Please tell me why I'm wrong.

[briandunning]

If you listen to my Skeptoid podcast (http://skeptoid.com), you know that I break ranks by supporting the peddling of the paranormal, and even being willing to profit from it, should the opportunity arise.

It would be great if we could change the system - make everyone a skeptic - but we never will. We live within a system that can't be changed, and why not profit from that system. You can take advantage of it, and work to change it, at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

PLEASE:
Read - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4003
Listen - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4003.mp3
Subscribe - http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=203844864

I would love to get some more negative feedback on this issue. Should be easy since EVERYONE disagrees with me. :) :)

[Apathia]

I argue that paranormal services are better provided by people who understand their limitations, rather than by those who believe they can do something they can't. In fact, if paranormal services were regulated, this would be the law. Think how much better off believers would be if the paranormal services they received always led them to trained professionals in cases where such is needed.

This is the attitude I have when people ask me for a Reiki (I'm one of those Reiki Master thingys) or other type "energy work" session. I'm up front with them about the limitations and that they'd better be seeing a doctor and following her advice and treatments. Also if their interested I deconstruct energy healing.

But I don't feel I could make a pretense of talking to their dead. That gives nothing but confusion, and I wouldn't have the opportunity to educate them about reality, or at least be honest with them about what I was doing.

It would be neat though to do a very good cold reading and have them praising me for my psychic abilities and then telling them how a cold reading works.

Selling homeopathic snake oil? No thanks! No profit because I'd have to give them their money back when I explained the power of placebo.

[Ryokan]

I would love to get some more negative feedback on this issue.

It's unethical. Do you really need a better reason than that?

[Apathia]

And if you are just giving and reinforcing their addictive fantasies, you are hurting them in the long run.

[Kopji]

This is a question I face almost daily. You are right that I think you are wrong. :)
Describing why that is is more difficult though.

A couple quick thoughts.

1:
The notion that we can promote a virtue (skepticism in this case) by advocating its antithesis seems incorrect. This is something where I think the more simple way is a better way. If promoting the virtue can bring it about, more complex ways may be effective but are less direct and so not better.

Your premise states that we can never change anything, and I would disagree with that. Sometimes things change very slowly.

2:
You get what you nurture. There is a sense that you propose using a form of spiritual authority to achieve your ends. This promotes a society that relies on authority for answers. So in this case too, it seems counterproductive to a libertarian goal.

3:
Mental illness (in your scenario) becomes a vast tool that can be drawn upon to reinforce your authority. Would you resist the temptation?

[briandunning]

It's unethical. Do you really need a better reason than that?

I do. I think I made a very good argument in the podcast that there's nothing unethical about it: quite the reverse, in some cases.

[Molinaro]

We live within a system that can't be changed, and why not profit from that system.


Because my sense of self worth prevents me from doing any such thing. Being comfortable with the choices I make is far more important than making a buck.

[briandunning]

Because my sense of self worth prevents me from doing any such thing. Being comfortable with the choices I make is far more important than making a buck.

I think I made very good arguments in the podcast why it's better for paranormal services to be provided by people who understand their limitations. If I could save a life, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that choice, than if I stood by and did nothing, and let a cancer sufferer die from faith healing.

[DeviousB]

Wouldn't taking advantage of the credulous reduce the overall 'fitness' of the meme, hence benefitting the human race as a whole?

A sort of eumemics, I guess.

[supercorgi]

It's unethical. It's unethical to profit from people's weird beliefs and to provide a service which does nothing. Maybe it provides some comfort, and maybe placebo effect results, but in the end, it really does nothing. If they want comfort, be a friend and listen to them. If you traffic in this stuff, you are charging for fantasy, encouraging that fantasy, and taking advantage of people who are naive and trusting. You would just be enforcing their fantasy and doing no real good in the long run. I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that. How would you feel if a family member got involved with these fantasies - maybe ones that aren't immediately harmful (except for encouraging a dependency for the practitioner) but there are also many that are harmful.

[briandunning]

It's unethical. It's unethical to profit from people's weird beliefs and to provide a service which does nothing. Maybe it provides some comfort, and maybe placebo effect results, but in the end, it really does nothing. If they want comfort, be a friend and listen to them. If you traffic in this stuff, you are charging for fantasy, encouraging that fantasy, and taking advantage of people who are naive and trusting. You would just be enforcing their fantasy and doing no real good in the long run. I couldn't live with myself if I did something like that. How would you feel if a family member got involved with these fantasies - maybe ones that aren't immediately harmful (except for encouraging a dependency for the practitioner) but there are also many that are harmful.

I'm guessing you didn't listen to the points I made in the podcast - sorry but it's not really practical to try and paste it into the forum here. Is it unethical for a supermarket manager to draw his salary when his store sells cigarettes?

[Silly Green Monkey]

More analagous---should the drug dealer accept payment for the drugs?

[senorpogo]

I'm guessing you didn't listen to the points I made in the podcast - sorry but it's not really practical to try and paste it into the forum here. Is it unethical for a supermarket manager to draw his salary when his store sells cigarettes?

Is this just some ploy to get us to listen to your podcast?

