Philly Shuts Down Psychics

[ksbluesfan]

MSNBC considers this to be peculiar news. I think it's great news. I guess we had better common sense 30 years ago.

Click here for MSNBC story. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18351044/)


Fortune-telling no longer in the cards in Philly
City closes psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers

PHILADELPHIA - They never saw it coming.

City inspectors shut down more than a dozen psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers after learning about a decades-old state law that bans fortune telling for profit.

Inspectors did not make arrests or issue fines, “but they will if these people try to return to work,” said Dominic E. Verdi, deputy commissioner of the city Department of Licenses and Inspections.

Verdi said the law, on the books for more than 30 years, makes fortunetelling “for gain or lucre” a third-degree misdemeanor.

Police alerted his department to the law a few days ago, Verdi said. “I was surprised,” he said.

He said inspectors have closed 16 shops since Tuesday and he expected them to close more.

The law has been on the books for more than 30 years, but Philadelphia officials say they only found out about it a few days ago, when police told them.

[Gravy]

That's excellent. Did you forward it to Mr. Randi?

[PastBrowneFan]

So, does this mean that SB has to cancel her Philly lecture?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Awesome. I guess if they want to tarot-card read for free, there's nothing we can do about that.

[Fnord]

So, does this mean that SB has to cancel her Philly lecture?


No, it means that tarot readings in Philly will be performed for free-will gratuities only ("Tips" and "Love Offerings") while you spend about $30+ per hour to patronize a coffee house, beauty shop, or "reading room" at a new-age church.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Hey, I liked your first response, too.

Yeah and anyone with a four-year degree in psychology or divinity and other of the pieces of paper Joyce has on her wall (http://www.heartandsoultherapy.com/) just has an opening as a "counselor". Or "spiritual teacher".

[Fnord]

Hey, I liked your first response, too.

Yeah and anyone with a four-year degree in psychology or divinity and other of the pieces of paper Joyce has on her wall (http://www.heartandsoultherapy.com/) just has an opening as a "counselor". Or "spiritual teacher".


Yeah, I changed it because my first answer was more speculative on my part, while the second one relates to events that I've actually witnessed.

But if the shoe fits, buy them both!

[kookbreaker]

Someone pointed out to me that the laws have actually been on the books since 1865.

I fear Fnord's prediction about my fair city's chralatan brigade will be true.

[Kaylee]

So, does this mean that SB has to cancel her Philly lecture?

No, it means that tarot readings in Philly will be performed for free-will gratuities only ("Tips" and "Love Offerings") while you spend about $30+ per hour to patronize a coffee house, beauty shop, or "reading room" at a new-age church.

Someone pointed out to me that the laws have actually been on the books since 1865

I wonder what triggered the enforcement now. The city inspectors said they didn't know about the laws until the police informed them. OK, but why did the police decide to inform them now? :confused: There's a story here, and I'd love know what it is!

I fear Fnord's prediction about my fair city's chralatan brigade will be true.

Yes, it seems that the law would probably be very easy to defeat as written.

ETA: How will the customers rationalize that their fortune tellers didn't see this coming? Some people are hard to protect.

[Porterboy]

This is appalling! These city inspectors should be ashamed of themselves! :mad: And by the reaction of members so far I think you need to readress the idea that skepticism is not a religion.

I was under the impression that skepticism was a means of informing, but this is enforcing. This is taking away people's free choice! No longer do we hear "I'm a skeptic so I advise you not to see a clairvoyant" This is "I'm a skeptic so I forbid you to see a clairvoyant"

Look at it from another scenario: The Philadelphia inspectors bow to the whims of Christian funadamentalists and force bookshops to remove their books on science. How would you feel then?... Exactly! But forcing people into skepticism is no different from forcing them into belief!

If you skeptics really want to be different from religions then stand up for people's free choice! Put your side of the arguement across and leave them to make up their own minds!

Surely RandFan is with me on this.

