How to Sting J Edwards

[Marker]

I have delusional moments - I dream. My latest dream was of a way to finally rid the world of slime like J Edwards. Strangely enough I think this dream is worth sharing because I see no reason why it couldnt become reality.

Pleae read what is below and tell me why this is unattainable. Perhaps with comments and input from others it might evolve from an idea into a real plan:

The Edwards Sting

Needed :


Funding - unfortunately lots of it. JE is rich and had access to a bevy of lawyers We will need to be able to match this if we are going to take him on.

The creation of a fake personality - this is not difficult. It requires the creation of a few websites that talk about and descibe a person that doesnt really exist. I could do this bit easily.

Some portable/hidden AV equipment - this is not difficult. All we need is the means to secretly record (in video and audio) a conversation. This seems to be happening all the time in current TV documentaries.

An influential friend - someone with a reasonably high profile who is willing to help the cause.


Preparation:

Prioir to the sting all we need to do is set up the existence of a fictitious person. We dont need passports, driving licenses etc, - just a website (perhaps) that describes a fictitious company with our person - lets call him Julian P Rothsmayer - as CEO. We will also need a couple of personal websites that say something about his life.

What is key is that anyone who decided to research Julian P Rothsmayer would, with a bit of effort, be able to find out a lot about his personal life . It is important that, somewhere in the web-trail that we create, it is possible to find out about his childhood, his (deceased) parents and various significant details about his life (e.g that he had a puppy, that his father was a soldier, that his mother lost a baby in childbirth etc). This is all bait for JE's hot-reading researchers.

The Sting:

We make an appointment with JE in the name of Julian P Rothsmayer for a reading. We give him (and his researchers) planty of time to follow the web-trail we have set up to give them something to research and brief JE with.

We then send someone in for the reading, posing as Julian P Rothsmayer and fully wired with recording equipment.

Our agent (Julian P Rothsmayer) makes a point of tieing JE down about the sources of the information he comes up with. We use questions like "Are you really talking to my mother now?" "Are you really getting this information from the afterlife?". Since this is a 1:1 reading rather than a TV show I am sure JE will be less cautious about what he says.

Our agent exits from the meeting armed with a very valuable recording.

The Court Case.

We have two options:

1.We prosecute JE for deception and fraud (and whatever else - we need help from a legal expert here). Our evidence is a clear recording of his statements that we can set against the evidence that all the information he "channelled" was actually spurious and only available on a fake website.

or

2. Our infuential friend finds a suitably public opportunity to make a very damning statement (written and verbal) to the effect that "this man is a liar and a fraud" and we wait until JE chooses to sue us. If he doesnt we repeat the statement until he has no choice other than to do so and then we use the above evidence in our defence.

OK - thats my dream. Comments please on why its not happening...

[T'ai Chi]

My advice, rethink your approach; this one doesn't seem too wise IMO.

Even if "successful", it would be by trickery. Then, people you are trying to reach could forever doubt what you say about anything and everything, since you may be being tricky there too since you were tricky in the past.

Incidently, that is why the 'magic' approach to organized skepticism is inferior in the long run IMO when compared to the 'detective' approach to organized skepticism.

[Ladewig]

1.We prosecute JE for deception and fraud (and whatever else - we need help from a legal expert here). Our evidence is a clear recording of his statements that we can set against the evidence that all the information he "channelled" was actually spurious and only available on a fake website.



In the U.S., one can sue only for actual damages e.g. the cost of the ticket to attend JE's performance.

It may be fun to fantasize about JE and his ilk getting their comeuppance, but it'll never happen. Peter Popoff was exposed as a cheat and he still takes in money from the gullible religious believers. Uri Geller was photographed cheating and still makes money pretending to be psychic.

ETA: there is only one force that could overcome JE "powers" - Oprah's powers. If she went to town on these BS artists they'd be lucky to take in a twentieth of what they are making now.

[Kochanski]

You have an interesting plan, but nope I don't think it would work very well either. A male subject would be suspicious. Female more likely.

Beyond that I am sure he would be too slippery to fall into any traps. Cold readers are especially adept at turning any wrong answer to their advantage. He won't answer any questions. He will always be the one asking the questions. As soon as your subject appeared to be a bit savvy he would find a way out of the whole thing.

Detective work is a far better way to catch him out. If you could catch someone working for him doing leg work for him to enable him to do HOT reading, well, that would absolutely give you a shot at nailing him.

Ladewig is right. Even if you could catch him, more likely than not, he would lay low for a bit, then start back up again with a group of his true believers and get right back into the game.

It is amazing in the litigious society we live in that sues for all sorts of spurious things that prosecuting actual frauds is so difficult. I am sure that is because touching anything remotely "faith" based is taboo. Unfortunately, our "faith" based friends have given themselves a great out in the only way we might have a chance to get them, tax evasion. JE can't dodge that one, but faith healers can. Somehow, I think JE is too smart to try anything that would get him into tax problems.

[Flange Desire]

2. Our infuential friend finds a suitably public opportunity to make a very damning statement (written and verbal) to the effect that "this man is a liar and a fraud" and we wait until JE chooses to sue us.


Problem here is that JE (and his supporters) will just ignore them.
The issue devolves down to a question of influence ...