[Ladewig]

So how much have you made already?

[briandunning]

Is this just some ploy to get us to listen to your podcast?

Obviously!! No secret about that... I hope you enjoy it or at least find something to debate. :)

[briandunning]

More analagous---should the drug dealer accept payment for the drugs?

This depends on your social philosophy. Do you believe consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever victimless acts they choose, or do you believe the government should babysit and decide what's best for people?

I say yes, the drug dealer should accept payment. I'd rather this be legal and regulated so people aren't getting shot in alleys, but I believe that people should be free to engage in whatever victimless activities they want, be it sex, drugs, or psychic services.

No I don't do any drugs except alcohol. :D

[RandFan]

I listened to the podcast.

It's unethical to profit from someone by lying to them (commonly called fraud but the purveyors of paranormal have a number of ways to get around the law).
That you can do something legally doesn't mean that it is ok to do it.
That someone else does something doesn't make it ok for you to do the self same thing (assuming selling cigarettes is comparable it still doesn't make it right see Tu Quoque (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) fallacy).
Cigarettes have a warning printed on the side and are known to cause cancer.
If you told someone that cigarettes don't cause cancer in order to sell them the cigarettes that would be unethical.I'm libertarian though not a strict libertarian (I eat meat). I think we should let the buyer be ware with some measure of protection. I don't think people should be able to lie and make claims that are demonstrably false in order to profit. This happens every day though. You can get a bigger penis (Enzyte) or lose weight effortlessly (Cortisol) or lots of other BS.

That said, even if we took a purely libertarian stance or just because our courts don't care or just because you can lie for the purpose to make money doesn't make it ok.

RandFan

[RandFan]

This depends on your social philosophy. Do you believe consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever victimless acts they choose, or do you believe the government should babysit and decide what's best for people? Depends on what you mean by victim-less. Necrophilia is a victim-less act. What else do you have in mind?

[briandunning]

You say that it's "not OK". Why isn't it? This implies that harm is done. OK for the "real psychic" to do it, just not for me?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get to the root.

(My big point in the podcast is that the personal beliefs of the person behind the cash register are not relevant. The elephant in the room is that this buyer demands to buy something you think is worthless; and he's going to buy it no matter who sells it. Education is the answer, not criticizing the seller.)

[Gravy]

I'm guessing you didn't listen to the points I made in the podcast - sorry but it's not really practical to try and paste it into the forum here. Is it unethical for a supermarket manager to draw his salary when his store sells cigarettes?Perhaps you can summarize your position for this discussion forum.

eta: or maybe you did so in your previous post?

[Ladewig]

RandFan beat me to it, but I, too, think the cigarette analogy is inaccurate. The government has spent the past few decades engaging in a massive education campaign with the result being that everyone in the U.S. who purchases cigarettes knows that prolonged use can damage or kill.

After the government launches a massive education campaign to teach all Americans that ADC and fortune telling are bunkum, I will consider the products and their associated sales to be similar to cigarette sales.

Arg. Called away to do some work at the office. Back later.

[RandFan]

You say that it's "not OK". Why isn't it? This implies that harm is done. OK for the "real psychic" to do it, just not for me? If you are refering to me I absolutely think it is wrong for anyone to do it for whatever reason.

FWIW, I don't buy the notion that there are people who really think they are psychic unless they have an organic problem.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get to the root.Understand. Let's try a couple hypotheticals.

Is it ok to lie by telling your neighbor that you are dying and need money for an operation? What if he or she gets a lot of pleasure from helping others? Hey, that's a win-win right?

You discover money belonging to someone else. Forgoten account, buried treasure, lost diamond ring, whatever. You are the only one that knows that it exists. Is it ok for you to keep what you have discovered knowing that it does not belong to you?

(My big point in the podcast is that the personal beliefs of the person behind the cash register are not relevant. The elephant in the room is that this buyer demands to buy something you think is worthless; and he's going to buy it no matter who sells it. Education is the answer, not criticizing the seller.) I think it is unethical for stores to perpetrate fraud. Yes, they do this all of the time and they get away with it. I can see little point in yelling at the poor clerk. On the other hand, I have sent letters to stores asking them to stop carrying Kevin Trudeau's book.

Do you understand what a Tu Quoque argument is? I'll simplify it, just because someone else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you. Now, if you are saying that as a society we put up with fraud, liars and cheats so we should put up with you to then I would agree that the odds are in your favor. Go ahead and lie and cheat to make money.

I know that is not how you see it but that it what you want to do.

[Darth Rotor]

If you listen to my Skeptoid podcast (http://skeptoid.com), you know that I break ranks by supporting the peddling of the paranormal, and even being willing to profit from it, should the opportunity arise.

It would be great if we could change the system - make everyone a skeptic - but we never will. We live within a system that can't be changed, and why not profit from that system. You can take advantage of it, and work to change it, at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

PLEASE:
Read - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4003
Listen - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4003.mp3
Subscribe - http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=203844864

I would love to get some more negative feedback on this issue. Should be easy since EVERYONE disagrees with me. :) :)
I am not sure your position as a skeptic stands up to scrutiny, if you engage in deliberate falsehood as a vocation.

