Florida girls family goes to psychic

[kittynh]

well, the worst part is the news reports this like it's NORMAL and the psychic can give GOOD HELPFUL advice.

False hope how about?

It makes me so mad that this has become the way to deal with this...

so let's see what the real outcome is.

From the Yahoo news story...

Meanwhile, after speaking with a psychic, Carlie's family hired a private investigator to assist in the search. Chuck Chambers, a private investigator from neighboring Bradenton, said Carlie's family hired him Tuesday after consulting with an "investigative psychic" who "provided them with addresses and clues."


Steven Kansler, Carlie's stepfather, said the family was encouraged because the psychic feels Carlie is still alive, but is "somewhere dark and tied up," according to the psychic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_us/abduction_filmed

[Jas]

'somewhere dark and tied up'

Well, I suppose, Disneyland wouldn't have been a very good guess.

[Ipecac]

What a waste. What a cruelty. These psychics have no shame and the media no brains. Dark and tied up. Wow, what a risky prediction.

[Ipecac]

Hey, here's a thought. If the psychics are real, then why the heck didn't they come forward BEFORE the kidnapping to stop it rather than just providing details afterwards? Bloodsuckers.

People are stupid.

[Brown]

What's really appalling is that this "psychic investigation" business is so cruel on so many levels.

The parents are desperate, and desperate people do unreasonable things. The "psychic" is there to feed on that desperation, perpetuate it with false hope, and profit from it.

The "psychic tips" are almost certainly worthless. Not only are they probably outright misses that would result in wild goose chases, even the occasional hit would do no good. A psychic tip cannot be reasonable suspicion to stop someone, and it cannot be probable cause for a search or a phone tap. In the highly unlikely event that the tip led to the capture of the perpetrator, any evidence discovered as a result of the tip would probably be inadmissible in court.

[SRW]

I find it very interesting that the family hired a P.I. so soon after consulting a psychic. I wonder if the P.I. was recommended by the psychic or the police. I would hope that the police, after hearing the family went to a psychic, recommended a P.I. so that they would not have to run around tracking down worthless leads.

It's nice that the psychic is remaining annomous, that way if wrong he or she will not be embarissed. However if any part of the psychics story is correct hello Larry King. :a2:

[Aussie Thinker]

ARRRGHHH….

I feel so bad for these people.. I have kids this age myself.. the HORRIBLE frustration that leads normal people to go to Charlatans to get false hope is sickening.

I am getting to the stage where psychics should be should be held criminally responsible for their guesses and charged with obstruction of justice.

Later they should be sued for mental anguish.

The PRESS should be hammered for constantly putting out the message that this is a NORMAL way of proceeding in these cases.

It should be made ABUNDANTLY clear that seeking psychic advice is akin to lunacy !

[Tricky]

I wonder if any of the psychics saw that she had been killed? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/06/missing.girl/index.html)

I'm betting this was solved using ordinary police methods.
-----Edited to add------
Here is what the "psychic" said. (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/7877425.htm)
Steven Kansler, Carlie's stepfather, said a psychic the family hired feels Carlie is still alive, but is "somewhere dark and tied up."

This sort of thing makes my blood boil. The psychic should be arrested for giving false information.

[Hexxenhammer]

Oops... They found the body, and she was in a field near a church, not someplace "dark and tied up". I want to cane that psychic.

[Mercutio]

Any bets as to whether any news organization will follow up on the bloodsuckers, er, psychics' failed predictions and the emotional trauma they have caused?

[Clancie]

This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated in what they are legally allowed to tell people (i.e. no medical advice, no legal advice, and for missing people, no information to clients whether the person is living or dead).

All this kind of information should be passed on to the police, not the family. Then, if the psychic feels good information has really been ignored, he/she could locate the victim himself and let the police tell the family the news only after succeeding in doing this.

It is wrong for them to just speculate--to give hope or to destroy it--when they obviously can so easily be wrong.

[Luke T.]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35051

You know the psychic will say there was a brief period during which the girl was in the dark and tied up.

But since her body was found close to where she was abducted, chances are she was killed within the hour of being abducted. There probably was no period where she was in the dark and tied up.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Clancie
All this kind of information should be passed on to the police, not the family. Then, if the psychic feels good information has really been ignored, he/she could locate the victim himself and let the police tell the family the news only after succeeding in doing this.Yes, and psychic information in cases like this is so relliable. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4357560.html)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Clancie
This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated in what they are legally allowed to tell people (i.e. no medical advice, no legal advice, and for missing people, no information to clients whether the person is living or dead).
In a rational society, these phonies would die off, because people would pay them no heed (or money).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie
This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated in what they are legally allowed to tell people (i.e. no medical advice, no legal advice, and for missing people, no information to clients whether the person is living or dead).
I agree, but let's go one step farther. Let's withhold their license until they can prove they are psychic. This would do wonders for all those unregulated psychics running around.

[Mercutio]

For the legal or law-enforcement types here...is there anything that the psychics could be charged with?

[Clancie]

Posted by Luke T

But since her body was found close to where she was abducted, chances are she was killed within the hour of being abducted. There probably was no period where she was in the dark and tied up.
Well, they are probably thinking of the trunk of a car, even the back seat. Its easy to picture a room...a car trunk...etc. as being a dark place, or that someone would be restrained. It may be totally wrong in this case, but its an easy guess. (Except for the part about still being alive).
Posted by Jeff Corey

In a rational society, these phonies would die off, because people would pay them no heed (or money).
Well, of course, I'm not as convinced as you that they are all phonies. And I think, even if they were somehow all proven to be fraudulent, that many people would still seek them out for answers.