Plenty of people make damning statements againt frauds every day (eg, ref http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/), but how do you get people to listen?

How does one successfully lobby against such quacks and frauds?

nb, this is not a rhetoriocal question - I personally have had almost zero success lobbying - in my case, against the promotion of homeopaths and other quacks, by a state government body, down here in oz.

[Marker]

Ah well, thanks for ruining my fantasy. I suppose I'll have to go back to my other one (the one with an AK47, fast car and Claudia Schiffer professing her eternal gratitude...) :rolleyes:

[Ririon]

...
ETA: there is only one force that could overcome JE "powers" - Oprah's powers. If she went to town on these BS artists they'd be lucky to take in a twentieth of what they are making now.
THAT would work. What we need is some skepchicks to "infiltrate" Harpo and some woo to really provoke Oprah. A longshot but it would work.

[alfaniner]

By the way, no "s".

[Flo]

THAT would work. What we need is some skepchicks to "infiltrate" Harpo and some woo to really provoke Oprah. A longshot but it would work.

for a while at best. I'm not even sure that an official damnation by the pope, the dalai-Lama and a whole synod, followed by a thunderbolt from god itself, would be enough to silence that kind of leeches.

[Beth]

[QUOTE=Flange Desire;1480075]Problem here is that JE (and his supporters) will just ignore them.
The issue devolves down to a question of influence ...

I think you are absolutely right. It really comes down the question of who do people trust. And I think the point about trickery was good. Even if you succeed through trickery, you aren't going to inspire people to trust you.

[aggle-rithm]

You have an interesting plan, but nope I don't think it would work very well either. A male subject would be suspicious. Female more likely.

Beyond that I am sure he would be too slippery to fall into any traps. Cold readers are especially adept at turning any wrong answer to their advantage. He won't answer any questions. He will always be the one asking the questions. As soon as your subject appeared to be a bit savvy he would find a way out of the whole thing.

Detective work is a far better way to catch him out. If you could catch someone working for him doing leg work for him to enable him to do HOT reading, well, that would absolutely give you a shot at nailing him.

Ladewig is right. Even if you could catch him, more likely than not, he would lay low for a bit, then start back up again with a group of his true believers and get right back into the game.

It is amazing in the litigious society we live in that sues for all sorts of spurious things that prosecuting actual frauds is so difficult. I am sure that is because touching anything remotely "faith" based is taboo. Unfortunately, our "faith" based friends have given themselves a great out in the only way we might have a chance to get them, tax evasion. JE can't dodge that one, but faith healers can. Somehow, I think JE is too smart to try anything that would get him into tax problems.

JE has a legal "out" prepared for this sort of thing. The fine print of his shows says "for entertainment purposes". So you could only win if you could prove you weren't entertained. I, personally, would find it quite entertaining to see JE taken down a peg.

[Psi Baba]

"Are you really getting this information from the afterlife?".
I don't think this type of question would work anyway as he would just say, he doesn't know where it comes from. He never comes right out and claims he talks to the dead--he prefers to imply it, or rather he prefers to have his subject/audience infer it from the things he says. That's why he always says "validation." What that really means is that the subjects/audience make themselves believe what they want to believe, with no culpability on JE's part. Very clever. Very difficult to prove fraud when it's done like that. I woudn't be surprised to learn that his act was heavily vetted by attorneys prior to launching the television show.

Another problem is that what if he or his team doesn't do any research on the ficiticious person and he just wings it? Well, one might expect he'd come up totally wrong on everything since Julian P Rothsmayer doesn't really exist. But what if, just by chance (not too unlikely, since cold-read hits are all by chance), he stated things that seemed to match up with the actual actor playing Julian P Rothsmayer? If that happened and word got out, the whole plan would backfire and only strengthen JE's position. Supporters would claim he saw through the facade and read the actual person. It's a slim chance, but I think it would be preferable not leave such loopholes open.

Having said all that, the post the aggle-rithm made while I was typing this sort of makes everthing else moot, as the disclaimer would probably protect JE from litigation, as a-r pointed out.

On an unrelated note, Marker, your avatar reminds me of a film called "La Jetée" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056119/), composed entirely of still frames, and made by a person named Chris Marker. You're not him, are you?

[TimmyBerry]

I'd almost say that one should send a convincing cross-dresser to play the part of the "victim".

[Ririon]

for a while at best. I'm not even sure that an official damnation by the pope, the dalai-Lama and a whole synod, followed by a thunderbolt from god itself, would be enough to silence that kind of leeches.
You seem to imply that the Pope, Dalai Lama, a synod and God Almighty all combined have more influence than Oprah over the American public. I'm skeptical... ;)

But your main point is of course 100 % valid.

[Luke T.]

A long time ago on the tvtalkshows.com John Edward board, we found fairly solid evidence JE got information off a web site for someone he did a reading for on his show.

It had zero impact on the believers.

You'd be surprised what you can learn on lexis-nexis about people. I found quite a bit of correlation between some JE readings and stuff that I found on lexis-nexis for the same people.

You have to book a seat at a JE show at least two weeks in advance with your real name and a credit card number.

[Flo]

You seem to imply that the Pope, Dalai Lama, a synod and God Almighty all combined have more influence than Oprah over the American public. I'm skeptical... ;)


I'm too.