Do you sell real snake oil? :boggled:

DR

[Ladewig]

Your argument contains the assumption that pretending to transmit messages from dead people is not harmful. I am not entire convinced that that claim is true.

You can take advantage of it, and work to change it, at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Doesn't one lose all credibility at that point? If Randi were to come out and say that years ago he taught John Edward to be a cold and hot reader in exchange for a cut of the profits, wouldn't the skeptical movement be greatly pushed back?

___________________

ETA: oh, and there's one more area in which you are wrong: thread titles. (joking) Many of us do not have either the time or the internet connection speed to read every thread in a sub-forum. By using descriptive titles you can increase the number of people who will post in your thread and you can make it easier for people to find your thread when using the search function.

[Meadmaker]

What makes you think that the average "professional psychic" believes in psychic powers? I think most of them are frauds. So, you could join their ranks, and you would be no worse than they, and no better.

[Ladewig]

Bumped for interest.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

It would be great if we could change the system - make everyone a skeptic - but we never will. We live within a system that can't be changed, and why not profit from that system. You can take advantage of it, and work to change it, at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.



I would love to get some more negative feedback on this issue. Should be easy since EVERYONE disagrees with me. :) :)



Fair enough. Here comes some criticism.


1. The moral criticism you have faced is not:


(a) you have a moral duty to stamp out the practice of exploiting the gullible, but

(b) you have a moral duty not to exploit the gullible.

Rebutting (a) gets you nowhere with (b).


2. From the premiss that people are morally free and legally free ( and ought to remain legally free) to be duped, it does not follow that anyone is morally free to dupe them. See 1 above.


3. You seem to be arguing-correct me if I've got this wrong- that If I don't do it, someone worse will..

This shameful argument has been advanced by:

(a) school bullies who rob smaller children of their dinner money,

(b) grown men who take money from prostitutes for " protection " and

(c) governments that sell weapons to regimes that use these weapons to murder and terrorise their own citizens.

What is wrong with this sort of argument is not that it gets the facts wrong ( see (c) in particular) but that it is morally disastrous even when it has got the facts right.

As this criticism is rather hurtful, I hope you will be able to tell me that I have misunderstood you.


4. You say " No power on earth will convince the customer that he's being deceived".

Are you sure? On this board and elsewhere there are bods who are grateful for having been undeceived.


5. You speak of the customer who " insists on being deceived. "

That is nonsense. Of course, if I am wrong here, it is easy to refute what I am saying. All you need do is produce an example of someone saying " I am deceived in thinking x, but I believe x all the same".

[briandunning]

Disagree COMPLETELY with your assessment. Nowhere in my podcast do I celebrate theft or injury. I spoke only of ways to make their experience not only as positive as they (as believers) hope, but also as medically sound as we (as skeptics) hope.

Someone comes to me for a faith healing and I find a way to get them to the doctor. You call this exploiting the gullible?

Someone comes to me to read their palm and I tell them exactly what they want to hear, leaving them enriched and happy. You equate this to bullying them and stealing their lunch money.

[RandFan]

Disagree COMPLETELY with your assessment. Nowhere in my podcast do I celebrate theft or injury. I spoke only of ways to make their experience not only as positive as they (as believers) hope, but also as medically sound as we (as skeptics) hope.

Someone comes to me for a faith healing and I find a way to get them to the doctor. You call this exploiting the gullible?

Someone comes to me to read their palm and I tell them exactly what they want to hear, leaving them enriched and happy. You equate this to bullying them and stealing their lunch money.You never answered my questions. If your friend lost her diamond ring, forgotten it and you found it later would you return it? Why? Any harm is past and had nothing to do with you.

Is it ok to lie to a friend who is by nature philanthropic, telling them that you are dying of cancer, thereby enriching yourself and making them happy? Why or why not?

[RandFan]

Disagree COMPLETELY with your assessment.BTW, LMoG makes a logical argument that you haven't rebutted.

[Ladewig]

Disagree COMPLETELY with your assessment. Nowhere in my podcast do I celebrate theft or injury. I spoke only of ways to make their experience not only as positive as they (as believers) hope, but also as medically sound as we (as skeptics) hope.

Someone comes to me for a faith healing and I find a way to get them to the doctor. You call this exploiting the gullible?

No. Not that part. In fact, your response makes you seem a bit ingenuous in that no one claimed sending sick people to a doctor to be "exploiting the gullible." We were pointing out that things like pretending to talk to the dead is most certainly exploiting the gullible. That the victim of this fraud does not see it as a fraud does not make the action less of an exploitation of the gullible.

_______________________
This discussion will be easier to follow if you address each question and each relevant item.

[briandunning]

In fact, your response makes you seem a bit ingenuous in that no one claimed sending sick people to a doctor to be "exploiting the gullible."

Lord Muck oGentry said that specifically. My podcast discussed exploiting their faith in the psychic to convince them to go to a doctor. So long as it's on the "advice" of their "dead relative", some believers will be more likely to actually go.

Make sure you've listened to the podcast or read the transcript to better understand what you're replying to. :)

[briandunning]

I listened to the podcast.