[Porterboy]

And just because the psychics are still allowed to practice without charging money doesn't make it OK. It means they can no longer practice for a living which makes it more difficult for them. It means that people who want to visit psychics (Including those who've heard the skeptics's viewpoint too and have, through their human birthright, chosen to reject it) now have a harder job because the professional infrastruture is no longer in place.

This is not an attack against fraudulent psychics. This is an atttack on the fundamentals of human freedom!:mad:

[I less than three logic]

And just because the psychics are still allowed to practice without charging money doesn't make it OK. It means they can no longer practice for a living which makes it more difficult for them. It means that people who want to visit psychics (Including those who've heard the skeptics's viewpoint too and have, through their human birthright, chosen to reject it) now have a harder job because the professional infrastruture is no longer in place.

This is not an attack against fraudulent psychics. This is an atttack on the fundamentals of human freedom!:mad:
There a plenty of laws protecting consumers from con artists, and I don't see this one as any different. Are all those laws attacks on human freedom? Also, if their financial predicament becomes too bad I know of a guy that is willing pay 1 million dollars for a single demonstration, that should tide them over for a while at least.

[Porterboy]

Who says they're con artists? You do; I don't! Lots of other people don't. What right do you have to make our minds up for us? Skeptics have the right to have their argument heard, not to have that arguement enforced by law.

Also the difference between supposedly fake psychics and other con men is that other con men are prosecuted in court first. How many of the Philadelphia psychics have been found guilty by due process?

The Christian fundamentalists in my imaginary scenario would say. "We have the right to impose this ruling because science if a con." What's the difference between that position and your own? Both of you are supporting laws which force others to conforn with your own vision of life.

[Porterboy]

Also, if their financial predicament becomes too bad I know of a guy that is willing pay 1 million dollars for a single demonstration, that should tide them over for a while at least.

If you think that the fact nobody has ever won Randi's $million supports your argument that psychics are fake then get out there and tell people! Let it either sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas!

This is surely preferrable to passing laws dictating to mature adults what they may or may not believe.

[I less than three logic]

Who says they're con artists? You do; I don't! Lots of other people don't. What right do you have to make our minds up for us? Skeptics have the right to have their argument heard, not to have that arguement enforced by law.
My opinion on who is and isn't a con artist is irrelevant, just like yours. The law makers decide who fits that category when they create the law, which was then approved by the Governor since this is a state law, and can be overridden by the courts. If you don't like the law, vote in people to change it for you or get voted in yourself. Besides, your argument is nonsense anyway, this could be applied to any form of cons. "Who says pyramid schemes are cons? You do; I don't! Lots of other people don't (typically those making the money). What right do you have to make up our minds for us? Blah, blah, blah."

Also the difference between supposedly fake psychics and other con men is that other con men are prosecuted in court first. How many of the Philadelphia psychics have been found guilty by due process?
This is only because the police chose to waive the charges, and you're right, they should have been prosecuted.

The Christian fundamentalists in my imaginary scenario would say. "We have the right to impose this ruling because science if a con." What's the difference between that position and your own? Both of you are supporting laws which force others to conforn with your own vision of life.
This is more nonsense. What definition of con do you think science fits into? Fortune telling, on the other hand, fit Merriam-Webster's definition of con (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/con), 7con, just fine.

Main Entry: 7con
Function: noun
: something (as a ruse) used deceptively to gain another's confidence; also : a confidence game : SWINDLE
Telling people that you can see the future sure seems like a deceptive way to gain another's confidence, then using this confidence to get them to buy your advice fits the definition of swindle pretty well too.

[Porterboy]

This reminds me of the debate we had a few months ago over that documentary "The Trouble With Atheism".

I'm not a Christian. In fact I see the Church as a con-artists' organization. But does this give me the right to demand that all churches be closed down? No! I know many Christians who've heard the skeptics' side of the debate and decided they still want to be Christians. Well good luck to them!