We can't depend on reasoning, judgment, etc. (and adults also should be free to choose if they want to do it, just like religion). But there really does need to be strict regulations on the psychic industry instead of, as now, basically none.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, they are probably thinking of the trunk of a car, even the back seat. Its easy to picture a room...a car trunk...etc. as being a dark place, or that someone would be restrained. It may be totally wrong in this case, but its an easy guess. (Except for the part about still being alive).
[/b][/B]See, I thought basement when I heard dark and tied up. Yes, easy guess, but it's of exactly zero use even if she had been found in a dark place. When will a psychic simply move a their vision around a little bit and look for a house number, or some mail with a name and address on it? Or the sign for the church in this case.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Clancie
This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated in what they are legally allowed to tell people (i.e. no medical advice, no legal advice, and for missing people, no information to clients whether the person is living or dead).

All this kind of information should be passed on to the police, not the family. Then, if the psychic feels good information has really been ignored, he/she could locate the victim himself and let the police tell the family the news only after succeeding in doing this.

It is wrong for them to just speculate--to give hope or to destroy it--when they obviously can so easily be wrong.

Clancie,

Would you apply this to mediums too? In the case of deep trance mediums, the claim is that the medium is unconscious during the seance, so what would happen if a family went to such a medium and a spirit ostensibly possessing the medium commented on a case such as this. Could or should the medium himself or herself be held responsible for providing the information?

Mike

[headscratcher4]

This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated

How do you regulate something that has not been proved to exist? What standards? As the level of scientific "proof" that is sufficient for believers falls so far below the standard that is acceptable to the scientific community, and because there is no scientific acceptence that the phenomena exists, how do you set standards? What is the test of "ability" -- for example, how would it differ from the Randi test that so many believers dismiss as rigged, unfair, etc?

Should their be "regulation" and "registration" for witches and warlocks? Santaria (Vodoo) practictioners? Ghost Busters? Where does it end?

Come on Clancie, admit that regardless of your desire to believe that this phenomena exists, there is no way to "regulate" it to stop the cons, because there is no agreement -- even in the believer community -- about what the standard should be. Who would possibly qualify?

Does the State of Florida put together a State Board of Psychics like they do for Barbers and Medical Doctors and Nurses and Engineers? Does the governor get to select who is on the Board of Psychics? Do they get to run for the office? What is the job...self-selected psychic determining that other self-selected psychics don't measure up?

Shouldn't the University establish schools of psychics to make sure that there are standard for liciensing?

Oh, but than you have the problem that, unlike barbaring schools, Medical Schools, Nursing Schools, Engineering Schools, there is no unversially accepted or acceptable standards for establishing what is psychic ability and what is not...and the alleged psychics themselves either won't stand for establishment of any standards -- because they can't meet them and it would cut off their income OR because they would be a clear fig-leaf that says nothing and proves nothing allowing just about anyone to claim themselves to be "psychic".

No, there need not be any regulation, lest you are willing to agree that the state should be spending money setting up boards to regulate the unprovable claims.

[Clancie]

Posted by Mike D

Clancie,

Would you apply this to mediums too? In the case of deep trance mediums, the claim is that the medium is unconscious during the seance, so what would happen if a family went to such a medium and a spirit ostensibly possessing the medium commented on a case such as this. Could or should the medium himself or herself be held responsible for providing the information?
Hi Mike,

Yes, I was including mediums, and that is an excellent point.

I guess, I think that trance mediums would need to have a legal disclaimer for sitters to sign saying that they are not liable for any information that comes through in a sitting. So they would need a legal waiver that that was all they needed to provide.

Would that open it to people like Sylvia and Suzane to still claim to be trance mediums and still give, imo, unethical advice? Yes, but at least they would have to say to sitters "I am a trance medium. This is what that means (describing how the phenomena specifically differs for sitters from what they see/hear with a mental medium. I cannot be responsible for information that comes through."

Having seen Suzane in trance and having read about Sylvia's, I think that at least a few people would be steered clear of frauds if they knew what to look for. But, yes, I think trance mediums should be regarded differently (and that people should be able to end -any- sitting within 10 minutes for no charge if they feel a psychic is getting nothing).

[Jeff Corey]

Gee, do you mean anyone can claim to be a medium? And it's not regulated (as long as you claim it's for entertainment purposes only, in NY)?
Wow! I could buy Shermer's book "How To Cold Read in Less than a Day" and set up business in my kitchen, just like John Edward.
I'd need a new spin, though. Maybe I could play the Salem witch trial card.
"After Centuries of Persecution, this Direct Descendent of Martyred Giles Corey, stoned in Salem Village in 1692, is finally able to Offer his Services as a Certified Witch to Console You in Your Time of Need!"(For entertainment purposes only)
The caps seem to be de rigueur for nutty claims.

[Psiload]

It hasn't been said better...

Psychic Detectives are the vanguard of a second wave of predators that also includes tabloid journalists, cheesy defense lawyers and photo-op politicians. They use tabloid newspapers and talk shows to boast about their accomplishments and predict success. They materialize whenever children are kidnapped and circle the cases like vultures on a fresh carcass.