But your main point is of course 100 % valid.


Oh, do I know ! My MIL in Arizona is an afficionada of (yeech!) Sylvia Browne, despite having been milked of hundreds of $ for a lot of platitudes about her deceased sister, first husband and daughter and more inane pseudo-medical advice for herself (she's admitted so, but still thinks "there's something to it" :rolleyes: ). The only good point is that she tends to hide the books and avoids watching the shows whenever I'm there, because I tend to snigger, and she doesn't want to look stupid in front of her sophisticated French DIL :D ...

[CFLarsen]

My advice, rethink your approach; this one doesn't seem too wise IMO.

Even if "successful", it would be by trickery. Then, people you are trying to reach could forever doubt what you say about anything and everything, since you may be being tricky there too since you were tricky in the past.

Perhaps. How else do you suggest that we expose people like John Edward, Sylvia Browne, faith healers, psychic surgeons, etc.?

Is it not very effective to see a psychic fail completely, because (s)he "talked" to the wrong spirit?

Incidently, that is why the 'magic' approach to organized skepticism is inferior in the long run IMO when compared to the 'detective' approach to organized skepticism.

What is the "magic" approach vs. the "detective" approach"?

[Dr Adequate]

I have a better idea, involving Africanized bees.

[JLam]

Once people make an emotional investment in something, they're very unlikely to change thier minds. Once they've made and emotional AND financial investment, you can almost always write them off as a lost cause.

Look at the whole James Frey "scandal". The guy basically admitted to lying about his book, and he went on Oprah where she basically threw him to the dogs. What happened on Oprah's own message boards? They turned on OPRAH! People were defending Frey to a ridiculous extent.

It would be the same thing with John Edward. His true believers would be right back on the wagon in a matter of minutes.

[Flo]

I have a better idea, involving Africanized bees.

.. and a steamroller, cans of green paint, a shotgun and rock salt, ...

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Once people make an emotional investment in something, they're very unlikely to change thier minds. Once they've made and emotional AND financial investment, you can almost always write them off as a lost cause.

Look at the whole James Frey "scandal". The guy basically admitted to lying about his book, and he went on Oprah where she basically threw him to the dogs. What happened on Oprah's own message boards? They turned on OPRAH! People were defending Frey to a ridiculous extent.

It would be the same thing with John Edward. His true believers would be right back on the wagon in a matter of minutes.



Good point.
Not even people's love of the Holy Oprah can match their need to believe...

[exarch]

.. and a steamroller, cans of green paint, a shotgun and rock salt, ...
Rock salt would sting, but a steam roller?

[Overman]

Luke T and J Lam,

Are unfortunately correct.

HOWEVER,

That is some pretty disgusting apathy. Do you guys have any secernios or ideas on what would make the JE cult turn. It cannot be impossible. These still are people who have to use reason at some point in their daily life...

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Luke T and J Lam,

Are unfortunately correct.

HOWEVER,

That is some pretty disgusting apathy. Do you guys have any secernios or ideas on what would make the JE cult turn. It cannot be impossible. These still are people who have to use reason at some point in their daily life...



I see you are an optimist....

[Overman]

Only when the weekend approaches...

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

I'd be perfectly willing to picket a JE taping, in all honesty, altho I don't think it'd do much good.

[Overman]

You shouldn't picket scabs...

[exarch]

That is some pretty disgusting apathy. Do you guys have any secernios or ideas on what would make the JE cult turn. It cannot be impossible. These still are people who have to use reason at some point in their daily life...
The question to ask any believer in woo, is this:
"is there anything, any kind of proof, that I could show you, which would cinvince you that what you believe is wrong?"
Sadly, if the answer to that question is "No", then you're just out of luck, as you are with the staunchest JE-supporters. They may even come up with an answer to that question, but don't think they won't find some way of dismissing the evidence somehow in order to hang on to their treasured beliefs.

I guess the answer to your question "Do these people have to use reason at some point in their daily life" might surprisingly be answered "no" for some of them. I think they must rely entirely on hearsay and gut feeling for everything. Never needing reason or logic to solve a problem. How else would you explain someone who falls for every fad and scam under the sun? They must just be lucky enough to have made it this far in life without getting killed. Maybe because they have husbands who make sure they don't spend all their money on crap.

Sorry ... [/RANT]

[Steven Howard]

Four or five years ago, Dateline ran footage of John Edward "receiving" information during his act that he'd earlier learned in the course of ordinary conversation. That earlier conversation was also on tape. When the reporter questioned him about it, Edward's defense boiled down to "I'm not smart enough to remember a conversation from a few hours earlier in the day and use that information in my act."

If getting caught cheating, all on his own, on national TV and then offering the lamest excuse ever didn't make him go away, I don't see how a tricky set-up like this would have any affect at all.

And really, what would be the point? How many people take John Edward seriously any more, or even remember who he is? It's all James Van Praagh and Alison Dubois and people like that these days.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

You shouldn't picket scabs...


You don't think JE is sort of like a scab in desperate need of picking?

[exarch]

You don't think JE is sort of like a scab in desperate need of picking?
Yeah, he's already going to leave nasty scars on those he "helped". Might as well have the fun of playing with him ...