Actually this action in Philadelphia may well be illegal. Isn't the freedom to worship written into the US constitution? This is why the Indians are allowed to take Mescaline, a class-A drug it might be, but the Indians have an exemption certificate because Mescaline is such an important part of their religion.

I think this ruling in Philadelphia proves Robert Liddle's point. Almost everyone declares "I believe in freedom!" Well most are hypocrites! They don't even know what freedom is! Well Voltaire has given the best definition to date: "Supporting Freedom means passionately campaigning for the right to free speech for those you disagree with." Who wants that? Most people can't handle that. They want to give people the right to free speech, but only if they're agreeing with what they say.

[I less than three logic]

If you think that the fact nobody has ever won Randi's $million supports your argument that psychics are fake then get out there and tell people! Let it either sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas!

This is surely preferrable to passing laws dictating to mature adults what they may or may not believe.
What they believe is irrelevant, what the fortune tellers are claim give people in exchange for their money isn't. People can believe in fortune telling all they want, they can even go to them all they want, but unless the fortune tellers can prove they're actually selling what they claim to be they are in the same category as any other fraud.

[Porterboy]

This is more nonsense. What definition of con do you think science fits into? Fortune telling, on the other hand, fit Merriam-Webster's definition of con, 7con, just fine.
.

Then how come so many people want their fortune told? Mature adults of sound mind who've chosen that path. It's not their definition of a con.

"Science is a con": this is not my view, but it is the view of many Christian zealots. Because science is not in the Bible it can't be true in thier eyes. This was my point: What if it was the Christian zealots in power now in Philly? Do they have a right to impose their opinions? If not then why do you?

[chillzero]

Isn't fortune telling against christian beliefs as written in the bible?

[Porterboy]

What they believe is irrelevant, what the fortune tellers are claim give people in exchange for their money isn't. People can believe in fortune telling all they want, they even go to them all they want, but unless the fortune tellers can prove they're actually selling what they claim to be they are in the same category as any other fraud.

But by resricting the industry behind clairvoyance you are restricting their ability to practice their beliefs. This is dictatorship! The right to believe in something without proof is a right too. You can't say: "Well OK, you can believe in it, but only if it passes the criteria of my value sphere. Mine not yours."

[Porterboy]

Isn't fortune telling against christian beliefs as written in the bible?

Yes it is, and I'm equally opposed to Christians who try tooppress different viewpoints. That includes those who try to oppress Skepticism.

[I less than three logic]

This reminds me of the debate we had a few months ago over that documentary "The Trouble With Atheism".

I'm not a Christian. In fact I see the Church as a con-artists' organization. But does this give me the right to demand that all churches be closed down? No! I know many Christians who've heard the skeptics' side of the debate and decided they still want to be Christians. Well good luck to them!

Actually this action in Philadelphia may well be illegal. Isn't the freedom to worship written into the US constitution? This is why the Indians are allowed to take Mescaline, a class-A drug it might be, but the Indians have an exemption certificate because Mescaline is such an important part of their religion.

I think this ruling in Philadelphia proves Robert Liddle's point. Almost everyone declares "I believe in freedom!" Well most are hypocrites! They don't even know what freedom is! Well Voltaire has given the best definition to date: "Supporting Freedom means passionately campaigning for the right to free speech for those you disagree with." Who wants that? Most people can't handle that. They want to give people the right to free speech, but only if they're agreeing with what they say.
Are you capable of any response other than these non-sequiturs? I couldn't care less what they say. They can say anything they want. What they can't do is charge people for things they don't provide. It isn't the con that is illegal, you can fool people into what ever you want, it is the selling and profiting on that con that is illegal.

[I less than three logic]

But by resricting the industry behind clairvoyance you are restricting their ability to practice their beliefs. This is dictatorship!
This is completely non-sequitur again, they can still practice all they want. The removal of money changing hands doesn't restrict it one bit.

