Mediumship / Psychic Regulation [Archive]

Mojo

17th February 2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Janice
After having spent some time on this forum, and also being a member of a spiritualist forum, I have yet to find a thread that covers industry regulation.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/price/practitioners.htm

I do not know the outcome of the above thread, but obviously it was not put in place. The Fraudulent Mediums Act (1951), seems to do very little for the industry. I just wondered if anyone else knew of any attempts past and present for the regulation of this. I don't think there's been any serious attempt to put anything like this on the statute book. At the time it seems to have been proposed (1939) the Witchcraft Act was still in force. As only a few private members bill get put forward each session, it's unlikely that any member coming high enough in the ballot (I think the names are drawn out of a hat or something) would have put it forward, as they frequently have pet schemes of their own.

The Fraudulent Mediums Act (which was passed to replace and repeal the Witchcraft Act after the Helen Duncan prosecution) wasn't really an attempt to weed out dodgy mediums: as far as I can make out, the law at present seems to assume that all mediums are fraudulent, so the only way to avoid prosecution is to not charge money or to use the "entertainment" defence. It's a bit difficult to find out exactly how it works at present, because there are very few prosecutions, and I haven't so far found any reports of the cases.

For the text of the act and what information about prosecutions under it is available at present see: http://www.tonyyouens.com/fma.htm

delphi_ote

17th February 2005, 05:43 PM

Since you completely ignored my honest attempt to meet you halfway on this one and discuss the topic already, I'm going to guess this thread wasn't started because you have more to contribute on the subject. You're here to force the conclusion that psychics are real, not discuss how one might go about testing them.

I think we should license priests, while we're at it. Only the ones who can genuinely hear the word of God should be allowed to speak for him. Clear out all those frauds you hear about. It's the perfect way to spend my tax dollars!

I think we should license ghost trackers, too! Only those who can prove they have the proper training to catch a ghost should be allowed to hunt them. Clear out all those frauds you hear about. It's the perfect way to spend my tax dollars!

I think we should license fortune tellers (don't forget them!) Only those whose crystal balls really show them the future should be allowed to report it. Clear out all those frauds you hear about. It's the perfect way to spend my tax dollars!

I think we should license unicorn wranglers. Only those with the proper skills should be able to train those beautiful creatures. Clear out all those frauds you hear about. It's the perfect way to spend my tax dollars!

Unicorn wrangling is such a majestic art. Once the licensing laws are in place and unicorn wrangling schools open to the public, I hope I can learn it myself!

Azrael 5

17th February 2005, 06:46 PM

So 8 posts and no reply by Janice,paraphrased :I will not be posting here again,so write what you like
*sigh*:)
Lets start by regualting the medium you claimed was real.Troll.

Open Mind

17th February 2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Janice
After having spent some time on this forum, and also being a member of a spiritualist forum, I have yet to find a thread that covers industry regulation.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/price/practitioners.htm

Janice I would be cautious trusting the accuracy, opinion and actions of publicist and magician Harry Price.

Yes Harry Price did propose bill to stop fraudulent mediumship .. also ....

Harry Price promoted / invited media to a taking Mongoose
Harry Price promoted/ invited media to a spell to turn goat into a man
Harry Price claims with certainty certain mediums are genuine and promotes them, then later claims they are fraudulent. A claim of fraud is not proof of fraud anymore than claim of evidence is proof of evidence. And perhaps more so when Harry Price was involved?

Harry Price was also accused of fraud at Borley Rectory (he had pocketful of pebbles, (poltergeist was throwing pebbles) .. witness claimed he faked flying brick picture etc.) .

One your original point, personally I would limit the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn ... that would help take people of dubious motives out of it. The rest of the law is already in place in my opinion.

delphi_ote

17th February 2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Open Mind
One your original point, personally I would limit the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn ... that would help take people of dubious motives out of it. The rest of the law is already in place in my opinion.

What limit would you propose and how would you regulate it? Limit per consulation? Overall limit to amount someone can earn?

Janice

18th February 2005, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by JPK
Good evening Janice.

Just a quick question. If these psychics were forced to pass a test that removed the chance of fraud, how many do you think you pass such a test? I include mediums from spiritualist churchs as well. And if I can ask a follow up. What medium would be left?

JPK

Hi JPK - If the mediums were tested, a scientific organisation should be involved, with the mediums being tested following a strict criteria to demonstrate their ability. I do not think that many would pass, it is difficult to say, but from what I have seen (5 - 10%).

Janice

18th February 2005, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Janice,

Regulation of mediums would mean being able to reliably differentiate between "real" mediums and "fraud" mediums, so that they could be properly registered, etc. At this time, there is no such reliable test or method.

Would you kindly tell us a reliable test or method that you would recommend that would allow anyone to do this confidently.

In anticipation
Zep

Zep - I just covered how (I thougth) the testing should be carried out in answer to JPK. If at sometime, it was decided to address the problems that exist, people would be tested in their own countries, and with so many mediums and psychics already working, I do not think that it would be possible to name every single person tested in the initial stages. However, with guidlines and regulations put in place, I think that the amount of people who would come forward to be tested, would be very low.

Janice

18th February 2005, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Regulating the industry? You're talking as if mediumship is legitimate. Sorry, but until it's scientifically proven otherwise, mediumship should be classified as ENTERTAINMENT only.

Mediumship / psychic demonstrations are generally classed as entertainment, when being broadcast on tv or advertised in the media. What guidlines are there to protect vulnerable people, who are going through difficult times, be it bereavement or other areas of their life, getting ripped of by the so called local psychic, who can charge them huge sums of money, just to be told what they want to hear?

[b]Am I missing something here? REGULATING the industry? Why give mediumship any more guise of credibility than it already enjoys? So mediums and there proponents can now say, "Well of course mediumship is real, look, we're even being regulated now!!"

I think that you are missing something here, if you really do not believe in it, which I respect your views, then surely you would only be more than happy to see the indusry investigated and regulated. There is nothing to stop anyone buying a set of tarot cards, putting an add in the paper to advertise for psychic readings and then they are in business. These people can charge what they like, and a large number of people use these services for whatever reason.

[b]I think as soon as you start "regulating" something, you introduce politics into it, and when you introduce politics, things that shouldn't happen, could happen, like fake mediums passing tests.
Pass the test in the labs first.