[thaiboxerken]

I think this is a better sting:

Set up an appointment with John Edward.

Punch him in the nose and beat the crap out of him.

Then say "bet you didn't see that coming!"


Stephen Howard is correct. These high profile "psychics" often get caught in lies and deception. However, they only lose a few fans because of it. The rest of the fans simply dismiss the facts and continue believing.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

I think this is a better sting:

Set up an appointment with John Edward.

Punch him in the nose and beat the crap out of him.

Then say "bet you didn't see that coming!"


I'm having Young Ones flashbacks from that...

[Kochanski]

I have an interesting idea, but it can not be discussed on the forum with our lurking friends about. PM me if you are interested ;)

[Overman]

I think this is a better sting:

Set up an appointment with John Edward.

Punch him in the nose and beat the crap out of him.

Then say "bet you didn't see that coming!"


Stephen Howard is correct. These high profile "psychics" often get caught in lies and deception. However, they only lose a few fans because of it. The rest of the fans simply dismiss the facts and continue believing.


Priceless!!!!

[patnray]

THAT would work. What we need is some skepchicks to "infiltrate" Harpo and some woo to really provoke Oprah. A longshot but it would work.
I doubt it. Oprah believes "there is no such thing as coincidence" (and the corollary "everything happens for a reason"). Logic and critical thinking are not among her stronger skills.

[exarch]

Is Oprah the most influential TV personality?
Perhaps there are others who could make an impact?

[DrMatt]

I doubt it. Oprah believes "there is no such thing as coincidence" (and the corollary "everything happens for a reason"). Logic and critical thinking are not among her stronger skills.

Exactly. You need a critically thinking celebrity -- whom people trust.
Suze Orman?

[Ladewig]

I doubt it. Oprah believes "there is no such thing as coincidence" (and the corollary "everything happens for a reason"). Logic and critical thinking are not among her stronger skills.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Didn't she have JVP on a few years ago and she decided that his act was over the top? She even mildly called him on it. Anyways, she hasn't had any mediums on in a few years, so she doesn't put much faith in the ADCing crowd.

[Red Siegfried]

Once people make an emotional investment in something, they're very unlikely to change thier minds. Once they've made and emotional AND financial investment, you can almost always write them off as a lost cause.

Look at the whole James Frey "scandal". The guy basically admitted to lying about his book, and he went on Oprah where she basically threw him to the dogs. What happened on Oprah's own message boards? They turned on OPRAH! People were defending Frey to a ridiculous extent.

It would be the same thing with John Edward. His true believers would be right back on the wagon in a matter of minutes.

Hey, I think you're on to something there. Maybe we can utilize the talents of JE to get rid of Oprah. Maybe he's not so bad afterall!

[Marker]

Once people make an emotional investment in something, they're very unlikely to change thier minds. .

Someone more eloquent than I once said:

"You cannot use logical argument to change an opinion that wasnt originally arrived at by logical argument" - or better words to that effect.

Does anyone know the original?

[Dr Adequate]

"You can't reason a man out of an opinion he didn't reason himself into." Something like that.

A quick google shows that it was said by:

(a) Oscar Wilde
(b) Jonathan Swift
(c) Mark Twain

Bloody internet.

[exarch]

I thought it was "You can't use reason and logic to talk a person out of a position they didn't use reason and/or logic to get themselves into in the first place".

What's the name of that site where you can search for quotes?

[Overman]

"You can't reason a man out of an opinion he didn't reason himself into." Something like that.

A quick google shows that it was said by:

(a) Oscar Wilde
(b) Jonathan Swift
(c) Mark Twain

Bloody internet.


Nice, we have a song called Mark Twain and I will lead off it just about everytime with this awesome quote.

Thanks!

[articulett]

I think the believers would still believe--look at Randi's Carlos experiment. Believers will believe and say things like (he might think, he's faking it...but he's really is psychic or talking to the dead.)

I am a woman. I once believed this stuff. I think women fall for this stuff more--but I don't think it's because they are dumber. I think it's because they are more trusting. It doesn't occur to them that authoritarian figures might be deluded, manipulating them, wrong, or lying because they are less likely to seek power by doing the above. Plus, we are taught that "faith" is a way of knowing truth. And we don't have that testosterone boost that pushes us to confront authority. Most women prefer to be left alone rather than confront someone whom they perceive as having power over them--

I perceived certain experiences as confirming of my "woo" beliefs, and I now think it was confirmation bias. I hadn't really been taught the tools necessary at separating fact from fiction. And I was also told "if it makes you a better (happier?) person, what does it matter if it's true or not?"

But I love truth and useful knowledge. And I think it does matter. Being a trustworthy person makes you more trusting--you don't perceive motives that you don't have. Without the tools in a skeptics toolbox, good trusting kind people are prone to all sorts of hucksters, deluded folks, power abusers, "prophets" and the like. It ends up that you make excuses for the soothsayers, gods, prophets, etc. and blame yourself when such things don't "work" right. (If you don't see the Emporer's new clothes, you must not be noble enough to perceive it).

[articulett]

I thought it was "You can't use reason and logic to talk a person out of a position they didn't use reason and/or logic to get themselves into in the first place".