The right to believe in something without proof is a right too. You can't say: "Well OK, you can believe in it, but only if it passes the criteria of my value sphere. Mine not yours."
So your position is that no frauds should be illegal? As long as the people paying for it believes it, it's ok.

[tkingdoll]

Awesome. I guess if they want to tarot-card read for free, there's nothing we can do about that.

Why would you want to do anything about that??!!

Christ, I hope there aren't people here who want to ban people from using tarot or giving readings for free or whatever. That would be an extremely alarming fundamentalist viewpoint.

The issue here is the lawfulness taking money in return for certain services. Not the actual service itself. That would be like saying prostitution should be illegal, and then regretting that you can't also outlaw sex.

[Big Les]

To quote Insanity Prawn Boy (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/onthemoon/On+The+Moon+ep.1/), "That's right."

Not only is there nothing we can do about free readings of whatever kind, we shouldn't even be trying. It's distasteful to me personally that people can mislead others about aspects of their lives and those of loved ones, but if they are doing it for free, a) It's not legally or morally fraud, and b) They almost certainly believe in what they're doing.

As a more "militant" sceptic in my everyday life, I'll always try to persuade people that they're intellectually and emotionally buying into nonsense, and they'd be better off if they read up on some sceptical info. But I wouldn't advocate legal or other measures that might physically prevent them from doing it.

I realise that "I suppose there's nothing we can do about that" was just a throwaway wistful comment about the many people out there who are deluding others into believing things which almost certainly aren't the case. I dislike the idea too. But hinting that "sceptics" are against ANY practicing of this sort of bunkum plays into the hands of people like Porterboy who are able to paint us as killjoy fundamentalists.

[Porterboy]

So your position is that no frauds should be illegal? As long as the people paying for it believes it, it's ok.

Not quite. My position is that nothing should be defined as fraud unless the consumers of that service are kept in ignorance of the complete and total deal they are receiving. Psychics should make no pretention that their services can be proved scientifically if they cannot. Also customers should be freely informed of the skeptical side of the debate. And that's where you come in. Bear in mind that many believers in the supernatural have made the decision to do so on a completely informed basis.

they can still practice all they want. The removal of money changing hands doesn't restrict it one bit.


And what if my hypothetical Christian bigots told a university that they could not pay their science professors a salery because their opinions contradicted the word of God? Would you stand for that? Would you say: "It's OK. They can get a day-job and take an interest in science in my spare time."? That doesn't sound fair, I think we agree. So why's it fair the other way round? Remember Voltaire.

I don't live in Philadelphia, but if I did there's no doubt that I would find it harder to be a practicing Spiritualist than I presently do.

[Sherman Bay]

I am sure that fortune telling is a con. I'm not sure that the government should do anything more than inform.

If someone has all the facts and voluntarily chooses to ignore them, and are hurting no one else but themselves, the government is not performing a moral service by preventing an informed, voluntary exchange of money and services between two adults.

Here's a possible solution. Before doing a reading, the psychic has the mark sign a statement that says, "I know that I am being fooled, defauded, cheated and lied to, and that no scientific proof exists that psychics have any paranormal or supernormal powers. Nevertheless, I choose to be deluded, fooled, defauded, cheated and lied to because I want to. Now leave me alone."

[Blue Mountain]

This reminds me of a quote I picked up from a file of quotes out there on the internet:

I've gone into hundreds of [fortune-teller's parlors], and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her.
:D

[Kaylee]

Then how come so many people want their fortune told? Mature adults of sound mind who've chosen that path.

That's an interesting question. Because it does seem that there are more adults that believe in this than lets say in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus and with little more justification -- so why?