Some people are making a lot of money out of the industry, which is continually growing, with more so called psychics and mediums appearing, I agree tests should be taken within labs, that way no one should be allowed to cheat. At the moment the skeptic groups are constantly criticising and complaining about the industry and the believers are being conned daily by a large majority of psychics and mediums, and as I have said before, nothing constructive is being done, and everyone is going round in circles.

Janice

18th February 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by jj
Janice, how can one tell the difference between a "true" psychic, deserving of a license, and a "fake" one deserving of a jail term.

Please note that since articles of faith are not generally, if my understanding is correct, introducable in a court of law, there must be a testable, falsifiable, verifiable, and repeatable method of confirming or denying the "truth" of a claim to psychic abilities.

How might one go about doing this, please?

The only way for people to prove their abilities is by testing, which I have outlined above. The main issue that needs addressing, is that strict guidlines and regulations need to be inforced to protect members of the public, parting with large amounts of money when visiting these so called psychics and mediums. To qualify for any other profession, people have to study and pass exams, and these professions are controlled by governing bodies, and this covers all areas of employment.

I don't know about you, but I had to study hard to gain my qualifications, and then work hard to get where I have got today, and what I have seen of the industry, it is nothing far short of fraud what a large majority of these people are doing.

Zep

18th February 2005, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Janice
Zep - I just covered how (I thougth) the testing should be carried out in answer to JPK. If at sometime, it was decided to address the problems that exist, people would be tested in their own countries, and with so many mediums and psychics already working, I do not think that it would be possible to name every single person tested in the initial stages. However, with guidlines and regulations put in place, I think that the amount of people who would come forward to be tested, would be very low. Janice,

You haven't put forward any method of testing at all, merely some level of expected pass rates. You have not defined WHAT these pass rates apply to.

At the risk of repeating myself and many other posters here, please reconsider the question more closely and answer what it is asking:
Regulation of mediums would mean being able to reliably differentiate between "real" mediums and "fraud" mediums, so that they could be properly registered, etc. At this time, there is no such reliable test or method.

Would you kindly tell us a reliable test or method that you would recommend that would allow anyone to do this [i.e. test mediums for fraud] confidently.

Janice

18th February 2005, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
The Fraudulent Mediums Act (which was passed to replace and repeal the Witchcraft Act after the Helen Duncan prosecution) wasn't really an attempt to weed out dodgy mediums: as far as I can make out, the law at present seems to assume that all mediums are fraudulent, so the only way to avoid prosecution is to not charge money or to use the "entertainment" defence. It's a bit difficult to find out exactly how it works at present, because there are very few prosecutions, and I haven't so far found any reports of the cases.

I think this is correct, the government class it as entertainment, as it has not been scientifically proven. However, as I have said before, people only consult a psychic / medium when they have a problem, and the go along with the allusion that the person will be able to predict a happy ending. I personally do not see this as entertainment, it is just profiting out of peoples misery. These people are not trained in counselling or bereavement, or any other area that would give them the necessary knowledge and expertise when dealing with these issues.

Theme Parks - these are entertainment, but these are regulated and inspected, they have to follow Health & Safety procedures and employment law, pay taxes and publish accounts.

Janice

18th February 2005, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Since you completely ignored my honest attempt to meet you halfway on this one and discuss the topic already, I'm going to guess this thread wasn't started because you have more to contribute on the subject. You're here to force the conclusion that psychics are real, not discuss how one might go about testing them.

To the contrary, my personal beliefs aside, I have not once imposed by beliefs on this forum, just because I think there may be something beyond this, does not make me delusional or stupid, people should follow whatever religion they chose. The issue I am addressing, is the profit people make out of the industry and the way in which it is operated.

I think we should license fortune tellers (don't forget them!) Only those whose crystal balls really show them the future should be allowed to report it. Clear out all those frauds you hear about. It's the perfect way to spend my tax dollars!

These would fall under the category of psychics (not mediums).

Janice

18th February 2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
Janice I would be cautious trusting the accuracy, opinion and actions of publicist and magician Harry Price.

Yes Harry Price did propose bill to stop fraudulent mediumship .. also ....

I was just using this as an example of regulation, as I could not find any other examples, where this had been attempted in the past.

One your original point, personally I would limit the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn ... that would help take people of dubious motives out of it. The rest of the law is already in place in my opinion.

This would still not address the issue, as to whether all people practicing are genuine or fake, and whether they have the necessary skills and experience to deal with peoples problems when faced with them. When you pay for a reading, there is nothing to protect you, from what the person tells you. It is not as if you can go back a week later and get a refund.

Janice

18th February 2005, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Janice,

You haven't put forward any method of testing at all, merely some level of expected pass rates. You have not defined WHAT these pass rates apply to.

At the risk of repeating myself and many other posters here, please reconsider the question more closely and answer what it is asking:

If mediumship were to be tested (survival evidence, and not predictions), the medium would have to demonstrate under test conditions, that he could accurately identify a deceased relative of the sitter, i.e. name, reason for passing, description of that communicator, relation to the sitter, detailed information about their life, with at least 70 - 80% of the information being given to be exact. The medium should also demsontrate this with more than one person.

With regard to testing psychics, they should be able to give the sitter exact pieces of information regarding thier past and present, but how to test for future predictions is going to be far more difficult.

Zep

18th February 2005, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Janice
If mediumship were to be tested (survival evidence, and not predictions), the medium would have to demonstrate under test conditions, that he could accurately identify a deceased relative of the sitter, i.e. name, reason for passing, description of that communicator, relation to the sitter, detailed information about their life, with at least 70 - 80% of the information being given to be exact. The medium should also demsontrate this with more than one person.

With regard to testing psychics, they should be able to give the sitter exact pieces of information regarding thier past and present, but how to test for future predictions is going to be far more difficult. Excellent, thank you! OK, here we go, then, with the interesting stuff.

Having committed to test mediums, let's have a look at the testing process in more detail. Taking what you have above as a starting point, here's some more questions about the scientific design of the testing process.

Now, what controls would you put in place to ensure that these tests cannot be cheated, accidentally or deliberately? For example, how would you prevent collusion? (that's where the sitter and the medium know about each other) How about preventing hot-reading? (that's where the medium can obtain prior knowledge of the sitter) How about preventing cold-reading? (medium obtaining clues and unwitting assistance from the sitter - information leakage) Should the medium and sitter be in close proximity? Can they see each other? Touch?