What's the name of that site where you can search for quotes?

I just read something to that effect from a young Christian girl trying to talk a former Christian (now atheist) into believing--

She said, "anything that a person is argued into believing they can argue their way out of"--it appeared to be a pithy phrase a preacher had given her. (normalbobsmith.com --sheeples section-- (girl named Beckie))

I think you can reason a person towards logic via questions and analogies--but they have to believe they came to the conclusion themselves. If a person has invested much in a belief (their ego, money, time, hope, etc.) and/or suffered ridicule or condemnation for a belief--they are much more likely to convince themselves that it is true. They will "convert" others as a means of "proving it" to themselves and seek out confirmation biased proof.
No one wants to feel that they have been foolish or that they are (egads) a flip flopper. It helps a person as they can see their beliefs and understanding of the world as "evolving" rather than changing.

[WanderinWTF]

In the U.S., one can sue only for actual damages e.g. the cost of the ticket to attend JE's performance.

It may be fun to fantasize about JE and his ilk getting their comeuppance, but it'll never happen. Peter Popoff was exposed as a cheat and he still takes in money from the gullible religious believers. Uri Geller was photographed cheating and still makes money pretending to be psychic.

ETA: there is only one force that could overcome JE "powers" - Oprah's powers. If she went to town on these BS artists they'd be lucky to take in a twentieth of what they are making now.
First of all JE is the real deal. Sorry to burst your bubble here's a tissue. 2nd Oprah will never ever ? JE.

[Serenity]

Is Oprah the most influential TV personality?
Perhaps there are others who could make an impact?I'd say the world is a better place with Oprah around, despite her religion and woo woo Angel Network. Sure I'd rather see a more skeptical host. My worry would be another Jerry Springer or JE type taking over the time slot.
:duck: [Waiting for the rocks to get hurled]

[articulett]

I'd say the world is a better place with Oprah around, despite her religion and woo woo Angel Network. Sure I'd rather see a more skeptical host. My worry would be another Jerry Springer or JE type taking over the time slot.
:duck: [Waiting for the rocks to get hurled]

Oprah will evolve. The Frey book will help. Women tend to be a little more trusting...it takes us longer to question the basic premises told to us--there isn't that testosterone boost to challenge authority. It doesn't occur to us that others might have lesser motives than us...we make excuses for misplaced trust...

But I think Oprah will work her way towards reason. She's smart (and evolution can be slow)--but I'm willing to bet on it. I, too, get sick of woo on t.v.--I hate it when news anchors and even the President says, "we'll pray that everyone is safe,..." and "thank god..." or "everything happens for a reason...(yes, but not from on high--the reason you stub your toe is because solid objects can't pass through eachother not because god wants you to look down when you walk or whatever...)

Woo is insidious--and in a world where it's drummed into our heads that faith is better than evidence for "higher truths" it takes a lot to get people to even start to question the paradigm. But with enough experience, brains, and questions asked, those who really value truth have a good chance of leaving the demon haunted world behind and shedding a little light for the rest.

Don't you wish Julia Sweeney could host a show?

[exarch]

I just read something to that effect from a young Christian girl trying to talk a former Christian (now atheist) into believing--

She said, "anything that a person is argued into believing they can argue their way out of"--it appeared to be a pithy phrase a preacher had given her. (normalbobsmith.com --sheeples section-- (girl named Beckie))

I think you can reason a person towards logic via questions and analogies--but they have to believe they came to the conclusion themselves. If a person has invested much in a belief (their ego, money, time, hope, etc.) and/or suffered ridicule or condemnation for a belief--they are much more likely to convince themselves that it is true. They will "convert" others as a means of "proving it" to themselves and seek out confirmation biased proof.
No one wants to feel that they have been foolish or that they are (egads) a flip flopper. It helps a person as they can see their beliefs and understanding of the world as "evolving" rather than changing.
I've debated many a christian in the years prior to arriving here at the JREF board. We enjoyed getting fundies over at the previous board I was at. They would try to convince us using knowledge they'd obviously remembered from their preachers' sermons, and unable to defend themselves against even the simplest questions we asked them. Some of the better posters there were actually believers themselves. The big difference being they'd actually did some thinking and had arrived at the position they were in using logic and reason.

I remember sparklecat here at JREF (a poster who unfortunately hasn't posted since just after TAM3). She was still somewhat of a believer when she came to this board. Although the reason she was here was because we were offering her answers to some of the questions people at RaptureReady didn't even want her to ask. As far as I know, she ended up becoming an atheist in the end.

Anyway, my point: The way to make people become skeptics is to let them think for themselves, and make them realise that their belief makes no sense. And indeed, it doesn't make any sense, you just have to make them come to that conclusion on their own, rather than insisting you are right. If anything shows that preaching doesn't work, it's the any fundies who've tried that approach.

And yes, the same goes for every kind of woo belief of course.

In case of JE though, I have no idea how to make people conclude he's a fraud, except telling them that his act is nothing special, and his behavior isn't nearly as kind as they'd like to think.

[DSE]

I was just watching the TAM3 DVD and Christopher Dawkins asked a interesting question during IIG's presentation on exposing Carla Baron. He asked why they spent their time debunking her, and not going after the TV stations themselves. Their response was basically that they are trying, but the TV stations don't respond. Seems like the best way to get TV stations to respond is to go after their advertisers.