Well first of all I think that some of the people who patronize fortunetellers do so just on a spur of-the-moment-and-just-for-a-lark-kind-of-thing. There are many store-front fortune tellers who don't charge that much, and I would guess they get a lot of business on the weekends, probably after their clients have had a little too much to drink.:p

I think other fortune tellers, palm readers, etc. are hired because someone, is giving a party and is under the mistaken impression that by hiring one of these guys he is doing something unique. I worked for a corporation that use to hire some of these guys occasionally for entertainment value only. In the special events department head's opinion, he was just going for an alternative to a band or a magician and that was the extent of it as far as he was concerned.

So those two scenarios take care of one category: people who consider psychics just another entertainment option but don't actually believe in what they have to say. I'd like to know what percentage of business that category of customers takes up -- but I don't think there's any way to find out.

I think there's another category of clients or potential clients out there who have had inexplicable experiences and as a result are willing to swallow anything anyone has to say about the supernatural.

I think that means that the fact that hallucinations of all types (vision, hearing, gustatory, tactile, etc.) commonly occurs even among those that are not mentally ill or don't have epilepsy isn't well known, unfortunately, among the public. Also hypnagogic dreams are probably not well understood among many folks also.

If those facts were better known, I think there would be less people who would be willing to think that there is something to the "paranormal".

I also think that as neuroscience and other sciences becomes more advanced we will have other explanations for minor inexplicable experiences that some people have had, and the effect of that will be that less people would be open to the idea that there is something to the "paranormal".

When I first joined I posted in a thread about some of my inexplicable experiences. What I didn't post was the reactions of the few friends I had decided to confide in. Most of them had the same opinion as I did (and still do) -- inexplicable things sometimes happen. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to use the evidenced-based science philosophy that has served our society so well. It just means that our senses only directly perceive a small part of our vast universe and that there are still many more things of a scientific nature for us to discover. It also means that we have to remember that our senses aren't always reliable.

However, one of my other friends had also had an inexplicable experience, and as a result she believed everything the professional "TV" psychic's had to say was on the level. I was very surprised to hear that because it just didn't reflect any of our previous conversations or how she lived her life. I tried to discuss this with her and say that this didn't necessarily follow, but I didn't succeed in making my point -- and she just didn't want to discuss it any further.

Before I joined this forum I never thought much about professional psychics. If I did I just assumed that most people considered them an entertainment option (like the head of the special events deptartment of a corporation that I had once worked for) but that was the extent of it.

After I started posting at this forum I gradually realized that there were many people who really believed in psychics and were getting seriously hurt by them. This conversation I had with my friend helped me understand how so many seemingly rational people could act so foolishly.

I also think there are other broad categories of people who believe in psychics, including:

People who find the whole thing fun but whether they truly believe this deep down or not -- who knows.
People who are unnerved by the responsibilities of adulthood and find consulting with fortunetellers to be a comforting security blanket.
People who have lost loved ones and are in a temporary desperate state of mind.
And of course people who just don't have any common sense at all.Back to the OP's main point. Should psychics be barred from selling their services directly? Well in general, our society doesn't have a problem in preventing people from profiting from con jobs so I don't see why this should be any different.

I also don't know quit frankly what good the law will do. People who want to make a living this way will find a way around the law. Like Fnord said some will sell something else (food, drinks, artwork, whatever) and offer the fortune telling as a freebie. In reality their customers will be there for the fortune telling and not for the other service or goods -- but the law won't be broken. Others will open up churches like Sylvia Browne did and will just call themselves ministers and carry on as usual.

My 2 cents FWIW.

ETA: I like Sherman Bay's solution (in post #27). Only problem is that there will always be some people who think that because the govt. allows the transaction to occur with just a warning -- it's actually probably OK. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that ciigeratte smoking isn't probably that unhealthy because if it was, the govt. would ban it.

But despite that, I still think it's a good solution. A big sign saying the same thing could be required tb be put up at the place of the fortune teller's business also. :smile:

[Porterboy]

I am sure that fortune telling is a con. I'm not sure that the government should do anything more than inform.

If someone has all the facts and voluntarily chooses to ignore them, and are hurting no one else but themselves, the government is not performing a moral service by preventing an informed, voluntary exchange of money and services between two adults.