Also, how would you check that the information revealed IS exact? For example, if the medium says they see "person X" in their vision and the sitter says "that's correct", but subsequent evidence shows they are both incorrect. (i.e. faulty memories contradicted by facts) Conversely, what about the medium contradicting the sitter - insisting "person X" does exist despite denials. And even the case where subsequent facts prove the medium was right and the sitter was wrong. How would you prevent the sitter or medium forcing their visions on the other?

Lastly, how would you score such a sitting? Should each and every fact revealed be yes/no, true/false? Or can there be shades - definitely true / maybe true / can't say / maybe false / definitely false? Or even the "word-matching game" - see how many words in common between the medium's vision and the sitter's recollection? And who would score it - the medium? Sitter? Someone independent? Should the scoring be against archive records of fact or just the sitter's memories?

Bearing these points in mind to start with, do you think you can refine your testing procedure to make it scientifically acceptable?

Carn

18th February 2005, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Regulating the industry? You're talking as if mediumship is legitimate. Sorry, but until it's scientifically proven otherwise, mediumship should be classified as ENTERTAINMENT only.

I think regulating it does make sense.

Any medium, that has not yet passed sucessfully a reliable test, has to state in any advertisement, prior reading and after a reading:

"Our/my ability is so insignificant, that i'm unable to give correct answers to even simple questions. Therefore it is in your best interest to ignore anything we/i say to you."

After all, cigarettes have plaster all over them, that they are dangerous, long before there was a definite proof.
The logical consequence would be to plaster all over mediums and maybe even other things like feng shui, homeopathy,..., that they are useless, long before there is definite proof, that they are nonsense.

Carn

Mojo

18th February 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Janice
Theme Parks - these are entertainment, but these are regulated and inspected, they have to follow Health & Safety procedures and employment law, pay taxes and publish accounts. Theme parks are regulated partly because, I suspect, they tend to include hazardous machinery etc. Mediums (whether genuine or not) will, of course also have to comply with employment law if they employ anyone, and will also have to pay taxes on any income (remember: death & taxes...).

RamblingOnwards

18th February 2005, 04:13 AM

Here's a four step plan for you:

Step 1: Find a fraudulant medium, prove it, sue them for emotional damage. Find another, sue them. Encourage all your friends to do the same.
Step 2: Start an insurance company that offers liability cover to all mediums/psychics that can pass this test (for less than the going rate, if any).
Step 3: Wait until the other insurance companies start demanding similar tests and the mediums without cover are sued out of existence.
Step 4: Petition the government to accept the insurance standard as a legal standard.

Voila!

Chocolate Chip

18th February 2005, 05:34 AM

Mediumship / psychic demonstrations are generally classed as entertainment, when being broadcast on tv or advertised in the media. What guidlines are there to protect vulnerable people, who are going through difficult times, be it bereavement or other areas of their life, getting ripped of by the so called local psychic, who can charge them huge sums of money, just to be told what they want to hear?
Good enough, De-classify them as entertainment as well. I'd be for that.
There is nothing to stop anyone buying a set of tarot cards, putting an add in the paper to advertise for psychic readings and then they are in business. These people can charge what they like, and a large number of people use these services for whatever reason.
True enough, but why give these people even more credibility by regulating something that has not been proven. Official regulation gives them the look of being credulous. Mediums and psychics would appear even more legitimate because they now have a "governing body".
Some people are making a lot of money out of the industry, which is continually growing, with more so called psychics and mediums appearing, I agree tests should be taken within labs, that way no one should be allowed to cheat. At the moment the skeptic groups are constantly criticising and complaining about the industry and the believers are being conned daily by a large majority of psychics and mediums, and as I have said before, nothing constructive is being done, and everyone is going round in circles.
Well we agree on the lab testing, I say testing should be done before any type of regulation to prove that there should be something to regulate. If believers are being conned daily, then regulating psi before it is proven to be a sure thing would make it even easier for people to be conned because of the appearance of legitimacy. You're also assuming that only "real" psychics would pass tests in a regulated environment. What about the possibility of corruption? Pay offs, nepotism and the like?
Yes people are making alot of money out of the industry right now. It's too bad that the conned do not sue for fraud with the laws we have in place now.

Ossai

18th February 2005, 06:29 AM

Chocolate Chip
Yes people are making alot of money out of the industry right now. It's too bad that the conned do not sue for fraud with the laws we have in place now. Could we do that? Could someone pay Silvia or one of the other big named psychics for a reading and then sue for fraud?

Ossai

Open Mind

18th February 2005, 07:03 AM

What limit would you propose and how would you regulate it? Limit per consulation? Overall
limit to amount someone can earn?

I
Overall limit. e.g. below average income. And upper limit per consultation, say currently $50 or Â£30 for half hour â€¦when overall income from mediumship limit is exceeded the excess money goes to charity. There should also be warning to psychic â€˜fortune tellersâ€™, 'psychic hotlines' (mediums are already advised by their organizations) not to predict future unless clearly presented as only a possibility, the emphasis should be upon the present and past (the present and past are confirmable during a sitting, the future isnâ€™t, so almost anything fits)

Otherwise I have no fears over mediumship, it is not as dangerous as some in here seem to think ;) Iâ€™m sure some receive great comfort from it and that is their right in a free society to seek it. The laws to prosecute clear cases of con artistes, crooked magicians, fraudulent psychics, etc. have been in place since the 1950s

Testing psychics for a license based on pure ability isnâ€™t practical. Sittings, readings etc. should be viewed as experiments. I donâ€™t see how the law can prosecute someone for trying and failing to do something whether possible or not. If so we need to put a lot of failing politicians, doctors, lawyers and so on in jail or give a license only to those that regulators predict (by paranormal means? ;) ) will succeed more often than fail â€¦..as long as people follow the guidelines, they can still seek to do the difficult, there are no guarantees of consistent and successful outcomes in many professions.

Ladewig

18th February 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Janice
However, as I have said before, people only consult a psychic / medium when they have a problem, and the go along with the allusion that the person will be able to predict a happy ending.

You do realize that there are a lot of psychics out there that do not simply predict a happy ending; they tell the sitter that he or she has been cursed and the way to remove the curse is to buy charms, trinkets, or candles at upwards of £100 a pop. Or they do the old your-money-has-been cursed routine which involves burning the sitter's money (after a bit of sleight-of-hand occurs). There are some very wicked people out there pretending to be psychics.

Another advantage of regulation is that it would prevent people convicted of fraud from moving to another part of the country and setting up shop again under a fake name. An industry where very few people use their real names and the majority of transactions are cash-based attracts a somewhat unsavory element.