Does anyone know of an attempted boycott of advertisers to psychic shows where they don't admit the show is fiction/for entertainment only?

It seems like you could:
1. Identify the top 3 advertisers to these programs.
2. Get a few thousand skeptics to to submit letters to the shows and advertisers saying that if the shows didn't put clear disclaimers (stating that they were for entertainment purposes only, that psychic ability has never been able to pass a scientific test, and there are non-paranormal explanations for all known psychic phenomena) within say 5 months, that they would organized a boycott the top 3 advertisers.
3. Send out a press release to the media that a skeptic group has demanded that if psychic shows don't put up a disclaimer then they will boycott products - seems like something they might like.
4. Use any media attention to sign-up new people.
5. If necessary boycott the products.

Any thoughts?

[DSE]

If people think it's viable, I'd be happy to set up a site and see if I could get things moving.

[Jekyll]

"You can't reason a man out of an opinion he didn't reason himself into." Something like that.

A quick google shows that it was said by:

(a) Oscar Wilde
(b) Jonathan Swift
(c) Mark Twain

Bloody internet.
How about this?
"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." ~ Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845)

And a better Wilde quote:
"One is tempted to define man as a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason."~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Critic as Artist, part 2, 1891

[exarch]

If people think it's viable, I'd be happy to set up a site and see if I could get things moving.
Interesting idea.

[Serenity]

Oprah will evolve. The Frey book will help. Women tend to be a little more trusting...it takes us longer to question the basic premises told to us--there isn't that testosterone boost to challenge authority. It doesn't occur to us that others might have lesser motives than us...we make excuses for misplaced trust...

But I think Oprah will work her way towards reason. She's smart (and evolution can be slow)--but I'm willing to bet on it. I, too, get sick of woo on t.v.--I hate it when news anchors and even the President says, "we'll pray that everyone is safe,..." and "thank god..." or "everything happens for a reason...(yes, but not from on high--the reason you stub your toe is because solid objects can't pass through eachother not because god wants you to look down when you walk or whatever...)

Woo is insidious--and in a world where it's drummed into our heads that faith is better than evidence for "higher truths" it takes a lot to get people to even start to question the paradigm. But with enough experience, brains, and questions asked, those who really value truth have a good chance of leaving the demon haunted world behind and shedding a little light for the rest.

Don't you wish Julia Sweeney could host a show?
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Julia Sweeney would surely be a dream choice as talk show host in any time slot.

I think you’re right; Oprah will evolve and has been doing so to an extent, albeit not as quickly as we’d like. Her show exhibits so much influence around the globe, can you imagine if we had her on our side on some of these larger skeptic issues? I would give her considerable credit on changing the minds of mainstream America on gay marriage, gender, and racial issues. Most people are aware of her on-the-air story about Nate, Opera’s frequent and well loved, designer guest who lost his partner during the Tsunami tragedy. I have no doubt minds were changed during that heart-wrenching episode. She has the gift of connecting with people in personalized ways which can change deeply-set beliefs overnight. So while she doesn’t punch our ticket to skepdom in many areas, she does manage to stretch the envelope of understanding in others. Some might say she’s America’s barometer and/or weather front of change. One thing is for certain, her sphere of influence cannot be denied. Find a way to affect her opinion and you’ll change millions.

Oprah (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113339300437910675-YTXu084JPhOwH2D0gtmFGhityiM_20061130.html?mod=blog s) has the #1 rated English TV show on MBC Arab satellite station TV in Saudi Arabia. Satellite TV is banned there, but that's largely ignored and she is viewed by 9 of 10 households there.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

One of the problems is in order to catch them (assuming that they are not all pure cold readers) with irrefutible proof you would have to break the law. By that I mean, if they are not cold readers they have done research on the audiences, then it is on their PC's. If it is there, it can be obtained, although not legally w/o a warrant.

Seeing as how JE is marketed as "entertainment" he'd be a hard target to nail. Better off going after the local palm readers and, if you want bigger fish, Sylvia.

[CFLarsen]

Seeing as how JE is marketed as "entertainment" he'd be a hard target to nail.

JE is marketed as "entertainment" only because his show was produced in New York State, where it is illegal to sell your services as a seer.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

JE is marketed as "entertainment" only because his show was produced in New York State, where it is illegal to sell your services as a seer.

It does make an awfully convenient loophole for his legal team though.

[CFLarsen]

It does make an awfully convenient loophole for his legal team though.
Which, come to think of it, may be why he chose NY to tape his show in.

[Kochanski]

Which, come to think of it, may be why he chose NY to tape his show in.

Well, sad to say he is a New Yorker so the NY location makes sense that way.

I "love" the inane tagline that WE channel has for his new show. So carefully put together to avoid any legal problems too, just subtle enough to confuse the woos:

He doesn't make predictions, he makes connections.

So they can pimp the show as a "touchy feely" feel good show rather than a psychic show :p

[DSE]

But that's the point right. They are intentionally trying to avoid the disclaimer. It may not be cause for a lawsuit, but it seems like a legitimate demand to make from advertisers. Why not try to raise awareness of the issue, and they fact that he is just claiming to be an entertainer, but targeting the top 3 advertisers? If you're supporting someone who is intentionally tricking people, I don't think you should get off without having to explain why (well, I don't think you should get off at all, but I think explaining why is a start).