They scan the media for the haunting eyes of desperate parents willing to do anything to recover their children and then they show up on your doorstep, literally or figuratively, to make the pitch. They claim to be on the cutting edge of communications, able to predict future events and reach into heaven and hell with their mind. They hold your hand, massage your psyche and convince you that the only thing separating you from their extraordinary gift is your money.

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-hazards.htm

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

Having seen Suzane in trance and having read about Sylvia's, I think that at least a few people would be steered clear of frauds if they knew what to look for. But, yes, I think trance mediums should be regarded differently (and that people should be able to end -any- sitting within 10 minutes for no charge if they feel a psychic is getting nothing).

What should people look for in a medium so they "would be steered clear of frauds if they knew what to look for"?

[renata]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Yes, and psychic information in cases like this is so relliable. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4357560.html)

Six hundred tips for Sjodin. I am starting to see a pattern here...600 psychics contacted police when Elizabeth Smart was missing.
http://kutv.com/related/local_story_318170333.html

Police and family alike continue to be inundated by calls from psychics. Ed Smart's exasperation showed when he said hundreds of thousands of psychics have reported in; Lyman said close to 600 psychics have contacted police, all with different dreams.

It would be tempting to ignore them. But even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children warns against disregard, because psychics' purported dreams or visions may be a truth told by someone unwilling or afraid to get involved directly.

And though the same experts claim no missing child has ever been recovered with psychic information, Elizabeth Smart's family and investigators are bound to check out each one.

That's why, a week ago, Elizabeth's uncles Tom and Dave Smart walked along desolate railroad tracks near the town of Lark, long abandoned to the poisonous remains of Bingham Canyon copper mining west of Salt Lake City.

A psychic had told them Elizabeth's body lay near those tracks.


And even if the psychics were to only go to police...would that not merely waste police resources, considering we do not yet have evidence of one missing child located due to psychic help, or one crime solved.

And- if psychics can't get the basic info like whether someone is alive or dead- really, what good are they? Once again I am struck by the utter uselessness of this "ability"- assuming it even exists. And I am not surprised that high profile mediums don't get involved in these cases and instead immerse themselves in alphabet soup with those certainly departed- it is much safer that way.

Not to mention- yet again- that the skeptics are supposed to be the heartless cynics, yet it is these psychics that come out like ghouls to feast on the grief of the families with missing children.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Six hundred tips for Sjodin. I am starting to see a pattern here...600 psychics contacted police when Elizabeth Smart was missing.

Hmmm...think there is a "Blue Book" of psychics, just like the "Blue Books" that circulated among the psychics, with personal information of those who were constantly going from medium to medium?

Fascinating thought: A Cabal of Psychics! :)

I like that word. "Cabal".

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by renata



And- if psychics can't get the basic info like whether someone is alive or dead- really, what good are they? Once again I am struck by the utter uselessness of this "ability"- assuming it even exists.

Exactly.

Once again: These "abilities" have been "documented" for THOUSANDS of years, right?? So, where are the SUPER - USERS???

Barkhorn.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tricky


This sort of thing makes my blood boil. The psychic should be arrested for giving false information.

In this little Balkan country he would be arrested.

[LTC8K6]

There is no trunk in a 1992 Buick Century station wagon, so that story won't work.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In this little Balkan country he would be arrested.
Then I'm moving in with you. I hope you have not got a spare bed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Once again: These "abilities" have been "documented" for THOUSANDS of years, right?? So, where are the SUPER - USERS???

Heck, where are those who can just do something? Imagine all those "Improve your psychic abilities"-kits that Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne and John Edward sells.

Not even one single person got remarkably better? Gee....people are not being scammed here?

[gnome]

Can we find out whom the family consulted? I've half a mind we should send an open letter to the "psychic" inviting them to apologize and refund the money.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by gnome
Can we find out whom the family consulted? I've half a mind we should send an open letter to the "psychic" inviting them to apologize and refund the money.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was no money exchanged. If it was a scammer, they might have done it for publicity. But there are a number of misguided people who actually believe they are psychics and they truly want to help. Horrible evidence against this, like this example, does not seem to deter their magnanimity. And if this is the case, the psychic probably did apologize, but made some lame excuse at the same time.

[renata]

Originally posted by Tricky

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was no money exchanged. If it was a scammer, they might have done it for publicity. But there are a number of misguided people who actually believe they are psychics and they truly want to help. Horrible evidence against this, like this example, does not seem to deter their magnanimity. And if this is the case, the psychic probably did apologize, but made some lame excuse at the same time.

I agree with Tricky. Monetory losses in this case, I suspect, are irrelevant to the family. Dangling some hope that their child is alive...is much worse.

Consider if the girl was found alive- what publicity for this psychic! Thousands of believers touting the psychic! New business and such. The psychic is in a win/win scenario. If the little girl is found dead- oops- sorry- missed vision- trunk of car- vision was accurate right after the abduction- never mind. The psychic faces no punishment, no consequences. If the girl was found alive- and, considering her abduction was recorded and there was a national search there was a chance of the kidnapper realizing he will be caught and letting her live- it would have been huge publicity.

