bad, bad idea.

In order to stick, the truth needs repeating ...

[desertgal]

In other words his explanation didn't falsify the claim. Besides, it wasn't a test anyway. So, do antipersonnel weapons only work on people who are anti-person?

I'll do a survey on that and get back to you...eventually. :D