It's unethical to profit from someone by lying to them (commonly called fraud but the purveyors of paranormal have a number of ways to get around the law).
That you can do something legally doesn't mean that it is ok to do it.
That someone else does something doesn't make it ok for you to do the self same thing (assuming selling cigarettes is comparable it still doesn't make it right see Tu Quoque (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) fallacy).
Cigarettes have a warning printed on the side and are known to cause cancer.
If you told someone that cigarettes don't cause cancer in order to sell them the cigarettes that would be unethical.I'm libertarian though not a strict libertarian (I eat meat). I think we should let the buyer be ware with some measure of protection. I don't think people should be able to lie and make claims that are demonstrably false in order to profit. This happens every day though. You can get a bigger penis (Enzyte) or lose weight effortlessly (Cortisol) or lots of other BS.

That said, even if we took a purely libertarian stance or just because our courts don't care or just because you can lie for the purpose to make money doesn't make it ok.

RandFan

I think you're raising the (much) larger issue of: OK according to whose value system? In all of my examples, it's OK with me, and it's OK with the customer. Who else's opinion matters?

I'm not stupid or irresponsible, of course I agree that it's wrong to fraudulently injure someone. The majority of cases are harmless: i.e., selling homeopathy pills. Since you listened to my podcast you know that there's NO WAY I'd be the type of storeowner who would say "Hey, this will cure your cancer" - quite the opposite, in fact. But I'd still own such a store - they're profitable as hell.

A friend of mine owns a software consulting firm. He hates third world outsourcing more than anyone on the planet. He constantly rants about importing poverty from Mexico, and exporting our wealth to India. He donates and volunteers to political campaigns - he does put his money where his mouth is. But guess what? He outsources some of his development to India, because it saves him so much money. His reasoning is that you should fight to change the system, but so long as the system is the way it is, you might as well use it to your advantage. He came to this conclusion after months of wrestling with his conscience. I agree with him, and I think my logic is the same as his.

I've given four figures to JREF so far this year. That's one way I fight to change the system. I've never sold a paranormal service, and don't have plans to. But, philosophically, I think it would be OK to do so, so long as that's the way our system is set up.

[briandunning]

BTW, LMoG makes a logical argument that you haven't rebutted.

An unintentional oversight - I do appreciate LMoG's time framing his argument - if you could quote whatever it is I missed I'd be happy to do my best. :)

[RandFan]

You never answered my questions. If your friend lost her diamond ring, forgotten it and you found it later would you return it? Why? Any harm is past and had nothing to do with you.

Is it ok to lie to a friend who is by nature philanthropic, telling them that you are dying of cancer, thereby enriching yourself and making them happy? Why or why not? Could you answer these questions?

[Ladewig]

I think you're raising the (much) larger issue of: OK according to whose value system?

Such activity is not OK according to Kant's Categorical Imperative. If everyone were required to tell lies (pretending to speak to the dead) in order to make money, then the concept of truth would become meaningless. Thus, Kant would label the activity as inherently immoral. I agree with that label.

In all of my examples, it's OK with me, and it's OK with the customer. Who else's opinion matters?

Are you of the opinion that the JREF should not go after Sylvia, James, and John? After all, these after-death communicators (ADCers) are alright with it and their customers are alright with it.



I'm not stupid or irresponsible, of course I agree that it's wrong to fraudulently injure someone. The majority of cases are harmless: i.e., selling homeopathy pills. Since you listened to my podcast you know that there's NO WAY I'd be the type of storeowner who would say "Hey, this will cure your cancer" - quite the opposite, in fact. But I'd still own such a store - they're profitable as hell.

Again, I can find no statement in this entire thread in which anyone suggests that you are planning on bilking seriously ill people rather than sending them to doctors. Can we stop talking about that idea? The crux of the argument is that you would be lying to people in order to take money from them. That is what I find immoral about the proposal.

I also find the proposal counterproductive because, as I pointed out, if a prominent skeptic were to confess to lying to people to get their money, then the skeptic movement would be dramatically harmed.

I've given four figures to JREF so far this year.

Thank you for supporting the skeptical movement.

[Ladewig]

In fact, your response makes you seem a bit ingenuous in that no one claimed sending sick people to a doctor to be "exploiting the gullible."

Lord Muck oGentry said that specifically.

Really? LMoG said that you would be exploiting the gullible by sending sick people to doctors? I have re-read that post and cannot find that claim.

Make sure you've listened to the podcast or read the transcript to better understand what you're replying to. :)

I did listen to the podcast - which is why I never took you to task about the idea of exploiting gullible sick people. None of your critics has said that your position towards sick people needing medical care is immoral. We are talking about your position on people who do not need medical attention! We are talking about issues such as your proposal to "sell psychic predictions" (taken directly from the third paragraph of your blog).

[briandunning]

If your friend lost her diamond ring, forgotten it and you found it later would you return it? Why? Any harm is past and had nothing to do with you.

Yes, of course I'd give it back to her, because it's hers and I'm sure she'd love to have it back. Trick question?

Is it ok to lie to a friend who is by nature philanthropic, telling them that you are dying of cancer, thereby enriching yourself and making them happy? Why or why not?