No downside for this prediction for the psychic- I mean unless you consider being a scumbag who preys on grief of parents and has to live with oneself a downside. However, the well known psychics would have downsides, because they are more likely to have publicized this problem. Hence, they either don't get involved, or claim mystery credit after the fact. Sylvia Browne, for example said several times she worked with police here or there- never supplying direct evidence.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was no money exchanged. If it was a scammer, they might have done it for publicity. But there are a number of misguided people who actually believe they are psychics and they truly want to help. Horrible evidence against this, like this example, does not seem to deter their magnanimity. And if this is the case, the psychic probably did apologize, but made some lame excuse at the same time.

Yes, the psychic will now remain anonymous, but had there been a hint of correct guessing then he would be all over the talk show circuit.

[VicDaring]

We were talking about this story (the abduction) in general at work yesterday, and I brought up this aspect (the psychic) of it and how it infuriated me.

And a co-worker immediately launched into a story about a psychic someplace that she knew of who "knew" all kinds of details about some murder and where the body was etc. etc. etc.

*sigh*

[kittynh]

Originally posted by Psiload
It hasn't been said better...


http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-hazards.htm

well from now on when I get that line about "the psychic helping solve a case" I'm going to show them that web page....

[Clancie]

I'm surprised how little interest there is here in the idea of legal regulation of psychics. I would think, actually, that the changes I mentioned would be not only -doable- and -educational- but a lobbying effort that was very consistent with the JREF mission.

Of course, it is always easier to just criticize and complain without actually trying to really -change- anything......:(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm surprised how little interest there is here in the idea of legal regulation of psychics. I would think, actually, that the changes I mentioned would be not only -doable- and -educational- but a lobbying effort that was very consistent with the JREF mission.

Of course, it is always easier to just criticize and complain without actually trying to really -change- anything......:(


The question is not if psychics should be "regulated".

The question is how. Based on what criteria should we regulate psychics?

Feel free to answer it.

Feel free to ignore it.

[jimlintott]

I believe that in Canada and the UK advertising for psychic services must include a disclaimer stating 'for entertainment puposes only'. I'm not 100% sure about that and can't find any info. Anybody know for sure? (I think this same disclaimer should be posted on churches.)

I doubt it makes any difference to believers. The best way to deal with psychics is to destroy their market by educating the public. Should only take a few hundred years.

[Clancie]

Posted byjimlintott

I believe that in Canada and the UK advertising for psychic services must include a disclaimer stating 'for entertainment puposes only'.
Well, if so, that's something. But, at the risk of sounding immodest, I think my suggestions were better.....

[Mr Sensible]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, if so, that's something. But, at the risk of sounding immodest, I think my suggestions were better.....

Yes, very immodest of you! Shame on you Clancie! ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm surprised how little interest there is here in the idea of legal regulation of psychics. I would think, actually, that the changes I mentioned would be not only -doable- and -educational- but a lobbying effort that was very consistent with the JREF mission.

Of course, it is always easier to just criticize and complain without actually trying to really -change- anything......:(

Hi Clancie

I think you may have missed the question I posed you earlier on i.e. quote:

‘What should people look for in a medium so they "would be steered clear of frauds if they knew what to look for"?’

Laws should be based on very careful definitions else they will fail in their intent (and even have very nasty knock-on effects that the drafters never intended).

How on earth - with the current state of "disagreement" between all the various people who claim that they are "psychics", "mediums", "mental-medium-psychics" and so on - could you even begin to draft legislation?

I don’t understand also how you think that the JREF would have the resources (money & manpower – (three full time employees?)) to be an effective lobbying team whilst still being the "JREF"?

Plus, and in my mind the reason why the JREF shouldn't even contemplate it, is that there none of this "psychic" stuff has even been proven. As far as I am concerned the JREF may as well lobby for "legal regulation" to cover all manufacturers of perpetual motion machines!

[max]

plus they found the girls body

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm surprised how little interest there is here in the idea of legal regulation of psychics. I would think, actually, that the changes I mentioned would be not only -doable- and -educational- but a lobbying effort that was very consistent with the JREF mission.

Of course, it is always easier to just criticize and complain without actually trying to really -change- anything......:(

I repeat my questions: HOW?

Why not regulate ghosts?

Why not regulate Witches and Warlocks?

Why not regulate Vodoo?

How? What standards?

[FFed]

Originally posted by SRW
I find it very interesting that the family hired a P.I. so soon after consulting a psychic. I wonder if the P.I. was recommended by the psychic or the police. I would hope that the police, after hearing the family went to a psychic, recommended a P.I. so that they would not have to run around tracking down worthless leads.


Meanwhile, after speaking with a psychic, Carlie's family hired a private investigator to assist in the search. Chuck Chambers, a private investigator from neighboring Bradenton, said Carlie's family hired him Tuesday after consulting with an "investigative psychic" who "provided them with addresses and clues."

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/020504/sta_2109020.shtml

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

I think you may have missed the question I posed you earlier on
Hi Darat,

You're right, I did miss it. Sorry. :( (And I owe you a much bigger apology than that for something else, but...I'm still thinking about that one. :( ). I think this reply should address headscratcher's post, too.
Posted by Darat

i.e. quote:

‘What should people look for in a medium so they "would be steered clear of frauds if they knew what to look for"?’
Oh. Did I write that? If so, I may have overstated the case a bit, but I still maintain that, as usual, "something is better than nothing."