Here's a possible solution. Before doing a reading, the psychic has the mark sign a statement that says, "I know that I am being fooled, defauded, cheated and lied to, and that no scientific proof exists that psychics have any paranormal or supernormal powers. Nevertheless, I choose to be deluded, fooled, defauded, cheated and lied to because I want to. Now leave me alone."

Well done!:D You're position respects individulal liberties and is therefore one I completely endorse.

Using those words in the disclaimer might be correct from your point of view, but, being a Woo, I would put it diferently. After all, if the customer knows the truth about the product they're receiving then it's not, by defintion, fraud, nor cheaing, nor lying. I wold say: "The customer is advised that he/she enters into this service in the knowlege that is it is based on faith and intuition and has no existance in emprical science." Most Woos already know this. I've spoken to many of my fellow Woos who have looked at the Skeptical arguement as well and chosen to reject it.

[Big Les]

I think you give your fellow irrationals too much credit. Most I've met and seen online would like to believe that there's some real-world scientific basis (be it EM, quantum physics, or whatever) to what they're buying into, because the sensible side of them recognises that if it doesn't, it's not just a question of faith; it's all in their heads. If woo exerts no effects in the real world, it de facto does not exist.

By believing this, yet staying away from learning too much in the way of actual science or critical thinking skills, they can eat their woo and have it too.

Which leads me to ask, are you in fact suggesting that psychic phenomena exist, but are not detectable by scientific methods?

[neon]

Wow, just because people want to do something, it should be legal?

Should stealing be legal, just because thieves want to do it?

[tkingdoll]

Wow, just because people want to do something, it should be legal?

Should stealing be legal, just because thieves want to do it?

This is a false dichotomy. Look it up if you don't know what it means.

By your logic, religious worship should also be illegal.

If you want to use this sort of schoolyard reasoning, you might consider this statement: "Wow, just because some people don't believe in something, it should be illegal?"

[Czarcasm]

I think Porterboy has a point. We shouldn't arrest all those legitimate psychics just because there are a few bad apples. What he should do is find one of those legitimate psychics in Philly that have proven their abilities and use she/he as an example to overthrow this law. After all, all it would take is one genuine psychic to show this law for what it is, right?
Go for it, Porterboy! Show all these doubters what intellectual integrity really is!

[Porterboy]

I think you give your fellow irrationals too much credit. Most I've met and seen online would like to believe that there's some real-world scientific basis (be it EM, quantum physics, or whatever) to what they're buying into, because the sensible side of them recognises that if it doesn't, it's not just a question of faith; it's all in their heads. If woo exerts no effects in the real world, it de facto does not exist.

By believing this, yet staying away from learning too much in the way of actual science or critical thinking skills, they can eat their woo and have it too.

Which leads me to ask, are you in fact suggesting that psychic phenomena exist, but are not detectable by scientific methods?

Maybe, but that's a long story; beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't agree with your view of irrationals, although you're dead right about some of them. And I know that there are psychics who are fraudulent by my own definiton too: ie they use psychology and secret cameras etc to learn things about their victims then pretend to have found that information by psychic means. M Lamar Keene is the most prime example.

[Porterboy]

I think Porterboy has a point. We shouldn't arrest all those legitimate psychics just because there are a few bad apples. What he should do is find one of those legitimate psychics in Philly that have proven their abilities and use she/he as an example to overthrow this law. After all, all it would take is one genuine psychic to show this law for what it is, right?
Go for it, Porterboy! Show all these doubters what intellectual integrity really is!

Thanks, mate. But as I said above: The requirement for proof should be a choice. Not everyone wants or needs proof to accept something as real. Seeing as this is understood by the psychics' customers then it's unfair to restrict their access to these professionals by banning them with laws and rules. It's basically just as bad as Woo's banning people freom reading books on science.