My favorite philosopher, Mark Twain, can give you my answer much better than I ever could. The answer is often yes, in many cases. Pocketing money as you described would not be my choice though. Big Daddy Twain explains in Was It Heaven? Or Hell? (http://www.online-literature.com/twain/324/)

[Squishua]

Is it OK to profit through the use of fraud?

What about the ethics of performing psychic surgery? Maybe selling yourself as a faith healer? Selling phony AIDS and cancer cures?

The deluded should be offered enlightenment, not predation.

We live within a system that can't be changed, and why not profit from that system. You can take advantage of it, and work to change it, at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

They are, however, conflicting efforts. Most of us strive for cognitive consonance.

Ethics of Peddling the Paranormal

Basically a statement of intent to commit fraud. I hope you don't really sell yourself as a psychic anywhere because your essay is quite damning.

-Squish

[RandFan]

Yes, of course I'd give it back to her, because it's hers and I'm sure she'd love to have it back. Trick question?So what if she would like to have it back? She's already gotten over it and you can make out nicely. What's wrong with keeping it? What if the ring belonged to an aquaintance?

My favorite philosopher, Mark Twain, can give you my answer much better than I ever could. The answer is often yes, in many cases. Big Daddy Twain explains in Was It Heaven? Or Hell? (http://www.online-literature.com/twain/324/) If you understand Twain's moral then you ought to be able to condense it to a sentence or two.

[briandunning]

We are talking about your position on people who do not need medical attention! We are talking about issues such as your proposal to "sell psychic predictions" (taken directly from the third paragraph of your blog).

So we're talking about cases where the person is buying some pseudoscience to satisfy some preference, and there's no issue of health or illness. Let's say it's a magnetic hat. Yes, I'm happy to sell it, if that's what they're determined to spend their money on. No, I wouldn't make a fraudulent claim about it.

Education and freedom of choice are great partners. :) :)

[RandFan]

So we're talking about cases where the person is buying some pseudoscience to satisfy some preference, and there's no issue of health or illness. Let's say it's a magnetic hat. Yes, I'm happy to sell it, if that's what they're determined to spend their money on. No, I wouldn't make a fraudulent claim about it.

Education and freedom of choice are great partners. :) :) And there's a sucker born every minute. The best scams are not outright lies. They play on people's greed or ignorance. Is there a reason why fraud should be outlawed at all? Buyer beware. The truth is out there somewhere. If people can't take the time to find the truth so what if you scam them? So what if I tell you that my sugar pills will make you thin? So what if I lie?

I'm curious, what of the person who later realizes that it was BS and feels too embarrassed to ask you for a refund? I'm assuming you would give a refund, right? Ok, would you feel good knowing that you took people's money and they later realized you were a fraud? Hey, a sucker is a sucker. It's his fault not yours. That's the justification of the confidence man.

[briandunning]

Is it OK to profit through the use of fraud?

No, fraud is illegal, and by definition harms people. Am I in the Twilight Zone?

What about the ethics of performing psychic surgery? Maybe selling yourself as a faith healer? Selling phony AIDS and cancer cures?

These are perfect examples of where I'm coming from. I'll quote from the podcast: "I argue that paranormal services are better provided by people who understand their limitations, rather than by those who believe they can do something they can't. In fact, if paranormal services were regulated, this would be the law. Think how much better off believers would be if the paranormal services they received always led them to trained professionals in cases where such is needed."

The deluded should be offered enlightenment, not predation.

You can offer enlightenment all you want, but I know very few believers who will be swayed by a skeptic. They've heard that their whole life, and already rejected it. I argue that their faith in whatever the psychic tells them can be leveraged to get them to a real doctor - but again, this only applies to a small number of cases where needed medical or psychological care is being abandoned in favor of pseudoscience.

But I don't state this as an absolute. It's a really foggy issue, and I'm really big on personal freedoms. I am not totally comfortable with lying to them just because I hope to get them to a real doctor.

[RandFan]

You can offer enlightenment all you want, but I know very few believers who will be swayed by a skeptic. And most fools will soon part with their money so why shouldn't you be the first to exploit them?

[briandunning]

So what if she would like to have it back? She's already gotten over it and you can make out nicely. What's wrong with keeping it?

Can we back up a bit? I think I missed the part where suddenly I'm defending the pro-theft position.

If you understand Twain's moral then you ought to be able to condense it to a sentence or two.

The story's about two elderly spinsters who fervently believe that to tell any lie is a mortal sin. Their neice and her young daughter are in separate sickrooms, dying of typhoid. Neither knows the other is ill. The doctor warns the spinsters that stressful bad news would aggravate their conditions, but the spinsters are unwilling to lie.

The doctor makes the point that we all lie, all day, every day. Whether it's to say that we "can't" attend an odious party, or to stop talking about someone when they enter the room - deceptions intended to protect feelings are almost as common as drawing breath. The difference between the doctor's lies and your example is a difference of degree. Both are intended to help. "Reform," says the doctor, "reform, and tell lies!"

It's a great read, highly recommended.

[briandunning]

And most fools will soon part with their money so why shouldn't you be the first to exploit them?