Here would be my suggestions for things to include:

all psychics (including mediums) would be required by law to provide a release form to sitters at least 3 days prior to a sitting.

this would contain some information about the history of mediumship...that although studies have been inconclusive as to how many mediums receive information, that the history of mediumship is also rife with fraud. (In other words, "caveat emptor").

a recommendation for sitters to discourage the use of "cold reading tactics" by limiting their responses to "Yes" and "No" answers as much as possible;

the option of ending an hour-long reading within the first five minutes at no charge if they felt the medium wasn't suitable for them (hmmm...this might have a salutary, chilling effect on the Ms. Cleo-style psychics as well);

(possibly) requiring mediums to offer an optional taping (which they could, possibly offer at an additional cost).

warning sitters against any medium or psychic who tells them that they must pay more money in order to secure something good in the future...or paying extra for psychic services to accomplish this (i.e. things like "lighting a candle to ward off evil spirits"..."saying a love prayer to guarantee she will fall in love with you"...etc. etc.)

forbidding, by law, any medium from profiting financially from the disposition of a sitter's estate (g8r, if you ever read this, this one's for you...you'll know why! :) )

requiring in the release, that the sitter acknowledges knowing that there is, as yet, no scientific proof that humans can communicate with the dead and that, until such time as there is, it must be regarded as "for entertainment purposes only".

all fees and the duration of the sitting must be clearly stated prior to a reading.

there is a non-refund policy after the first five minutes.

psychics (including mediums) are prohibited by law from offering specific medical or legal advice. (For trance mediums the sitter absolves the medium from responsibility for any information that may come through during trance).

regarding missing persons, psychics (including mediums) are required by law to turn over all information to the relevant police departments.

It's just a start. But something like this. (It could probably, with some general modifications, easily apply to tarot readers, astrologers, etc.)
I don’t understand also how you think that the JREF would have the resources (money & manpower – (three full time employees?)) to be an effective lobbying team whilst still being the "JREF"?
Well, I have a feeling that once something was organized (letter writing campaigns to senators, for example), that there would be a lot of volunteer manpower offered from members of this forum. :) "Less arguing! More results!" :)
Posted by Darat
Plus, and in my mind the reason why the JREF shouldn't even contemplate it, is that there none of this "psychic" stuff has even been proven. As far as I am concerned the JREF may as well lobby for "legal regulation" to cover all manufacturers of perpetual motion machines!
Ah, Darat! Here we part ways!

We may not know if psychic phenomena are real or not, but we definitely -do- know that the psychic industry is real! And regulating that is all that I'm addressing.

[Cinorjer]

I get as frustrated as any Skeptic when I see these "psychics" pop up out of the floorboards whenever there's an abduction and grieving family. The ones that do the talk show route should never be allowed to get away with claiming that they've "helped the police to solve crimes". People see that and believe it, since they have misplaced trust in the host as their friend. A friend would certainly not sit there and allow a faker on their show, right?

I'm not sure how much can or should be done legally to outlaw psychics, though. At least in America, there are laws against fraud when there's money involved, and people do get arrested when they take thousands of dollars from someone to "lift a curse". But that's a different matter from someone freely giving advice, even if they claim the advice comes from psychic powers or space aliens or a talking potato. Then, free speech becomes an issue. Our society assumes, perhaps a little too optimistically, that the average citizen can judge the value for themselves.

It's nice to think education is the answer, but what is needed is a public information campaign to get the message across. But even so, many people will continue to believe nonsense.

Jerry

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
all psychics (including mediums) would be required by law to provide a release form to sitters at least 3 days prior to a sitting.

this would contain some information about the history of mediumship...that although studies have been inconclusive as to how many mediums receive information, that the history of mediumship is also rife with fraud. (In other words, "caveat emptor").

"Inconclusive", Clancie? No, it is very conclusive: There is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of mediumship.

Originally posted by Clancie
a recommendation for sitters to discourage the use of "cold reading tactics" by limiting their responses to "Yes" and "No" answers as much as possible;

Cold reading techniques involve Y/N responses as well. You know this, yet you allow this to "slip in".

Originally posted by Clancie
the option of ending an hour-long reading within the first five minutes at no charge if they felt the medium wasn't suitable for them (hmmm...this might have a salutary, chilling effect on the Ms. Cleo-style psychics as well);

Perhaps. However, this does not prevent any medium from operating: We know that very few messages do not come until the victim is pumped for enough information.

Originally posted by Clancie
(possibly) requiring mediums to offer an optional taping (which they could, possibly offer at an additional cost).

Why only optional, and only possibly?

Originally posted by Clancie
warning sitters against any medium or psychic who tells them that they must pay more money in order to secure something good in the future...or paying extra for psychic services to accomplish this (i.e. things like "lighting a candle to ward off evil spirits"..."saying a love prayer to guarantee she will fall in love with you"...etc. etc.)

How about a psychic telling people that the spirits will come back at another time? We know that sitters are hooked on this (you are one yourself).

Originally posted by Clancie
forbidding, by law, any medium from profiting financially from the disposition of a sitter's estate (g8r, if you ever read this, this one's for you...you'll know why! :) )

Do tell us.

Originally posted by Clancie
requiring in the release, that the sitter acknowledges knowing that there is, as yet, no scientific proof that humans can communicate with the dead and that, until such time as there is, it must be regarded as "for entertainment purposes only".

Then all references to any claim that this might be real should be forbidden as well. You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Clancie
all fees and the duration of the sitting must be clearly stated prior to a reading.

That would force the psychic to pad his/her readings. Oh, that's OK. You accept that anyway.