If this law was overturned then I'd be delighted and I sincerely hope that there will be an appeal. (If anyone involved is reading this then by all means use my words for your case if you wish.)

[Big Les]

So you're basically advocating caveat emptor? That works up to a point; as societies we allow companies to tread a fine line between marketing guff and actual fraud (e.g. Neurofen and Supermarket's own Ibuprofen being identical) but in those cases the information is right there on the packet. With "psychics" there is no "packet"; no system of regulation, and no way to know what it is that you're getting for your money.

You've acknowledged that, even assuming psychic powers exist, there exist frauds. How do you determine who is genuine and who isn't?

[Civilized Worm]

Who says they're con artists? You do; I don't! Lots of other people don't. What right do you have to make our minds up for us? Skeptics have the right to have their argument heard, not to have that arguement enforced by law.

Also the difference between supposedly fake psychics and other con men is that other con men are prosecuted in court first. How many of the Philadelphia psychics have been found guilty by due process?


I understand you fears about taking away people's liberties, but last time I checked fraud was a crime, and if these people aren't commiting fraud then they should be able to show the courts that they are providing a genuine service.


Actually this action in Philadelphia may well be illegal. Isn't the freedom to worship written into the US constitution? This is why the Indians are allowed to take Mescaline, a class-A drug it might be, but the Indians have an exemption certificate because Mescaline is such an important part of their religion.


I the indians should be allowed to take mescaline because everyone should be allowed to put whatever they want in to their own bodies, but certainly shouldn't be getting special legal treatment because of something the believe. Should muslims be able to stone people to death because it's an important part of their religion?

[Czarcasm]

Thanks, mate. But as I said above: The requirement for proof should be a choice. Not everyone wants or needs proof to accept something as real. Seeing as this is understood by the psychics' customers then it's unfair to restrict their access to these professionals by banning them with laws and rules. It's basically just as bad as Woo's banning people freom reading books on science.

If this law was overturned then I'd be delighted and I sincerely hope that there will be an appeal. (If anyone involved is reading this then by all means use my words for your case if you wish.)
Maybe you are right-it should be legal to cheat people as long as you can get away with it and/or the victim...I mean customer is too embarrassed to admit they spent hundreds of dollars for a cold reading. It isn't as if they have a legitimate need to spend the money on anything else, like family, food, utilities or rent.

[Hawk one]

Thanks, mate. But as I said above: The requirement for proof should be a choice. Not everyone wants or needs proof to accept something as real. Seeing as this is understood by the psychics' customers then it's unfair to restrict their access to these professionals by banning them with laws and rules. It's basically just as bad as Woo's banning people freom reading books on science.

If this law was overturned then I'd be delighted and I sincerely hope that there will be an appeal. (If anyone involved is reading this then by all means use my words for your case if you wish.)

In most Western countries of today, if you want to for example sell something you call "orange juice", you are in fact required to use actual orange juice concentrate, and nothing else. This is to give the consumers the freedom to know that when they see two (or more) different brand products called orange juice, they should be able to rest assured that these products are in fact orange juice, and not just soemthing called "orange juice" when it is fact merely water with yellow coloring in it.

I really don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply to psychics. They claim to sell orange juice, but it's just coloured water. That's per definition a fraud in the eyes of every proper consumer law.

But of course, it's not hard at all to get your psychic services opened again. All you have to do is to prove that's really what you do. One possible way to prove this would be to, say, pass the Million Dollar Challenge...

[ConkerTheSquirrel]

Simple solution:

Give psychics the opportunity to earn a psychic licence by proving their abilities. If they can prove their abilities, let them practice, if not, make it illegal.

[Big Les]

There, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it Porterboy?

If psychic powers affect the real world in any way, then they can be tested for. If they can be tested for, they can be proven. If they can be proven, psychics can be accredited/registered/licenced just like doctors, counsellors and other professionals.