I could be wrong here, but the stuff I described happens frequently in the USA so I expect it happend over where you are as well.

Ashles

18th February 2005, 07:33 AM

drkitten

18th February 2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Janice
Hi JPK - If the mediums were tested, a scientific organisation should be involved, with the mediums being tested following a strict criteria to demonstrate their ability. I do not think that many would pass, it is difficult to say, but from what I have seen (5 - 10%).

How would they be tested? What would a "genuine" medium be asked to do?

Because, of course, the JREF and sister organizations have been involved in "mediums being tested following a strict criteria [sic] to demonstrate their ability" for years. Unfortunately, the pass rate falls somewhat short of the 5-10% you suggest.

By about 10%.

Dr Adequate

18th February 2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
I donâ€™t see how the law can prosecute someone for trying and failing to do something whether possible or not.What if they don't "try", don't "fail", but instead just pretend? Is that culpable? If so we need to put a lot of failing politicians... who can fail to be re-elected...... doctors...... who can have their licenses to practice taken away...... lawyers... ...who can be disbarred...... and so on in jail... ... this can happen too, you know...... or give a license only to those that regulators predict (by paranormal means? ;) ) will succeed more often than fail. In the special case of politicians, there can of course be no licensing board smaller than the electorate. In the cases of doctors and lawyers, this is exactly what happens: licenses are only given to those whom the regulators (examining boards, etc) predict (through testing their ability, not by paranormal means) will do their jobs properly.

voidx

18th February 2005, 08:56 AM

I haven't seen a thread of this specific nature since Clancie left. Its pretty much word for word what her idea on regulation should be...interesting.

Anyway here is the problem yet again. Since we have no quantifiable base observation with which to verify psychic ability it turns into a subjective mish-mash. I would imagine the instant large portions of psychics and mediums began failing, whatever test was arranged, there would be an uproar over the validity of the test itself. I don't think its a practical possibility at this point.

The problem would go both ways, regulations would go to protect the medium as much as the sitter technically. You have a medium getting in their own head/mind/brain information and relaying that information to someone else, a subjective reporting of some representation in their mind. That's shaky ground to start on right off the bat.

You then rely on a great degree on the sitter validating this information as correct. So you have a medium giving a subjective reporting on some conscious event in their mind, and then having a sitter subjectively validate the subjective verbal reporting of the mediums internal conscious experience. Let's count the holes in this process, and more readily count the ways both medium and sitter could cry foul over the information produced. Its simply untenuable in my opinion.

The industry wide labelling of it as entertainment wouldn't get you very far either. I can't imagine many psychics or mediums taking up this practice on their own, to label themselves as merely entertainment. The only reason it happens whey they go on TV is because its likely a legal stipulation from the network.

The other issue is would those that really go in for readings of psychic abilities pay one iota of attention to such a label or warning anyway? If you are convinced, or perhaps find it likely that a medium could contact a dead relative, are you going to be dissuaded by a warning that psychic ability is not proven, or that this or that psychic is a "registered" psychic medium? I have my doubts.

voidx

18th February 2005, 09:07 AM

Also, comparing psychic's to other industries in terms of regulation is just patently ridiculous. Take the theme park example. You have a theme park full of physical objects which can be touched, manipulated, observed, measured for stress and for condition of repair. You can actually have a checklist of things to go and look at and observe and judge on.

Not so with psychics. You have a subjective verbal reporting of an internal conscious event as the product of the industry. How do you regulate that? That would be like the theme park having their park enlcosed in a giant box where no one could see it and basing an inspection on what the owner of the park could remember about everything within the park (assuming he was being honest).

Chocolate Chip

18th February 2005, 04:43 PM

I don' think this has really been covered in this thread, if it has, my apologies for the repeat.
Let's leave the question of "is psi real or not?" aside for a moment.

Janice:
I think this is correct, the government class it as entertainment, as it has not been scientifically proven. However, as I have said before, people only consult a psychic / medium when they have a problem, and the go along with the allusion that the person will be able to predict a happy ending. I personally do not see this as entertainment, it is just profiting out of peoples misery.
Quite true, and do you think that this would change if we were to test for real psi in people and regulate it? I don't. The people who don't have psi but still practice consulting would keep doing this. If Mr. Government PSI Inspector comes knocking on their door to see if they've been tested, all the charlatan has to do is tell him that "I am an entertainer, and not a genuine psychic", what's the government going to do?
When potential customers come knocking, the charlatan can tell them that according to the government, "I have to tell you I'm an entertainer, but you and I know better, wink wink". If I were a charlatan, I could come up with all kinds of excuses:
-"The testing just costs way too much"
-"The government testings are geared for only the people who the government think should by labelled "genuine". Not those who really have the power"
-"Peopel at the testing lab have a grudge against_________ (insert race, class, age etc.)

Get it? If I am a charlatan and I'm making my living on these scams, I will do and say just about anything to hold on to and profit from my scam.
Now you could say, well let's get rid of that entertainment excuse, declassify it. But you can't, because I am a charlatan, I will put on my little aggrieved cap and complain that the government is taking away my right, AS AN ENTERTAINER, to make a living. If they take away my right to make a living at this, then they have to do the same to every honest mentalist and magician as well because they are entertainers as well. You can bet your last dollar that I would even go to court for this.
Do you see that charlatrans have NO SCRUPLES?

But you know what I think? Who the smartest ones out of all these charlatans are? The ones who turn this into a religion. Think of this:

-as a religion, I do not get taxed, (at least in the States and Canada). Whereas if I was setup as a business, I would have to pay taxes.

-What democratic government in their right mind would interfere with church business by trying to "regulate" the spiritualists or the leaders. Can you not see how bad this would make the government look? Now I don't have to worry about government interference in my practice of mediumship.

-I can "collect donations" instead of charge a fee. Sounds so much nicer doesn't it? Maybe have a raffle twice a week. One could turn quite a tidy profit if done right.

When's the last time you heard of a government crackdown on Scientology? Read around and find out just how rich the higher ups in Scientology really are.

The last time the government interfered in any kind of religious group that I know of, was the Branch Davidians, and look how the feds came out of that. Smelling like roses? Not a chance.

I think you will NOT get rid of the fakers with your regulation idea. Even if psi one day becomes a reality. It will only serve to bolster the credibility of the fakers, they will use that fact to their advantage, just like any other tool they use.

delphi_ote

18th February 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Janice

To the contrary, my personal beliefs aside, I have not once imposed by beliefs on this forum, just because I think there may be something beyond this, does not make me delusional or stupid, people should follow whatever religion they chose. The issue I am addressing, is the profit people make out of the industry and the way in which it is operated.