The idea of parting customers from their money is hardly original with me.

[Kopji]

We contacted a member of the International Association of Witchdoctors this morning for a comment. He told us: "This demonstrates the dangers in consulting unlicenced witchdoctors. We advise anyone with ejaculatory disfunction to consult our list of approved practitioners."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/15/serbian_witchdoctor/

:D

More seriously, there was a human interest piece in the paper this morning on a psychic healer who says she can see inside of people to a cellular level and tell what's wrong. Presented very factual, article by a "doctor".
She always tells people to go see a doctor after taking their $250, so she's not hurting anyone right?

And to your future financial benefit, the 'factual' newspaper article prepares people for you to take advantage of them later.

[RandFan]

Can we back up a bit? I think I missed the part where suddenly I'm defending the pro-theft position. Why is this theft? I'm not being flip. You justify your lie by stating that no harm is being done, right? Well the person who lost the ring has already been harmed. You can't cause any further harm. Finders keepers. Your ethics seem to be rather fluid.

The difference between the doctor's lies and your example is a difference of degree. Both are intended to help. "Reform," says the doctor, "reform, and tell lies!" Really? How do you reconcile this with the above statement about theft? What constitutes theft? So any lie for the purpose of your enrichment is good so long as it is a convincing lie that makes someone feel good?

[RandFan]

The idea of parting customers from their money is hardly original with me.Oh, I agree. So the fact that it is not new makes it ok?

ETA: This misses my point BTW. Since some person is going to loose his money in a confidence scam why shouln't you be the person to take the money, right? In other words, if someone is going to screw his fellow man it might as well be you.

[Ladewig]

Is it OK to profit through the use of fraud?

What about the ethics of performing psychic surgery? Maybe selling yourself as a faith healer? Selling phony AIDS and cancer cures?



Wow. A poster that makes me want to side with briandunning.

Briandunning clearly and repeatedly said both in the blog and in numerous posts that he would not, in any circumstance engage in any deception that would keep people from seeing the appropriate medical personnel. I devoted three posts to directing the discussion away from the question of what to do with sick people. Squishua, did you read the original blog? Did you read the thread?

[Ladewig]

In all of my examples, it's OK with me, and it's OK with the customer. Who else's opinion matters?

Are you of the opinion that the JREF should not go after Sylvia, James, and John? After all, these after-death communicators (ADCers) are alright with their product and their customers are alright with this product.

[Squishua]

Fraud is theft by deception.

"I argue that paranormal services are better provided by people who understand their limitations, rather than by those who believe they can do something they can't.

Do you think you would be the first self-proclaimed psychic that knew he was only fooling people?

In fact, if paranormal services were regulated, this would be the law. Think how much better off believers would be if the paranormal services they received always led them to trained professionals in cases where such is needed."
A benevolent con-man...

You can offer enlightenment all you want, but I know very few believers who will be swayed by a skeptic.

Educating the stupid is like teaching pigs to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
(Heinlein, paraphrased)

And I agree, I suppose. Which is why I say they should be offered enlightenment, not have it rammed down their throats.

I argue that their faith in whatever the psychic tells them can be leveraged to get them to a real doctor - but again, this only applies to a small number of cases where needed medical or psychological care is being abandoned in favor of pseudoscience.

Meaning you are perfectly OK with misrepresenting yourself as a psychic in order to get them to give you money. That's fraud.

I'm pretty sure you are only philosophically musing here, but having your name connected to that "podcast" while simultaneously accepting money for services as a psychic means you are an acknowledged fraud.

Just a suggestion.

[Ladewig]

Education and freedom of choice are great partners. :) :)

So even though I twice raised the issue that if a prominent skeptic were found to be bilking people out of money by lying to the customers, then the skeptical movement would be pushed back, you're still going to take the position that no harm can come from skeptics lying to people to get their money.

[Ladewig]

Fraud is theft by deception.

Yes, now I am back on your side, Squishua.

Lying to people in order to get their money is fraud. When the authorities break up pyramid schemes, the people do not believe they have been harmed, the people are often angry at the authorities for stopping the Ponzi scheme. Taking money from people while lying (selling false psychic claims) is fraud. Even if the victim is not willing to press charges, a fraud has been committed.

[Squishua]

Squishua, did you read the original blog? Did you read the thread?

I read his initial post first, commented on it, then read the podcast thing and commented on it at the bottom of my reply.

An interesting concept. It's OK to rip them off financially if they are healthy, but if they are disturbed or in need of medical attention (as subjectively judged by the "psychic") he should "trick" them into some kind of real treatment.

How about a mentally retarded person with a trust fund? Open season? Yea or nay?

[Ladewig]

From the blog: "We agree that no power on earth could convince that customer that he's being deceived"

There are some woo customers that can never be convinced that things like after death communication are a sham. However, there are also some customers that can be convinced it is a sham (many examples can be found among the posters on this board).

When you sell your "psychic services" how do you plan to distinguish between those who cannot be convinced and those who, if approached the right way, can be convinced? Isn't selling fake psychic services to the second group immoral?