Do people think the boycott model I outlined above is feasible? I'm happy to persue it, but I thought JREF would be a good idea to bounce the idea around first.

[tsg]

If you're supporting someone who is intentionally tricking people, I don't think you should get off without having to explain why.

I'll give you a hint: it starts with "M" and ends with "ONEY". The gullible are easier to sell to, especially those who will take claims at face value without question.

[DSE]

I'll give you a hint: it starts with "M" and ends with "ONEY".
Exactly.

Is there a way to make it cost them revenue for supporting psychics. Right now they get the benefit without any drawbacks. There are people who would feel negatively toward a company that publicly supported psychics, but they get off without having to make a stand. I want to force them to either publicly admit that they support psychics or demand a clear disclaimer is put up before each show. I doubt we can take make it cost more than they make from believers, but we can make it cost them something.

[exarch]

Personally, I kind of like Kochanski's idea to only allow companies like Massengil to sponsor psychic shows. They could even use South Park characters in their commercial ...

[Kochanski]

Exactly.

Is there a way to make it cost them revenue for supporting psychics. Right now they get the benefit without any drawbacks. There are people who would feel negatively toward a company that publicly supported psychics, but they get off without having to make a stand. I want to force them to either publicly admit that they support psychics or demand a clear disclaimer is put up before each show. I doubt we can take make it cost more than they make from believers, but we can make it cost them something.

Problem is that cable commercial time is not always bought by the highest caliber advertisers. Kevin Trudeau has commercials on cable channels, just to name one :p I doubt most advertisers for the show will be high enough profile to care if a few skeptics write and complain. They want sheep and shows like JE give them just that.

[grunion]

Don't you wish Julia Sweeney could host a show?I agree that Julia Sweeney would make an interesting talk show host, yet let's not assume that a skeptical talk show would have any real impact on the problem. First off any psychic who would actually show up would have to actually believe in their abilities, ruling out most of our targets, and I think, any practicing "professional psychics." Thus she'd be preaching to the converted. Secondly, I can think of quite a few skeptics/athiests that have greater star power than she does (Penn Gillette, Phil Donahue, Ron Reagan Jr., Bill Maher, David Attenborough, even Michael Kinsley or Andy Rooney) all who have been granted significant time in front of the cameras on US television but I truly doubt they have done anything more for the cause of critical thinking than provide skeptics with additional ammunition and confidence - valuable but hardly a threat to JE and others of his ilk.

I do think there's a good chance that a woman would indeed have more influence over women, so I'd love to see her being given a shot. But a real transformation in popular thinking is going to take more fundamental cultural shifts than talk shows. You know all the psychic-themed TV shows that get major advertising dollars and prime time exposure on major networks? Imagine if "Touched By An Angel" were replaced with a weekly drama about how religion has failed people and only by turning to science or rationalism are their problems solved - or rather, do they at least have a handle on how to solve their problems themselves. Imagine if "Medium" were replaced by "Human," starring a Randi-clone who each week, in an entertaining storyline, reveals the scams behind the paranormal. Imagine an X-Files where reality prevails. All could be as entertaining as their woo counterparts.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Problem is that cable commercial time is not always bought by the highest caliber advertisers. Kevin Trudeau has commercials on cable channels, just to name one :p I doubt most advertisers for the show will be high enough profile to care if a few skeptics write and complain. They want sheep and shows like JE give them just that.

Him and Dr. James Chappel. Always see commercials from that crackpot.

[tsg]

Exactly.

Is there a way to make it cost them revenue for supporting psychics. Right now they get the benefit without any drawbacks. There are people who would feel negatively toward a company that publicly supported psychics, but they get off without having to make a stand. I want to force them to either publicly admit that they support psychics or demand a clear disclaimer is put up before each show. I doubt we can take make it cost more than they make from believers, but we can make it cost them something.

It's only really going to be effective if it will cost the advertisers more than they get from the ads. Any less and it won't change their behavior. It might make you feel good for sticking it to them, but it won't accomplish much else.

The way to sting the psychics is to get fewer people watching them. Then the ads, and thus their revenue, dry up all by themselves. How to do that, however, is the question of the hour. What we need is someone to do a "Psychics Exposed" TV show explaining the tricks the psychics use. It won't convince the true bleevers, but the people who are amazed because they don't know how it's done might be swayed once they do. A magician friend of mine once told me that the only difference between "sheer magic" and "cheap trick" is knowing how it's done.

[exarch]

You know all the psychic-themed TV shows that get major advertising dollars and prime time exposure on major networks? Imagine if "Touched By An Angel" were replaced with a weekly drama about how religion has failed people and only by turning to science or rationalism are their problems solved - or rather, do they at least have a handle on how to solve their problems themselves. Imagine if "Medium" were replaced by "Human," starring a Randi-clone who each week, in an entertaining storyline, reveals the scams behind the paranormal. Imagine an X-Files where reality prevails. All could be as entertaining as their woo counterparts.
I remember a show on TV many years ago (can't remember the name) that started off by investigating a claim of a haunted house and a UFO sighting. They ended up exposing both as hoaxes I think. The first episode had a very documentary-like feel to it. I remember thinking "hey, this is interesting, and they offer you a peek at the answers in the back of the book every episode". Well, they didn't. Not after that first show anyway, all they'd show was supposedly "real" psychic phenomena. It was still an interesting show, but it lost all attachment to reality (for me anyway) when they started claiming that all this stuff was real. Psychics, ghosts, immortals, time travellers from the 17th century, alien parasites, ...

