Skeptics without Scruples: A Recipe for Disaster?

[CBVan]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

[Bikewer]

So scam artists who are credulous are more to be admired? I think that folks who indulge in "questionable" schemes, marketing, etc. are at best true believers and at worst cynics, which is not quite the same thing as being a skeptic.
What about the tobacco corporation executive baldly lying to congress about the addictive qualities of nicotine? Would this person qualify as a skeptic?

To me, skepticism is a means of looking at the world and testing statements.
It does not imply any particular moral sense; I rely on philosophy for that.

[CBVan]

So scam artists who are credulous are more to be admired? I think that folks who indulge in "questionable" schemes, marketing, etc. are at best true believers and at worst cynics, which is not quite the same thing as being a skeptic.
What about the tobacco corporation executive baldly lying to congress about the addictive qualities of nicotine? Would this person qualify as a skeptic?

To me, skepticism is a means of looking at the world and testing statements.
It does not imply any particular moral sense; I rely on philosophy for that.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't think skeptic scammers are to be admired. If anything, they ought to be even more condemned.

[quixotecoyote]

Pish. Everyone on this forum heaps scorn on the woos. Even the CT woo's heap scorn on eachother. What's the moral difference between holding someone in contempt for letting others bilk them, and bilking them yourself. They get bilked either way, so there's no difference from a utilitarian philosophy. You think it either way, so there's no difference from a Christian philosophy.

Besides, when "Desert Coyote's Demagnatized Quantum Meditation Cleansing Elixir, powered by Di-hydrogen Oxide!!!" hits the alternative health food websites, it's gonna be the best thing ever

[Pipirr]

But no doubt there are scammers out there who are extremely skeptical, and cynical, about their chosen field of woo; yet still they scam. Take Peter Popoff. Scammed people out of thousands and thousands of dollars, got busted, lost it all and is back scamming again. If there was ever a time that he was really a believer, he surely must be a skeptic by now.

But yes, maybe the better description is cynical, not skeptical, for describing what people like this are doing.

[Jeff Corey]

Scum.

[Foolmewunz]

Scum.

What he said!

But it doesn't just pertain to "skeptics" who bilk people, it pertains to anyone of any particular learning/scientific bent who knowingly promotes something that they know is hogwash. You can be a skeptic/sceptic and still be a heartless amoral b*****d when it comes to making money, or advancing yourself. But it's not a pre-requisite. Equally, you can be a fanatical, frothing at the mouth, bible-thumping fundie, (or crystal gazer or astrology fanatic or .... or.... or....) yet never bilk a widow out of her kids' milk money. There's absolutely no correlation.

:spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[blutoski]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

I believe you're correct. This is why there are many magicians and actors involved in skepticism: they recognize the tricks of fakirs, cold-readers, Gellers, faith-healers, &c for what they are.

As an anecdote, my friend's dad did his master's thesis on P.T. Barnum back in the '60s. The family has made a fortune since on the importation of dubious medical devices and substances (they are a major Canadian importer/distributor of ginseng products and other TCM items). It's not a coincidence.

[Yahzi]

But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience?
They are actually less dangerous than the woos.

While amoral skeptics are not motivated by moral concerns, they are still motivated by personal safety and effectivenss. An evil rationalist will tend ot confine himself to the possible.

The woo, on the other hand, can ignore even self-preservation in the pursuit of his lunatic schemes, thus freeing him to cause vastly more damage.

[Moochie]

The carnies of yore developed expertise in divesting people of their hard-earned. Anyone know where the term "shill" comes from? (And don't ask me where "yore" is.)

M.

[Jeff Corey]

"Shilling"?

[Elizabeth I]

The carnies of yore developed expertise in divesting people of their hard-earned. Anyone know where the term "shill" comes from? (And don't ask me where "yore" is.)

shill
1916, "one who acts as a decoy for a gambler, auctioneer, etc." (probably originally circus or carnival argot), probably a shortened form of shillaber (1913) with the same meaning, origin unknown. The verb is attested from 1914.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=shill&searchmode=none

[Dave1001]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

That's been my thought for a while. Folks running these businesses aren't dumb, they're just exploitive. Anyone with the intelligence to run a multi-million dollar business over decades is likely to be smart enough to know if what they're selling is woo, in my opinion.

