Are economical scams part of our "business"?

[CFLarsen]

Should we, as skeptics, point out the various spam-scams, P.O. Box scams, chain letter scams, etc.? Being a skeptic is all about questioning your sources, checking them, asking those pesky questions that will ferret out the truth.

It's a given that we point out the problems with various paranormal claims, but what about "Get Laid Quick" and "Earn $10K Overnight"?

Should we merely focus on paranormal matters? Where should we draw the line?

(I'm going to leave out politics, because I have yet to find a political agenda that will hold up to a "skeptic treatment"... :))

[Thanz]

Was this post in any inspired by this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31776) ?

Syncronicity seems to have done quite well investigating a potential scam that was delivered to his door.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Was this post in any inspired by this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31776) ?

Yes, it was.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Should we, as skeptics, point out the various spam-scams, P.O. Box scams, chain letter scams, etc.? Being a skeptic is all about questioning your sources, checking them, asking those pesky questions that will ferret out the truth.

It's a given that we point out the problems with various paranormal claims, but what about "Get Laid Quick" and "Earn $10K Overnight"?

Should we merely focus on paranormal matters? Where should we draw the line?

(I'm going to leave out politics, because I have yet to find a political agenda that will hold up to a "skeptic treatment"... :))

I think we should. Critical thinking is critical thinking, whether it is applied to UFO's, Psychics, or Ponzi Schemes.

I think it could even be argued that a skeptical treatment of spam-scams and such might be even MORE important than similar treatment of the paranormal because such things are more likely to be detrimental to the person who believes in them. I also think that a lot of people who would never even give a second thought to John Edward and his ilk will leap right in to some scheme offering to make them big money fast.

[Ed]

Yes. Homeopathy is an intellectual abortion yet it is, at it's heart, theft. In fact theft is part and parcel of Woo-Woo Inc.

We concentrate on one aspect of consumer fraud, I think that widening it is appropriate.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Ed
Yes. Homeopathy is an intellectual abortion yet it is, at it's heart, theft. In fact theft is part and parcel of Woo-Woo Inc.

We concentrate on one aspect of consumer fraud, I think that widening it is appropriate.

Down this road lies erosion of associational and religious liberties. If a homeopathic practitioners make false claims about what has been empirically established for what they do, that is one thing. But merely offering homeopathy to those who wish to try it, and only when holding oneself out as a believer in it, offering testimonials and the like, that is different and ought to be a protected liberty.

One cannot prove there exists souls needing to be saved. If we were to shut down all the institutions that take tithes and which peddle salvation, we would be vitiating several clauses of the First Amendment.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Ed
Yes. Homeopathy is an intellectual abortion yet it is, at it's heart, theft. In fact theft is part and parcel of Woo-Woo Inc.

We concentrate on one aspect of consumer fraud, I think that widening it is appropriate.

Good point. That kind of brings up another thought along the same lines. There are already lots of things (Penta-Water and Free energy machines spring immediately to mind) that sort of straddle the line between the paranormal and mere consumer fraud anyway. I see little point in arbitrarily stopping at some certain point. Just like critical thinking is critical thinking, fraud is fraud.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mona


Down this road lies erosion of associational and religious liberties. If a homeopathic practitioners make false claims about what has been empirically established for what they do, that is one thing. But merely offering homeopathy to those who wish to try it, and only when holding oneself out as a believer in it, offering testimonials and the like, that is different and ought to be a protected liberty.




Certainly. As long as there is truth in packaging

"this stuff contains nothing and does nothing ... wanna buy some?"

[Mona]

Originally posted by Ed



Certainly. As long as there is truth in packaging

"this stuff contains nothing and does nothing ... wanna buy some?"

For many or most of them, you would then be compelling them to speak contratry to what they ardently believe. I know this from personal experience, having been raised in a wacky religious sect that also embraced homeopathy (or many of these "Traditionalist Catholics" did).

It should be illegal for homeopthic practitioners to make false claims about having, say, conventional medical approval or validation from mainstream journals and that sort of thing. But simply offering this stuff to those who have a predisposition to dislike or distrust what they see as "authorized" medicine, that should be a political and religious liberty in a free country. Or do you think Christian Science "practitioners" who "treat" willing adults belong in prison? If so, what of the freedom of religion?