[RandFan]

From the blog: "We agree that no power on earth could convince that customer that he's being deceived"

There are some woo customers that can never be convinced that things like after death communication are a sham. However, there are also some customers that can be convinced it is a sham (many examples can be found among the posters on this board).

When you sell your "psychic services" how do you plan to distinguish between those who cannot be convinced and those who, if approached the right way, can be convinced? Isn't selling fake psychic services to the second group immoral?Brian doesn't seem too interested in defending his argument beyond a few sound bites.

[Ladewig]

Brian doesn't seem too interested in defending his argument beyond a few sound bites.


Yes. I am somewhat diappointed. I thought a person with a skeptical blog and podcast would be more thorough in responding to people giving counterarguments and people showing problems with the basic premises.

[skeptifem]

I think its ok to peddle woo if it isnt hurting anyone. I dislike the speaking to the dead woo and the medical woo, thats the line for me. The rest (astrology, tarot cards, tea leaves, crystals, etc) are harmless fun.

[Ladewig]

I think its ok to peddle woo if it isnt hurting anyone. I dislike the speaking to the dead woo and the medical woo, thats the line for me. The rest (astrology, tarot cards, tea leaves, crystals, etc) are harmless fun.


For me it is more of a price decision. Selling tea leaf readings for $5 each is probably harmless fun. Selling tea leaf readings for $500 each is fraud in my book. What the professional ADCers do is definitely fraud.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes. I am somewhat diappointed. I thought a person with a skeptical blog and podcast would be more thorough in responding to people giving counterarguments and people showing problems with the basic premises.

Well, give the chap a chance. I expect he's busy blogging and broadcasting, but he may come back to the subject later.

[Ladewig]

Well, give the chap a chance. I expect he's busy blogging and broadcasting, but he may come back to the subject later.

Fair enough. It is just that usually in that type a situation, a poster offers a brief comment along the lines of "I am very busy right now, but I will address those issues in a week or so."

Still, patience is a virtue. There have been times I have been remiss in responding to questions raised in a thread I started, so I will stand and wait.

[RandFan]

For me it is more of a price decision. Selling tea leaf readings for $5 each is probably harmless fun. Selling tea leaf readings for $500 each is fraud in my book. What the professional ADCers do is definitely fraud.Yeah, I agree. If the person keeps it inexpensive and is willing to offer a refund I don't have much of a problem with it. I'd like to know what price Brian wants to charge and if he would offer a refund?

[RandFan]

Well, give the chap a chance. I expect he's busy blogging and broadcasting, but he may come back to the subject later. I hope so. I think the subject worthy of discussion.

[Pragmatist]

I think some important points are being missed in this thread. Let me introduce some axioms:

1. Stupidity spreads.

2. The consequences of a deception may extend beyond the person immediately targetted.

I can give an example from my own experience of two people I knew. The first was a healthy woman with hypochondriac tendencies. She went to see a homeopath for one of her many "ailments" and came away with a "cure". No harm was done to her, there was nothing wrong with her, the "cure" did nothing and she only ended up a few $ poorer. One might even argue argue that she benefitted from the deception because she felt better and was convinced she was "cured". The second person, also a woman, was a friend of the first. She suddenly started getting various medical symptoms - many of which were superficially similar to the ones that the first woman claimed she had had. On telling the first person about this, she, (the first person) strongly recommended homeopathy as a "cure". She was extremely persuasive because she had been "cured" and on that basis knew that homeopathy was the cure for her friend. As a result of woman #1's absolute certainty, woman #2 sought no medical advice and took homeopathic medicines for several months. When the symptoms got worse, woman #1 persuaded her to stick with the homeopathy because "it needed time". Until the day that woman #2 collapsed into a diabetic coma with severe pancreatitis.

Woman #2 finally got proper medical treatment at a hospital. But by that time her pancreas was very badly damaged, she never fully recovered - right up to the day she died approx 3 years later.

The homeopath deceived woman #1. It was a harmless deception. Woman #1 wasn't sick. But as a consequence of reinforcing woman #1's belief in something utterly ridiculous, woman #2 didn't get proper medical attention in time and ultimately died as a result. Is the homeopath responsible for woman #2's suffering and and death? In my book, yes, he is.

You could argue that woman #2 should bear some of the responsibility because she didn't seek proper medical advice. Maybe so. But the problem is, she didn't know how bad her condition was because she was influenced by the beliefs of woman #1 - whose beliefs in turn were influenced by the homeopath. Belief and trust are powerful things and can be instilled by peer pressure.

It may be harmless if one person believes that they can read the future with tea leaves or by reading palms. But it rarely stops there. Belief in one crazy idea usually leads to belief in another - and the believers don't just believe, they proselytize their silly ideas. Sooner or later someone gets hurt by it. A person who refuses to believe they need medical attention because some idiot told them they have a "long life line" and will live to be 90 in a palm reading. A psychotic who kill his neighbour because the tea leaves told him that the neighbour was going to kill him in the future. A person who takes an overdose of dangerous drugs because they believe a psychadelic experience will give them "magic powers"...and so on... If someone had initially told someone else that you can't divine real information from palms, tea leaves and dangerous drugs, then maybe those ideas wouldn't have been instilled or reinforced in the people who ultimately suffered the consequences.