You did not understand me. By forcing the conclusion, I meant you were using a blatantly obvious and flawed debate strategy:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html
The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. Usually it's just the fallacy of giving a question that assumes something not generally granted or given unto evidence.

Originally posted by Janice
These would fall under the category of psychics (not mediums).

You're giving me a headache. None of the things in my list fall under the "category" of mediums, but you're apparently not reading for understanding. All the things fall quite well under the category of "unproven things people believe irrationally," and psychics fit in that list, too. Regulating one, why not regulate all of them?

Chocolate Chip

18th February 2005, 05:04 PM

Carn:
Any medium, that has not yet passed sucessfully a reliable test, has to state in any advertisement, prior reading and after a reading:
"Our/my ability is so insignificant, that i'm unable to give correct answers to even simple questions. Therefore it is in your best interest to ignore anything we/i say to you."
After all, cigarettes have plaster all over them, that they are dangerous, long before there was a definite proof.

So what? I used to smoke, do you really think those adverts made any difference to me? No way. My friends and I found them kind of funny actually.

You think advertising something like that would work? I don't.

Read Randi's latest commentary under the "ANOTHER UNEXPECTED ASPECT OF THIS SORT OF PHENOMENON" heading. Randi goes on Carson, exposes how Phillipino psychic surgeons work, their trickery and all. You know what happens? The Tonite show got 102 calls from viewers wanting to know HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THESE PSYCHIC SURGEONS, and it wasn't to complain. Read it for yourself here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html

vbloke

18th February 2005, 05:19 PM

I have noticed that an extraordinary number of self-claimed psychics / mediums are also religious.

Perhaps they should read up on their chosen beliefs before claiming supernatural abilities since most of the major world religions prescribe severe punishment on those who claim to talk to spirits and ghosts. I think we used to call them witches and wizards. That's a set of regulations that I think even the harderned skeptics here can approve of.

They really should use their own rules to regulate themselves, but I guess that since they show a blatent disregard for common sense, scientific method and their own followed religion, I think it'll be an endothermic day in hell before we can ever get any sort of regulation going.

Any governmental body that tries to bring a piece of legislation in like this will find itself culpable from anyone who has had a bad reading.

The whole debate is moot, as if they're not willing to try for the $1million, then they're not going to sign up for registration.

Sounds like a load of pseudoscientific flapdoodle to me.

Chocolate Chip

18th February 2005, 05:50 PM

Ossai:

:Yes people are making alot of money out of the industry right now. It's too bad that the conned do not sue for fraud with the laws we have in place now.

Could we do that? Could someone pay Silvia or one of the other big named psychics for a reading and then sue for fraud?

I don't see why not, if some lady can sue McDonalds for her coffee being too hot, why couldn't we sue Sylvia et al for providing false claims?

Carn

18th February 2005, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip

But you know what I think? Who the smartest ones out of all these charlatans are? The ones who turn this into a religion. Think of this:

I hope you do not conclude, that all upper religious leaders of all religions are knowingly charlatans?
Originally posted by Chocolate Chip

When's the last time you heard of a government crackdown on Scientology? Read around and find out just how rich the higher ups in Scientology really are.

The last time the government interfered in any kind of religious group that I know of, was the Branch Davidians, and look how the feds came out of that. Smelling like roses? Not a chance.

Apparently germany has better laws.
Scientology is treated as a corp and has to pay taxes like anyone else. They went several times to court, to force the authorities, to accept them as a religion, but every time the court decided against them, arguing, that they are either a corp offering some psycho services or a dangerous fraud organization. :D

They are no longer fond of going to court.

And the organizations, whose job it is to observe enemies of the constitution are also trying to monitor scientology and if they ever find proof, that scientology is against a part of the basics of constitution, it could be possible to forbid the organization and any publications of scientology books.

Carn

Carn

18th February 2005, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Carn:

So what? I used to smoke, do you really think those adverts made any difference to me? No way. My friends and I found them kind of funny actually.

You think advertising something like that would work? I don't.

Read Randi's latest commentary under the "ANOTHER UNEXPECTED ASPECT OF THIS SORT OF PHENOMENON" heading. Randi goes on Carson, exposes how Phillipino psychic surgeons work, their trickery and all. You know what happens? The Tonite show got 102 calls from viewers wanting to know HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THESE PSYCHIC SURGEONS, and it wasn't to complain. Read it for yourself here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html

It was just an idea, but you are right, it probably would not keep many people away.
Maybe it would be of more help, that any medium, which has not sucessfully passed a test(+ all mediums), can be sued by their customers, if they say, they can actually contact the dead or predict the future.
That way the cold reading techniques might be hindered, as you got to be very careful, what you say, though it might be no great hinderance.

Carn

Chocolate Chip

19th February 2005, 01:00 AM

Carn:
I hope you do not conclude, that all upper religious leaders of all religions are knowingly charlatans?
Of course not, that would be close-minded.
Scientology is treated as a corp and has to pay taxes like anyone else. They went several times to court, to force the authorities, to accept them as a religion, but every time the court decided against them, arguing, that they are either a corp offering some psycho services or a dangerous fraud organization.
But if Scientology were to be recognized as a religion in Germany, would they then be exempt from tax laws? As far as I know, in the U.S. and Canada, they are recognized as a religion. The point being that governments make it a point of not interfering in religious organizations per se.
Maybe it would be of more help, that any medium, which has not sucessfully passed a test(+ all mediums), can be sued by their customers, if they say, they can actually contact the dead or predict the future.
I would think that a successful lawsuit would be won against a medium who passed a regulated test, as they are supposed to be the real deal. A charlatan going under the guise of entertainer would probably use the "The session was only for entertainment purposes" defense, and could quite likely get off.

Chocolate Chip

19th February 2005, 01:22 AM

This is a continuation of my previous post.
It would be nice to remove "Entertainer" status from these frauds, unfortunately, as mentioned before, you jeopardize honest magicians as well. The only way that I can see potential victims avoiding this type of problem is to educate them as much as possible. Even then, it would probably be more of a "Buyer Beware" situation. As we all seem to realize, no matter what you say, or even prove, some people will just keep believing.

Janice

19th February 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Zep

Having committed to test mediums, let's have a look at the testing process in more detail. Taking what you have above as a starting point, here's some more questions about the scientific design of the testing process.