Originally posted by Clancie
there is a non-refund policy after the first five minutes.

Sorry, no can do. One has to be able to evaluate the whole service.

Originally posted by Clancie
psychics (including mediums) are prohibited by law from offering specific medical or legal advice. (For trance mediums the sitter absolves the medium from responsibility for any information that may come through during trance).

********. How do you check if the psychic is really in trance? This will simply mean that nobody will claim to be non-trance mediums.

Originally posted by Clancie
regarding missing persons, psychics (including mediums) are required by law to turn over all information to the relevant police departments.

Now you are writing a law that contradicts itself. If the service is "entertainment only", then how can anyone take information that "comes through" seriously enough to consider it for a criminal case?

Originally posted by Clancie
We may not know if psychic phenomena are real or not, but we definitely -do- know that the psychic industry is real! And regulating that is all that I'm addressing.

No, you are not. You are clearly, with some suggestions, legalizing the information given by psychics, e.g. in the case of criminal cases. It's the "salami"-method: You slowly open up for more and more, until you have it all.

Sure, you can say that this was not your intention. That only means you haven't thought this through.

[espritch]

This is one reason why psychics should be strictly regulated in what they are legally allowed to tell people (i.e. no medical advice, no legal advice, and for missing people, no information to clients whether the person is living or dead).

All this kind of information should be passed on to the police, not the family. Then, if the psychic feels good information has really been ignored, he/she could locate the victim himself and let the police tell the family the news only after succeeding in doing this.

It is wrong for them to just speculate--to give hope or to destroy it--when they obviously can so easily be wrong.

Yes. That is one good reason. Another is that they are lying charlatans and have no useful information to provide in any event.

[Clancie]

Posted by espirtch

Yes. That is one good reason. Another is that they are lying charlatans and have no useful information to provide in any event.
(sigh). Okay, let me ask you this then....

Do you think it is more productive to continue to state this as a fact (although it is arguably not a fact } and, therefore never do anything to actually -help- people who believe psychics are for real?.....

Or do you think that some form of regulation (like the things I've suggested) would have a greater benefit, even if reguilation -wouldn't- change all believers into skeptics? Don't you think it would still do more good than just saying again and again, "They're charlatans! Why can't you gullible people see that!!!" :confused:

[espritch]

Do you think it is more productive to continue to state this as a fact (although it is arguably not a fact }...

If this is "arguably not a fact", can you provide the evidence on which this is to be argued? For instance, can you give me any examples where the advice from a fra...err psychic was actually instrumental in solving a crime as opposed to cases where the crime was solved by the conventional means and the psychic just provided a few vague but obvious guesses (e.g. "she's bound in a dark place") that happened to be correct but did not provide any useful information for actually solving the case? You've already admitted that psychics can be wrong. The questions is whether you can provide any example where they were right in any useful way. If not, you have no basis on which to argue.

and, therefore never do anything to actually -help- people who believe psychics are for real?.....

I don't think you help a person who believes psychics are for real by pandering to their mistaken belief.

Or do you think that some form of regulation (like the things I've suggested) would have a greater benefit, even if reguilation -wouldn't- change all believers into skeptics? Don't you think it would still do more good than just saying again and again, "They're charlatans! Why can't you gullible people see that!!!"

I think regulation is an excellent idea. Here's how I would do it. Anyone wanting to provide psychic services would be subjected to a proper double blind test to prove they have psychic abilities. Those passing the test would be given Psychic licenses and would be allowed to participate in criminal investigations with occasional performance reviews to gauge their effectiveness. Those determined to be consistently ineffective would have their license revoked. Those who failed to pass the initial test or had their license revoked would not be allowed to sell or offer their psychic services either to the police, to the families of victims, or to anyone else and would be subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment if they violated this rule.

Obviously true psychics would happily agree to this kind of regulation since it would insure that frauds and charlatans would not be allowed to sully the reputation of their chosen profession.

So, do you think John Edwards or Sylvia Brown will be the first step up to the plate and get licensed? I'm sure Jame Randi would be happy serve on the testing board. :D

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Clancie

(sigh). Okay, let me ask you this then....

Do you think it is more productive to continue to state this as a fact (although it is arguably not a fact } and, therefore never do anything to actually -help- people who believe psychics are for real?.....

Or do you think that some form of regulation (like the things I've suggested) would have a greater benefit, even if reguilation -wouldn't- change all believers into skeptics? Don't you think it would still do more good than just saying again and again, "They're charlatans! Why can't you gullible people see that!!!" :confused:

What you've recommended can not work.

Not only did CFL point out many flaws, but you are trying to impose standards on a standardless persuit. States today regulate a number of professions ... from Medicine to Barbering to CPAs, etc. All of these professions have schools, technical standards, safety and risk qualifications, etc. that have to be met for someone to be licenced or considered a member of the profession. What schools? What standards of psychic success does one have to demonstrate to be proficient?

What you are suggesting is that state's regulate something for which there isn't any set, agreed to standard of what qualifies success. In barbering, at least, you have to use a razor or sissors and cut someone's hair without nicking them. Electritions have to be able to wire a curicuit, what does a psychic have to do? It is all self selected because no one requires psychics to prove their "talent" and their "talent" is un-demonstrated. You can't regulate self-selected "talent". You can't regulate an "artist" -- someone calls themselves an artist in our society, they are an artist whether they can paint like Monet or a chimp. THe same is true for a "psychic" -- someone is a "psychic" whether they've accrately predicted everything, or never had a hit because they call themselves so .. there's never been agreed upon tests, etc.