The possibilities are endless. And yes, it is a slippery slope argument, but a nonetheless valid one.

So in summary, no, it is not "harmless" or "victimless" to encourage and propagate false beliefs. It is stupid, dangerous and downright irresponsible, and not just a matter of ethics.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Lying is wrong.

P.S. Taking advantage of peoples ignorance ( selling them tea leaf reading, psychic crap, homeopathy, or whatever) is no different than mugging them, taking their property by force.
If you decieve a person to take their money you are no different than someone who just takes it. And you deserve to be locked up just like the mugger. I consider it to be armed robbery because you are using a contrivance as a weapon.

You my friend belong in prison. Try your bs there.

[Ladewig]

Brian doesn't seem too interested in defending his argument beyond a few sound bites.

Well, give the chap a chance. I expect he's busy blogging and broadcasting, but he may come back to the subject later.


Hmm. The access log shows that Brian Dunning hasn't been back to the JREF board since November 19. He is still updating his blog on a regular basis.

I do wish he would come back and discuss the matter.

[DeviousB]

Lying is wrong.

Why? And how would you back up such a moral absolute anyway.

If you decieve a person to take their money you are no different than someone who just takes it. And you deserve to be locked up just like the mugger. I consider it to be armed robbery because you are using a contrivance as a weapon.

Would that include advertising? If the soap manufacturers really had been rolling-out new products that wash whiter every few months since the 50s we'd all be walking around with welding masks on by now to protect our eyesight. So how much can someone bend the truth before you'd roll out the oubliette?

[Just for the sake of argument.]

[Beerina]

Wouldn't taking advantage of the credulous reduce the overall 'fitness' of the meme, hence benefitting the human race as a whole?

Yes, but that's not necessarily enough to extinquish the race, or even the credulous sub-portions of the species that carry and reproduce that meme.

The animal and insect kingdom is loaded with examples like the Cukoo that insinuate themselves as more or less parasites into the lives of other organisms -- not in the tapeworm sense, but in the "you're an idiot!" sense.

Yet these unlucky souls sometimes still reproduce, or if they don't, they don't in enough numbers (or their lucky counterparts just got lucky and aren't actually adapted to defend against it) to extinguish the behavior from the species, much less extinguish the species itself.

It's also almost impossible for one (non-sentient, i.e. hunting for survival) species to extinquish another, because when the prey population shrinks, the predators start starving, and thus the prey can rebound. Perdator-prey species relationships are not static, and do not settle down to static, a counter-intuitive result from differential equations being applied. Human stupidity memes of predator-prey in this sense may be like this. Too much, and a counter-meme starts spreading, reducing the numbers of prey (woo-marks), causing the predators (woo-snakeoil salesmen persons@$$holes) to start starving.

Round and round they'll go, up and down, in numbers as a % of the population. But never die out.

[Beerina]

This depends on your social philosophy. Do you believe consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever victimless acts they choose

Your activities are not victimless. Fraud is not a victimless crime. And ethically, even if you have a little "for entertainment purposes only" sign in the corner, you're still being unethical if you know 99% of your customers come in believing it's true.


or do you believe the government should babysit and decide what's best for people?

I support freedom to do whatever stupid things you like. But not to harm others by fraudulently gaining other people's money based on lies. Not accidents, or misunderstandings, or foolishness believed in wrongly, but active likes the perptrator knows are false and knows the "mark" believes are true.


I say yes, the drug dealer should accept payment

Assuming he is selling a drug of fairly well-known and well-defined quality. That some people have called themselves a string of letters called "government", picked up weaponry, and threatened him with violence if he does this does not make it unethical.

What makes it unethical is if it's unpure, or of a non-standard strength, to what would be commonly expected by the buyer.

Personally I'd find it unethical to sell drugs to an addict, harming them, but I'd rather it not be illegal than to grant the government the power to make it illegal.

I'd rather this be legal and regulated so people aren't getting shot in alleys, but I believe that people should be free to engage in whatever victimless activities they want, be it sex, drugs, or psychic services.

No I don't do any drugs except alcohol. :D

Sex and drugs are consenting activities. Psychic services (portrayed as real rather than entertainment) are not, because they are fraud.

Should Sylvia Browne be able to tell a customer she has a secret financial investment, only $1000 to buy in, when in fact she just plans to pocket it and spend it on Hardees Thickburgers and Burger King Triple Whoppers with Cheese? If not, why not? How does it differ from telling someone you're giving them a psychic reading, with the apparently legitimate expectation they'd have that it's real and reliable?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Hmm. The access log shows that Brian Dunning hasn't been back to the JREF board since November 19. He is still updating his blog on a regular basis.

I do wish he would come back and discuss the matter.


Well, I now think that you and RandFan got it right and I got it wrong. If bd isn't coming back after 11 days, he probably isn't coming back at all.

Mind you, I'd be happy to be proved wrong. :)

[Ladewig]

Why? And how would you back up such a moral absolute anyway.

One could use rationality to back up the moral absolute that lying to obtain money is wrong. Kant's Categorical Imperative (http://www.philosopher.org.uk/moral.htm) does just that.