Now, what controls would you put in place to ensure that these tests cannot be cheated, accidentally or deliberately? For example, how would you prevent collusion? (that's where the sitter and the medium know about each other) How about preventing hot-reading? (that's where the medium can obtain prior knowledge of the sitter) How about preventing cold-reading? (medium obtaining clues and unwitting assistance from the sitter - information leakage) Should the medium and sitter be in close proximity? Can they see each other? Touch?

As I have already said, the tests would have to be carried out with a scientific researcher present, in a laboratory setting. The testing could also be devised so that the medium would have to attend more than one phase of the testing, i.e. demonstrate one to one readings, and then set up a test where the medium and 4 â€“ 6 sitters were present (where no one would be allowed to give any answers, the medium would just describe the contact being made, then at the end of the test, all of the sitters would then be asked if the information referred to them in any way). This would then conclude if the evidence was in fact general or very specific i.e. if exact names, conditions and a date were given.

With the initial stages of the testing, there would need to be very few people involved in the actual arrangement and process to avoid â€œcollusionâ€. The testing could be carried out using members of the public, chosen by the people arranging the testing. One way to avoid the medium being able to do any research on the sitters, could be that 10 â€“ 50 people are asked to attend on the day of the testing, and also arranging the date at short notice.

To prevent cold reading, the medium would only be allowed to give direct information, with no questions allowed, and the sitters answering a simple yes or no. Or again the medium give out all of the information with the sitter simply saying nothing until the test had finished.

It would be better if the medium and sitter were in the same room, but they could be separated by a screen, so that the medium cannot see them whilst the testing is carried out.

Also, how would you check that the information revealed IS exact? For example, if the medium says they see "person X" in their vision and the sitter says "that's correct", but subsequent evidence shows they are both incorrect. (i.e. faulty memories contradicted by facts) Conversely, what about the medium contradicting the sitter - insisting "person X" does exist despite denials. And even the case where subsequent facts prove the medium was right and the sitter was wrong. How would you prevent the sitter or medium forcing their visions on the other?

In order to check that the information is correct, and to avoid either person â€œforcing their visions on the otherâ€, the medium could simply give all of the information throughout the sitting, with the sitter remaining silent until the end. The evidence could then be verified after the event, by the sitter and those involved in the process. The medium should also be able to make contact with more than one person for the sitter. This is where it would be an advantage to have several people sit with the medium i.e. those who may have several deceased relatives, and perhaps those with none. It is possible that the medium may describe someone, that the sitter may not recognize at the time, but again this can be verified after the event. All information regarding the contact of the deceased person should only be allowed if the sitter knew them in their lifetime, as many mediums seem to be able to make contact with people who have passed years before the sitter was even born.

Lastly, how would you score such a sitting? Should each and every fact revealed be yes/no, true/false? Or can there be shades - definitely true / maybe true / can't say / maybe false / definitely false? Or even the "word-matching game" - see how many words in common between the medium's vision and the sitter's recollection? And who would score it - the medium? Sitter? Someone independent? Should the scoring be against archive records of fact or just the sitter's memories?

The scoring process should be based on factual evidence that can be provided, and evidence relevant to the sitter and their family i.e.

Relationship of the Deceased to the Sitter
Condition of Passing
Name - either of the deceased (first or last name) or of close family members, and the medium would not be allowed to work through a process of elimination, whereby mentioning several before the sitter recognised one
Approximate Age of Passing
Description and Appearance of the Deceased
What they did for an Occupation
Description of the House they lived in
Area where they lived
Marital Status / number and gender of children
"Memory Link" - evidence of situations the Sitter experienced with the Deceased

With the above ten listed points, if the medium was to accurately identify 6 of these, it would then rule out the probability of guessing, 7 - 8 of the above would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the work they do should be investigated further.

Bearing these points in mind to start with, do you think you can refine your testing procedure to make it scientifically acceptable?

If the medium was able to provide the above information, which was then verified by the sitter and those carrying out the test, with no cold or hot reading taking place, then the scientific researchers have a starting point from which to work.

Janice

19th February 2005, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
You do realize that there are a lot of psychics out there that do not simply predict a happy ending; they tell the sitter that he or she has been cursed and the way to remove the curse is to buy charms, trinkets, or candles at upwards of £100 a pop. Or they do the old your-money-has-been cursed routine which involves burning the sitter's money (after a bit of sleight-of-hand occurs). There are some very wicked people out there pretending to be psychics.

I have not personally come across them, but you only have to look in the back of any magasine and they are advertising. On the e-bay thread, I gave an example of one of these selling spells! This is my point exactly - this is not entertainment, but more along the lines of fraud, you will never get a refund from these types of people.

Another advantage of regulation is that it would prevent people convicted of fraud from moving to another part of the country and setting up shop again under a fake name. An industry where very few people use their real names and the majority of transactions are cash-based attracts a somewhat unsavory element.

This is why I fail to see the government does not intervene, it is very much a cash based business, and I am sure not all claim what they receive. I am all for the testing to be carried out initially, and then proceed with the regulation if the results of the testing prove the meduim / psychic theories.

I could be wrong here, but the stuff I described happens frequently in the USA so I expect it happend over where you are as well.

It happens all over the place in the UK, and most of these people set up in the comfort of their own home, so they don't even have to set out the front door. They have no overhead costs, apart from advertising, and most will charge Â£30 - Â£50, and some even more. I even saw one advertising for Â£95.00 for a one hour reading.

Janice

19th February 2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Regulating the industry? You're talking as if mediumship is legitimate. Sorry, but until it's scientifically proven otherwise, mediumship should be classified as ENTERTAINMENT only.

Am I missing something here? REGULATING the industry? Why give mediumship any more guise of credibility than it already enjoys? So mediums and there proponents can now say, "Well of course mediumship is real, look, we're even being regulated now!!"
I think as soon as you start "regulating" something, you introduce politics into it, and when you introduce politics, things that shouldn't happen, could happen, like fake mediums passing tests.
Pass the test in the labs first.

Sorry - I missed this one, but I do agree that testing should be carried out first, and then if proven regulation be compulsory. This is primarily to stop all of the charlatans, claiming to have any paranormal gifts of any kind, not just mediums but all services that are advertised and carried out referring to the paranormal. If it was proven under test conditions, it would gain credibility as a result of this, but I do not think it is seen as a credible profession, for the reasons I have already mentioned.