THis is a foolish idea. It simply makes no sense. It is like suggesting that "creation science" is Science.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie

(sigh). Okay, let me ask you this then....

Do you think it is more productive to continue to state this as a fact (although it is arguably not a fact } and, therefore never do anything to actually -help- people who believe psychics are for real?.....

Or do you think that some form of regulation (like the things I've suggested) would have a greater benefit, even if reguilation -wouldn't- change all believers into skeptics? Don't you think it would still do more good than just saying again and again, "They're charlatans! Why can't you gullible people see that!!!" :confused:
What you suggest would have some use, as it would prevent the purveyors of this dishonest craft from extorting as much money from grieving families as they are currently able to do. It would be a band-aid on a serious wound.

But there is a flaw in your plan. If the government is involved in licensing psychics, then it is to their advantage to have psychics to license. In doing this, they would be encouraging, even legitimizing such practices, and even taking a cut of the profits themselves (in licensing fees). I really don't want the government getting their fingers into such a foul pie.

[Brickroad]

I think I am missing something here.

Clancie, am I right in assuming that you're advocating regulation of psychics even before psychic powers are shown to exist?

If so, why? Doesn't that seem a little counter-productive?

I think a "list" of regulations on psychics who wish to aid in police investigations would be exactly two points long:

- The psychic must have a license to practice his trade. In order to obtain said license, he must prove he has the powers he says he has. If the psychic intends to make a living using his powers, this should not be difficult to do in the least. (Why then, has no one done it?)

- The psychic does not collect any payment at all unless his powers yeild information that is at least helpful in bringing his case to a close within a time frame agreed upon beforehand. (This might even open up some competition in the field - Psychic X guarantees results within two weeks, Psychic Y guarantees them in three days... or your money back!)

Of course, both of these points assume that the psychic powers in question have already been shown to exist in the first place, which is precisely why I'm confused.

How can we determine regulations of any kind, whatsoever, before we even know if the thing we want to regulate is real?

[Clancie]

Tricky and Headscratcher,

"Regulating a business", not "licensing a profession".


Brickroad,

Yes.

(And, like it or not, the business is real).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie
Tricky and Headscratcher,

"Regulating a business", not "licensing a profession".


Okay, call them "permits" rather than licenses if you wish. But in order to regulate a business you much have some kind of organization that determines whether or not a company is qualified to do what it does. If such an organization found out that no one was qualified to be a psychic, then all the people in that organization would soon be out of jobs. It is in their interest to have some people meet the permit requirements.

For this same reason, we don't have a government organization that regulates private interstellar travel companies.

[headscratcher4]

Regulating a business

Hmmm...maybe, I mean the state does "regulate" businesses like Ponzi-schemes...to the extent that it is a recognized fraud and thus illegal...so there, I am with you.

But other wise, in a "non" professional situation, the licence is generally a method for taxation purposes as much as a measure of "conduct"...

Also, are you saying that being a "psychic" is not a profession? Are you agreeing that there are no standards that can be applied, and thus it can not be proved? And if it can not be proved, than how is it ever anything but a fraud?

[Clancie]

Posted by headscratcher

Also, are you saying that being a "psychic" is not a profession? Are you agreeing that there are no standards that can be applied, and thus it can not be proved?
No. I'm saying that's irrelevant to my point. :p

Psychics operate legally now. They provide a service in the marketplace and are legally allowed to do so. Whether that "service" is genuine or not is outside the ability of the law to determine.

I feel adults should have the right to choose to see a psychic if they wish, but that there should be more "consumer protection and education" imposed on the psychic industry through laws.

Regulating it, yes. Licensing or banning it, no.

Frankly, it just amazes me that anyone would argue it is -better- to do nothing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie
Frankly, it just amazes me that anyone would argue it is -better- to do nothing.
Two possible reasons:
1) It give psychics the air of legitimacy.
2) It would increase the cost, thereby taking even more money from desperate people.

However, I agree that your plan has some merit. I would like to add in one additional rule though: The psychics can be sued (including punative damages) if it is found they have violated any rules.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancie

......................

Frankly, it just amazes me that anyone would argue it is -better- to do nothing.


Perhaps, if there were only two choices...

1. Do nothing...

2. Consult psychic .....


Fortunately, that is not the case...

The fact that you are easily amazed has been noted...

[Clancie]

Posted by Diogenes

Perhaps, if there were only two choices...

1. Do nothing...

2. Consult psychic .....

Fortunately, that is not the case.
The fact that you are easily amazed has been noted.

And I've noted that you completely have missed the point....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancie


And I've noted that you completely have missed the point....

I don't think anyone missed mine...:)

[headscratcher4]

Maybe Clancie is right...I've historically objected to state efforts to "regulate" stupidity, for that is what regulating psychics would be...but maybe we should regulate stupidity...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Maybe Clancie is right...I've historically objected to state efforts to "regulate" stupidity, for that is what regulating psychics would be...but maybe we should regulate stupidity...


Or at least tax the heck out of it...:D

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Regulating it, yes. Licensing or banning it, no.