I'd add, psychic surgeons are a different matter. They purport to remove organs in a manner that is impossible, and which they KNOW is impossible as evidenced by the animal innards they palm off on their customers. No good faith (meaning genuinely held) belief is at issue in such a scenario.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mona


For many or most of them, you would then be compelling them to speak contratry to what they ardently believe. I know this from personal experience, having been raised in a wacky religious sect that also embraced homeopathy (or many of these "Traditionalist Catholics" did).

I don't think that they are compelled to speak. They can say what they like, just be able to support it

It should be illegal for homeopthic practitioners to make false claims about having, say, conventional medical approval or validation from mainstream journals and that sort of thing. But simply offering this stuff to those who have a predisposition to dislike or distrust what they see as "authorized" medicine, that should be a political and religious liberty in a free country.

They can offer away, just not lie.

Or do you think Christian Science "practitioners" who "treat" willing adults belong in prison? If so, what of the freedom of religion?

Yup. I believe that it is a personal freedom. Look, you can act as your own lawyer or doctor. You try to do it for someone else into the clink you go

I'd add, psychic surgeons are a different matter. They purport to remove organs in a manner that is impossible, and which they KNOW is impossible as evidenced by the animal innards they palm off on their customers. No good faith (meaning genuinely held) belief is at issue in such a scenario. [/B]

[BTox]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Should we, as skeptics, point out the various spam-scams, P.O. Box scams, chain letter scams, etc.? Being a skeptic is all about questioning your sources, checking them, asking those pesky questions that will ferret out the truth.

It's a given that we point out the problems with various paranormal claims, but what about "Get Laid Quick" and "Earn $10K Overnight"?

Should we merely focus on paranormal matters? Where should we draw the line?


We discuss and expose all manner of health scams, why not financial scams as well?

[Ladewig]

I say "yes" to addressing economic scams and I say "yes" to addressing scams/BS in the field of advertising/press release/media as well. For instance, the Miss World (http://www.missworld.org/21things.asp) folks claiming that 2 billion people will watch a beauty contest this Saturday. :rolleyes:

[geni]

Originally posted by Ed

Certainly. As long as there is truth in packaging

"this stuff contains nothing and does nothing ... wanna buy some?"

Something that really contained nothing would be worth quite a bit.

Back to the topic in hand. Since it is generly agreed to be a bad thing and it should be posible to tackle with critial thinking I think we should cover financial scams.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...It's a given that we point out the problems with various paranormal claims, but what about "Get Laid Quick"...

...well, that would certainly qualify as a paranormal phenomenon for a few people I know...




















Oh, shut up...

[deBergerac]

I agree that sceptical thinking is critical thinking and thus even finacial scams can be treated in a sceptical context.
Even religion can be treated in a sceptical context but that does not mean that sceptics wants to limit the freedom of religion.
It might be a good thing to argue for greater protection of the customer in consumer law but that does not mean that sceptics wants to out-law silly ideas. Silly ideas are what evolves society as long as one also test the ideas.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mona


...snip.... No good faith (meaning genuinely held) belief is at issue in such a scenario.

I strongly disagree with this; I have read accounts from believers that accept someone with one of these paranormal claims may "cheat" on occasion and use the analogy of "we all have bad days". Perhaps the faith healer genuinely believes he can cure but thinks people need to see a bit of blood and guts to feel comfortable something is happening. Still doesn’t alter the fact that he can’t do what he claims he can.

Good faith or strong belief cannot be a defence for not having to tell the truth.

This isn't complicated; we already have the principle in law that if you tell me something that I use to make my decision to enter a contract with you (e.g. buy from you) then it must be true.

This isn’t encroaching on any personal liberties or religious beliefs it's just simple "morality", you can't lie to me to make money from me.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Should we, as skeptics, point out the various spam-scams, P.O. Box scams, chain letter scams, etc.? Being a skeptic is all about questioning your sources, checking them, asking those pesky questions that will ferret out the truth.

It's a given that we point out the problems with various paranormal claims, but what about "Get Laid Quick" and "Earn $10K Overnight"?

Should we merely focus on paranormal matters? Where should we draw the line?

(I'm going to leave out politics, because I have yet to find a political agenda that will hold up to a "skeptic treatment"... :))


Skeptical thinking is so useful in many other matters that I cannot imagine turning it off.

[tim]

Originally posted by dmarker



Skeptical thinking is so useful in many other matters that I cannot imagine turning it off.

Good way of putting it. Because I'm sceptical of paranormal claims I find I'm sceptical about emails claiming I've won a lottery I have never entered and so on. It becomes a way of life.