Ladewig

19th February 2005, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
I don't see why not, if some lady can sue McDonalds for her coffee being too hot, why couldn't we sue Sylvia et al for providing false claims? [/B]

The McDonald's case was a very valid lawsuit. The woman required skin grafts after spilling the coffee. When she asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills, she was rebuffed, so she brought suit agains the restaurant. During the trial, it was revealed that McDonald's was very aware of the coffee's temperature being dangerous because they had previously settled dozens of lawsuits concerning the injuries related to the temperature of the coffee.

As for Sylvia, how do you prove that any of her most common claims were both false and that their inaccuracy caused monetary damages?

- I see that you will change jobs soon.

- I see a medical problem in your chest, you should see a doctor about that.

- I see an angel protecting you.

- I see that your late grandmother passed very quickly.

In a court of law, you have to show actual damages. The most one could hope for is to recover the cost of the reading.

vbloke

19th February 2005, 04:27 AM

It seems to me the best way of exposing frauds and teaching people the dangers of pseudoscientific flapdoodle espoused by the woo croud is to start young.

Surely we could organise a counter culture of education to teach children in school about the true nature of life, and the proper scientific method, as well as critical thinking. It seems to me that the preponderance of woos out there is down to poor education and lack of reasoning.

Get to know teachers, get on school education boards, write to the local authorities, speak to any teachers you know - hell, if the extremist christian right can insist on creation theory being taught in schools alongside or instead of evolution, then we could organise something similar.

Teaching critical thinking in schools should at least help reduce the rise in woo thinking any further.

Janice

19th February 2005, 04:46 AM

Vbloke, this is a valid point. The paranormal, seems to be at its most popular, with more programmes on tv, books being published, people practicing and people seeking advice from them. This will only increase with time, and the longer things continue as they are, the worse it will become. This is why, I have raised this thread (whether I believe in the afterlife is irrelevant), the fact remains the problems are still there.

I just wondered what you would class as Woo, is this just someone who believes in the afterlife? If so, how do you separate peoples religious beliefs.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52136

Zep

19th February 2005, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Janice
As I have already said, the tests would have to be carried out with a scientific researcher present, in a laboratory setting. The testing could also be devised so that the medium would have to attend more than one phase of the testing, i.e. demonstrate one to one readings, and then set up a test where the medium and 4 â€“ 6 sitters were present (where no one would be allowed to give any answers, the medium would just describe the contact being made, then at the end of the test, all of the sitters would then be asked if the information referred to them in any way). This would then conclude if the evidence was in fact general or very specific i.e. if exact names, conditions and a date were given.

With the initial stages of the testing, there would need to be very few people involved in the actual arrangement and process to avoid â€œcollusionâ€. The testing could be carried out using members of the public, chosen by the people arranging the testing. One way to avoid the medium being able to do any research on the sitters, could be that 10 â€“ 50 people are asked to attend on the day of the testing, and also arranging the date at short notice.

To prevent cold reading, the medium would only be allowed to give direct information, with no questions allowed, and the sitters answering a simple yes or no. Or again the medium give out all of the information with the sitter simply saying nothing until the test had finished.

It would be better if the medium and sitter were in the same room, but they could be separated by a screen, so that the medium cannot see them whilst the testing is carried out.

In order to check that the information is correct, and to avoid either person â€œforcing their visions on the otherâ€, the medium could simply give all of the information throughout the sitting, with the sitter remaining silent until the end. The evidence could then be verified after the event, by the sitter and those involved in the process. The medium should also be able to make contact with more than one person for the sitter. This is where it would be an advantage to have several people sit with the medium i.e. those who may have several deceased relatives, and perhaps those with none. It is possible that the medium may describe someone, that the sitter may not recognize at the time, but again this can be verified after the event. All information regarding the contact of the deceased person should only be allowed if the sitter knew them in their lifetime, as many mediums seem to be able to make contact with people who have passed years before the sitter was even born.

The scoring process should be based on factual evidence that can be provided, and evidence relevant to the sitter and their family i.e.

Relationship of the Deceased to the Sitter
Condition of Passing
Name - either of the deceased (first or last name) or of close family members, and the medium would not be allowed to work through a process of elimination, whereby mentioning several before the sitter recognised one
Approximate Age of Passing
Description and Appearance of the Deceased
What they did for an Occupation
Description of the House they lived in
Area where they lived
Marital Status / number and gender of children
"Memory Link" - evidence of situations the Sitter experienced with the Deceased

With the above ten listed points, if the medium was to accurately identify 6 of these, it would then rule out the probability of guessing, 7 - 8 of the above would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the work they do should be investigated further.

If the medium was able to provide the above information, which was then verified by the sitter and those carrying out the test, with no cold or hot reading taking place, then the scientific researchers have a starting point from which to work. Janice,

All your procedure above has major flaws that I outlined previously that have not been addressed: collusion, verification errors, etc. Having a scientist present, and using a laboratory, does not science make, if the process is flawed.

For example, what in your procedure would prevent a fake medium and a fake sitter or three turning up for testing, having made up a story that they all memorised beforehand and then pretending they didn't know each other? The medium then starts spouting about some fictictious dead relatives coming through and the sitters all say they recognise these "spirits". By being the slightest bit clever they can use someone's real-life family history that is easily obtainable (probably their own family), so it can be verified by the observers. Result: You would be passing and registering fakes and not even knowing they WERE fakes.

Any clearly fake medium can easily pass your test as you describe it, so it is no test at all. No matter how complicated you make it, if it has no proper design and controls then it is no test at all. So would you like to rethink and refine it a bit?

Mojo

19th February 2005, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Janice
I just wondered what you would class as Woo, is this just someone who believes in the afterlife? If so, how do you separate peoples religious beliefs.I wouldn't consider someone to be a "woo" simply because they believe in an afterlife*. This is where religion comes in: it's a question of Faith. Religious faith involves belief in the absence of evidence.

But if people say they have evidence that there is an afterlife, I think that a line has been crossed.

*That's not to say that I don't think they're wrong.

Janice

19th February 2005, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Janice,

All your procedure above has major flaws that I outlined previously that have not been addressed: collusion, verification errors, etc. Having a scientist present, and using a laboratory, does not science make, if the process is flawed.

For example, what in your procedure would prevent a fake medium and a fake sitter or three turning up for testing, having made up a story that they all memorised beforehand and then pretending they didn't know each other? The medium then starts spouting about some fictictious dead relatives coming through and the sitters all say they recognise these "spirits". By being the slightest bit clever they can use someone's real-life family history that is easily obtainable (probably their own family), so it can be verified by the observers. Result: You would be passing and registering fakes and not even knowing they WERE fakes.