[Cuddles]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

You mean people like Sylvia Browne and John Edwards? I'm fairly sure that most of the successful "psychics" and the like know full well that they are frauds and are just in it for the money. If this wasn't the case, why would they always refuse to be challenged? How can you tell the difference between someone who truly believes rubbish and someone who merely claims they do to get some money?

[CFLarsen]

Can we call people, who knowingly scam people, for "skeptics"?

[ponderingturtle]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

How does this make any difference from say christian con artists, or even better the ones who believe god loves them so much they should take money from others for themselves?

[ponderingturtle]

That's been my thought for a while. Folks running these businesses aren't dumb, they're just exploitive. Anyone with the intelligence to run a multi-million dollar business over decades is likely to be smart enough to know if what they're selling is woo, in my opinion.

Of course they have to have some idea that what they are selling is crap or they would try to take Randi's million.

[Big Les]

Not believing what you're doing isn't the same thing as being a sceptic. Most "unbelieving" con artists probably don't care either way about the truth of what they do. If they disbelieve it's because they're cynics, not sceptics as such.

I think it's pretty much irrelevant what they believe about what they do, other than in the definition of "knowing" fraud vs self-deluded fraud (which I realise can be an important distinction).

[joobz]

Besides, when "Desert Coyote's Demagnatized Quantum Meditation Cleansing Elixir, powered by Di-hydrogen Oxide!!!" hits the alternative health food websites, it's gonna be the best thing ever
When's it coming out? I got a problem with my humors and my spine is out of allignment. I also believe I may have a few ozone holes in my aura.. Will this help?

[luchog]

Can we call people, who knowingly scam people, for "skeptics"?

Of course. It's not a transcendent religious state, after all. One can be a skeptic about just about anything, and still be unethical and/or immoral enough to exploit other's peoples' gullibility to one's advantage. In fact, it's probably much easier to do so as an unethical skeptic, than as a true believer. P.T. Barnum being the quintessential example. A skeptic himself who, predating Houdini and Randi, set about debunking mediums and spiritualists, and offered his own monetary challenge for proof of communication with the dead. (He also played an important part in ending slavery and promoting sufferage for African Americans). Didn't stop him from making a huge amount of money off of hoaxes and hype.

[Foolmewunz]

Of course. It's not a transcendent religious state, after all. One can be a skeptic about just about anything, and still be unethical and/or immoral enough to exploit other's peoples' gullibility to one's advantage.

Oh dear.... "Tear down the altar, ma!"

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[Luke T.]

As I read the forums, a common theme I find is "Only because I have a conscience." referring to not becoming a conman or conwoman. But what about those skeptics that really don't have a conscience? My theory is that they are already running homeopathic/audiophile/other scams, and know full well what they are doing isn't honest.
Any thoughts?

I have often said that I think Sylvia Brown believes in God as much as Randi does. :)

[Foolmewunz]

I have often said that I think Sylvia Brown believes in God as much as Randi does. :)

And I'd be equally willing to bet that Randi talks to spirit guides as often as Sylvia does.:spjimlad: :spjimlad: e.g. Never! Only difference - he doesn't scam people out of money from his "non" conversations, while she makes up prattle and bilks people.

I think the whole problem is as Luchog is putting it. Let's not elevate skepticism to anything greater than it is, our chosen way of viewing claims (or lack of claims) in many areas. That doesn't mean we all see eye to eye politically, sociologically, or philosophically. Skepticism is a means to an end, not the end, itself.

[quixotecoyote]

When's it coming out? I got a problem with my humors and my spine is out of allignment. I also believe I may have a few ozone holes in my aura.. Will this help?

Lemme check with marketing, I'll get back to you.

[Zep]

Lemme check with marketing, I'll get back to you.No. See, you'll never make a scam-artist with a response like that. It really needs to be something like:

"Of course! They're on special! How many would you like?"

Or better still:

"I can get them for you at wholesale prices by the end of the week...if you put a holding deposit on them now. May I have your card-number please?"