This comment concerns me. Why are you against Licensing? If you said, well regulate whats going on right now with a move to Licensing in future once standards are agreed upon and put in place, I'd have agreed with you to a point. What logical reason is there to be against at some point imposing license's upon psychics?

To me its telling that the psychic industry has made no move to turn professional, to regulate itself. It chooses to stay within the fringe elements of society, and in those cases when it does move into the mainstream, it does so in an entertainment capacity.

[Clancie]

Loki,

What criteria would you use for licensing?

(Right, there isn't any. That's why I wouldn't even want to start down that path....Imo, it leads nowhere....).

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Loki,

What criteria would you use for licensing?

(Right, there isn't any. That's why I wouldn't even want to start down that path....Imo, it leads nowhere....).
One could turn this comment around so easily *smirk*. What criteria do we use for proving the existence, or even the consistency of process for psychic abilities?
(Right, there are none, probably leads nowhere).

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[espritch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Maybe Clancie is right...I've historically objected to state efforts to "regulate" stupidity, for that is what regulating psychics would be...but maybe we should regulate stupidity...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Or at least tax the heck out of it...

A lot of states are already taxing stupidity - they just call it a lottery.

[Chad Noles]

posted by espritch

A lot of states are already taxing stupidity - they just call it a lottery.

tax /tks/ n. -es 1 a necessary payment on incomes, sales, etc., to the government:

Which states are forcing people to play the lottery?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Chad Noles

tax /tks/ n. -es 1 a necessary payment on incomes, sales, etc., to the government:

Which states are forcing people to play the lottery?
No one forces you to pay sales tax. You only pay it if you buy things.

You buy a lottery ticket (debatably a stupid purchace) and a portion (necessarily) goes to the government. That's a tax.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky

No one forces you to pay sales tax. You only pay it if you buy things.

You buy a lottery ticket (debatably a stupid purchace) and a portion (necessarily) goes to the government. That's a tax.

Technically a sales tax is a tax on the merchant, not the consumer, so you are never obligated to pay sales tax. However the Merchant is not required to sell you merchandise if you refuse to pay the tax. (So it will not work to refuse to pay the tax, you just will not get the goods). Also if you read the fine print on most sales contracts (for cars etc) you are agreeing to pay the sales tax..

However the Merchant is forced to pay the tax.

(disclaimer: state tax codes may vary, contact your local tax board for verification)

[Chad Noles]

Then as a whole,it would appear that stupidity is still a free commodity,although it's use may carry certain cost.:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by SRW


Technically a sales tax is a tax on the merchant, not the consumer, so you are never obligated to pay sales tax. However the Merchant is not required to sell you merchandise if you refuse to pay the tax. (So it will not work to refuse to pay the tax, you just will not get the goods). Also if you read the fine print on most sales contracts (for cars etc) you are agreeing to pay the sales tax..

However the Merchant is forced to pay the tax.

(disclaimer: state tax codes may vary, contact your local tax board for verification)
Technically, you are correct, but that is just for the convenience of the tax collectors (who cannot monitor every purchase). In the US, the price marked on the item is pre-tax and you pay a variable tax rate (based on your location) above that marked price. Personally I prefer the British system where the tax is included in the marked price.

But nevertheless, it is ultimately the consumer who pays the tax because the seller passes the tax on to them. So it's still a tax. an this formally ends my contribution to this thread derailment.

[espritch]

tax /tks/ n. -es 1 a necessary payment on incomes, sales, etc., to the government:

Which states are forcing people to play the lottery?

But that's the great thing about the stupidity tax: the people who qualify for it pay it voluntarily.

[Chad Noles]

Yeah,I'm sure that Anthony and Monica Wilson feel really stupid these days.After all,they paid the "tax".

[espritch]

Why yes. And everyone who pays the "tax" thinks (or hopes) they're going to be the next Anthony and Monica Wilson. And one in 80,000 or so will be right.

[Chad Noles]

posted by espritch
And one in 80,000 or so will be right.

And many will continue to ignore the 2nd and 3rd place winners,which ain't chump change,in my book.

[Renfield]

Actually law enforcement sometimes will get involved, when the psychics take their marks for a signifigant amount of money. They usually don't bother doing anything if its just a few dollars for a reading or a horoscope. Which I have no problem with.

[Clancie]

Posted by Renfield

Actually law enforcement sometimes will get involved, when the psychics take their marks for a signifigant amount of money. They usually don't bother doing anything if its just a few dollars for a reading or a horoscope.

Which I have no problem with.
Hi Renfield,

Well, I have a problem with it because I think there should be more consumer education and consumer protection around the whole psychic industry. Even -if- what some of them do is real (or not, so let's not get a derail anyone), there are definitely gullible people who could benefit from more information AND fraudulent psychics who could "benefit" from stricter rules and regulations.

You can't outlaw it, but I don't know why there isn't more effort to regulate it.....:confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You can't outlaw it, but I don't know why there isn't more effort to regulate it.....:confused:

How is it going to be regulated? You have tried to come up with some suggestions, but they are all worthless. They do not determine whether a psychic is really a psychic or not.

So, why bother with regulation? Who will the regulation protect, and for what reasons?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, why bother with regulation? Who will the regulation protect, and for what reasons?
Here I agree with Clancie. Although it would stop short of actually shutting down these frauds, it could make rules about extorting money for "information" and restricting the types of situations they could give "advice" about (such as ongoing criminal investigation). It would be a stopgap measure at best, but still better than nothing.