There has to be a market for this kind of show that actually tackles a different kind of woo every week. Inevitably, each show is going to offend some people, and perhaps some will have their beliefs attacked every week. But most people are going to have a lot of stuff they don't believe get dealt with, then see a show about their own pet belief, and perhaps it'll plant a seed of doubt somehow ...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I remember a show on TV many years ago (can't remember the name) that started off by investigating a claim of a haunted house and a UFO sighting. They ended up exposing both as hoaxes I think.
<snip for brevity>
show about their own pet belief, and perhaps it'll plant a seed of doubt somehow ...

I find the show "Is It Real?" on the National Geographic channel to be reasonably balanced (as one can expect when taking in to account marketing wanting a show to appeal to a large audience).

[exarch]

I find the show "Is It Real?" on the National Geographic channel to be reasonably balanced (as one can expect when taking in to account marketing wanting a show to appeal to a large audience).
I think Joe Nickel (and maybe Richard Dawkins) make regular appearances on that show.

[grunion]

There has to be a market for this kind of show that actually tackles a different kind of woo every week. Inevitably, each show is going to offend some people, and perhaps some will have their beliefs attacked every week. But most people are going to have a lot of stuff they don't believe get dealt with, then see a show about their own pet belief, and perhaps it'll plant a seed of doubt somehow ...I've seen a few of these "debunking the paranormal" shows and they are indeed good but are relegated to the high-numbered channels and don't draw the kind of mass audience that it would take to help bring about a shift from woo to sanity. They are interesting in that they unmask the tricks that are used by the scammers but the credophile reaction is largely, "OK, they found one bad apple in this case but the rest are on the level."

I think we have to fight fire with fire. The basic underlying theme of Touched By An Angel and the others is that the paranormal exists and they present an entertaining melodrama within that reality. Since that is the basic assumption upon which their whole universe is built, and engaging actors and writers are brought in to make that universe real, those basic assumptions are tacitly accepted on a more psychological than intellectual level.

We have to come up with a slew of entertaining dramas and comedies and action shows that play in the fundamental universe in which religion and psychics and alien encounters and such are just one big hoax. If we can make them entertaining enough they will get an audience and thus advertising and great airtime. Hypocrites like JE and Sylvia will be marginalized into oblivion. Woos will first argue, then hide, then, ultimately, convert.

[Hellbound]

We need more Scooby Doo.

Which, I'm actually happy to report, is happening to an extent. Boomerang has made a new Scooby-Doo series, "What's New Scooby-Doo?". Original characters, and just like in the old shows, the "ghost", "zombie", or "bog monster" always turns out to be Mr. Jones, the butler, or Jack Smit, the park ranger, etc, etc.

I really loved that show as a kid, and like it even more now. That's where we'll make the changes, I think. Get across the idea, as children, that the "paranormal" is almost always a fake/scam/whatever, as has been the case in real-life.

[Dcdrac]

I would have got away with it too if it wasn't for those darn kids......said Frankensteins monster

[mrfreeze]

Yeah but they then went against that whole idea with the animated movies. You know, where they stumble across real witches, zombies, and vampires. Oh and as of late, real chucacabra!

[exarch]

I think we had a discussion like this before. And as came up back then, even in the cartoons, sometimes the alien would be real.

As for the movies, I've only seen the first.
Which reminds me... Isla Fisher ... sweet...

[DrKyle]

That's a pretty good idea, and well thought out. Except for one thing.


Telling everyone in here. If I were John Edwards, and I was willing and knowingly frauding people, I'd be essentially looking over my shoulder occassionally (and rightly so!) to see who might jump out and decide to nut me with a large book (my preference when hitting people with literature is the Principia, especially the leather editions of yesteryear...though if worse comes to worse, nothing beats War and Peace for the slappage factor)....You can tell I'm not very subtle, can't you? haha

Anyhoo...I'd be likely to either A) Come to places like this and see what everyones saying , or
B) At least be in the know about it. Have lots of PA's...(I assume he does,...who do this sort of thing..politicians do, I expect scandalous celebrities do as well *shrug*

At saying that, it's good people are thinking of these things *smile*

[Hellbound]

Yeah but they then went against that whole idea with the animated movies. You know, where they stumble across real witches, zombies, and vampires. Oh and as of late, real chucacabra!

True, but it's much better than many of the other similarly themed shows, still.

*sigh*

If only we could require a license to breed....

;)

[Jon.]

*sigh*

If only we could require a license to breed....

;)

Sadly, if we could, I rather doubt it would be the skeptics who would control the distribution of such licenses. :(

[DSE]

Sadly, if we could, I rather doubt it would be the skeptics who would control the distribution of such licenses. :(
Ha!