Any clearly fake medium can easily pass your test as you describe it, so it is no test at all. No matter how complicated you make it, if it has no proper design and controls then it is no test at all. So would you like to rethink and refine it a bit?

Zep - firstly, I do not have the experience, background or scientific knowledge to write the test. This would be designed, by the people involved in the whole process. The only way to completely avoid any "collusion", would be for the organisers to choose the medium, the sitters, arrange the testing procedure, the location / setting for the testing to be carried out.

In order to be guarantee to the best ability that no "collusion" took place, they would have to take the big brother approach, when the medium and sitters had been chosen, they would have to be chaperoned, 24-7 until the testing was carried out.

What suggestions do you have?

Zep

19th February 2005, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Janice
Zep - firstly, I do not have the experience, background or scientific knowledge to write the test. This would be designed, by the people involved in the whole process. The only way to completely avoid any "collusion", would be for the organisers to choose the medium, the sitters, arrange the testing procedure, the location / setting for the testing to be carried out.

In order to be guarantee to the best ability that no "collusion" took place, they would have to take the big brother approach, when the medium and sitters had been chosen, they would have to be chaperoned, 24-7 until the testing was carried out.

What suggestions do you have? Hi Janice,

Now you're thinking along better lines. And can you see that it is not how complicated the test is, it's how it is designed and conducted?

For example, all the complicated process you mentioned above? If the medium and sitters were indeed proven and kept independent of each other, the readings could probably be greatly simplified.

Now let's move on as you have described here.

First, the organisation wouldn't need to choose the medium. They are the testees, and apply themselves. What do you think would be a fair Big Brother approach for selecting sitters? Random people out of the phone book? Let's also allow that this precludes hot-reading, although it doesn't really.

Next, How would you prevent accidental or deliberate cold-reading?

Next, How do you score the medium's results? What are you scoring on? Precise details: dates, times, descriptions and so on? Vague feelings? Partial words, and "starts with a..." sort of stuff?

We do need to be more refined here if we need to get down to properly differentiating real mediums from frauds.

And I wouldn't worry that you don't think you have "scientific skills". Everyone does to some extent, all it takes is a bit of common sense. If you can think of all the reasonable ways that a particular test might somehow go wrong then you are most of the way to designing a good test.

Chocolate Chip

19th February 2005, 09:43 AM

Ladewig:
The McDonald's case was a very valid lawsuit. The woman required skin grafts after spilling the coffee. When she asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills, she was rebuffed, so she brought suit agains the restaurant. During the trial, it was revealed that McDonald's was very aware of the coffee's temperature being dangerous because they had previously settled dozens of lawsuits concerning the injuries related to the temperature of the coffee.As for Sylvia, how do you prove that any of her most common claims were both false and that their inaccuracy caused monetary damages?

I never said the McD's lawsuit was invalid, although to alot of people it may have seemed so. It's just that if someone can sue for something seemingly mundane as a cup of coffee that's too hot, perhaps then someone can sue for something that's just as mundane as false info from a psychic.
During a reading, if she dispenses medical advice (as she commonly does), and she's wrong, wouldn't that be the basis for a lawsuit? They are exploiting someone's belief to make themselves a quick buck.
from:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/browne.html
Sylvia Browne: Psychic Guru or Quack?
"With respect to health, you can get a "reading" from Sylvia for only $700 by phone or $750 in person [3]. Does that sound like proper commercial activity for someone who has no medical license, just a master's degree in English Literature?"
from:
http://www.randi.org/jr/030504newsweek.html#10
"Years ago on Montel Williams' show, she spoke to the grandmother of a local missing child, a six-year-old named Opal Jo Jennings who disappeared from her home in north Texas in March of 1999. Browne told the distraught woman that the child was still alive but had been sold into white slavery and was currently being held in Japan. She even gave a city name, but there is no such city in Japan. Moving ahead three years and nine months, we find that the body of little Opal was recovered â€” just seven weeks ago; she had been killed by a blow to the head. Currently, there is a man in prison in Texas who has confessed to, and been convicted of, Opal Jo's abduction and murder."
Isn't that the basis for a lawsuit for emotional distress at least? Not to mention the cost of any resources used to try and find this little girl believing that she would still be alive?
Janice:
Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Regulating the industry? ...snip...I think as soon as you start "regulating" something, you introduce politics into it, and when you introduce politics, things that shouldn't happen, could happen, like fake mediums passing tests.
Pass the test in the labs first.
Sorry - I missed this one, but I do agree that testing should be carried out first, and then if proven regulation be compulsory. This is primarily to stop all of the charlatans, claiming to have any paranormal gifts of any kind, not just mediums but all services that are advertised and carried out referring to the paranormal. If it was proven under test conditions, it would gain credibility as a result of this, but I do not think it is seen as a credible profession, for the reasons I have already mentioned.

You already did respond to that previously. Any comments on what I posted afterwards concerning not being able to get rid of charlatans?

edited for spelling

vbloke

19th February 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Janice
I just wondered what you would class as Woo, is this just someone who believes in the afterlife? If so, how do you separate peoples religious beliefs.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52136

God: Either God is alive, in which case he will deal with us as he sees fit. Or he is dead, in which case he was never alive, it being unlikely that he died of old age. ... By acting as if he were dead without settling upon an existential alternative, we have invited a reign of negative confusion. This has encouraged charlatans and opportunists to propose complete replacements; that is, ideology. ... The best way to avoid such confusion and the resulting exploitation is to ensure that God is replaced (if we are assuming he never existed) not by a theory or a dialect or market forces or structure but by a generally agreed-upon ethical relationship. That, interestingly enough, is the central purpose of democratic society.
John Ralston Saul, "God," The Doubter's Companion

It is undoubtedly easier to believe in absolutes, follow blindly, mouth received wisdom. But that is self-betrayal.
John Ralston Saul, "Ideology," The Doubter's Companion

On June 22nd, [1633,] in the morning, in the great hall of the Convent of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, Galileo was found guilty of holding a false doctrine. He went down on his knees and both abjured and condemned his own errors. He swore never to argue such doctrines again. It was thus definitely confirmed that the sun did rotate around the earth...Santa Maria Sopra Minerva. Saint Mary Over Minerva. Power over wisdom.
John Ralston Saul, "Wisdom," The Doubter's Companion