Problem solved. No need for draconian outright bans or even having to claim "it's entertainment guv" to get around the UK Fraudulent Mediums Act. Those who are actually psychic will have nothing to fear. Of course, there are already ways to be tested, to prove you have psychic powers, that would allow any successful applicant to legitimately challenge any blanket law, not to mention win the odd Nobel Prize or three...

And to recap my previous question, do you (Porterboy) accept that detection and prevention of fraud is worthwhile?

[Fnord]

Speaking of challenges, I used to run my own $1000 Challenge. It went something like...

"What's in the box?

I have selected a container, and three items to put inside it. The container, and thus its contents, are in a secure location. Neither the container, its contents, or its location can be changed unchallenged.

Tell me:

1) Where the container is located.
2) What the container looks like.
3) What is inside the container.

Give detailed answers. GPS coordinates, hand-drawn diagrams, and photoshopped images would be ideal. Vague generalizations will be rejected.

If you say "The container is in a building" without specifying that building's address or deed description, your answer will be rejected.

If you say "The container is a box" without describing the shape, color, dimensions, or materials of the container, then your answer will be rejected.

If you say that "One of the objects is red" without describing any of its other possible parameters, then your answer will be rejected. And if the object happens to be a newspaper clipping, you can not claim a hit by saying that you meant to say "One of the objects is read" or some other such nonesensical excuse, because your answer will be rejected.

You may use:

a) Telepathy.
b) Telescience, Claivoyance, or other form of ESP.
c) Your spirit guide's messages.
d) Alien technology.
e) Ouija boards, astrology, tarot cards, radionic devices, or any other method of information gathering that is not recognized by science, and that is not prohibited by law.

The most correct answer, given by [date/time] will be awarded the $1000 cash prize."

At no time did anyone correctly identify the container, its location, or its contents (Most recently: Thermos Bottle, Safety Deposit Box, Tube of Glue/#6-32 Bolt/Camera Lens). I would set up the test on Friday, run it on Saturday, and then reveal the results on Monday when the bank opened.

I'm willing to run this test again if I knew the challengers would not try to subvert the rules or the answers.

[slyjoe]

How many people actually tried to do this????

[Fnord]

How many people actually tried to do this????

17; most of whom made multiple attempts.

[slyjoe]

Yikes! Don't know if I could have put up with it. There could be a good article in your data. :)

[Fnord]

Yikes! Don't know if I could have put up with it ... :)


What's not to put up with? Those who would try simply type in their guesses, I print out enough copies for everyone, then we order pizza and play Dungeons & Dragons all night!

:vk:

[kookbreaker]

Hmph. Sadly the two Philadelphia weekly papers have shed scorn on this action.

[Porterboy]

You've acknowledged that, even assuming psychic powers exist, there exist frauds. How do you determine who is genuine and who isn't?

Reputation is the best way. Ask around and find out who's got the best record within the Woo community. Also educate yourself about some of the tricks fakes use. And at the end of the day, never hang too much on what they say. Even if they're really reading the aether and getting first hand info, you never know how much of it is warped by their own perceptions and consciousness. Use psychic messages as a rough guide only.

Why? Thinking of joining us?;)

[Porterboy]

I really don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply to psychics. They claim to sell orange juice, but it's just coloured water. That's per definition a fraud in the eyes of every proper consumer law.
...

If this is the case then the comsumer law is unjust and needs to be changed.

I've not come across anyone who questions what orange juice is. Yet there are many different views on the supernatural. Some say it is something we should never accept without proof, others claim that it is something you know is true if you can feel it intuitively. In your analogy: There may be people who like water with yellow colouring. If they're aware of what the product contains and are aware that others question that this is genuine orange juice then what right does anyone have to prevent a mature citizen of sound mind accessing that product.

[Porterboy]

There, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it Porterboy?


No. See what I wrote above. EG:

The requirement for proof should be a choice. Not everyone wants or needs proof to accept something as real. Seeing as this is understood by the psychics' customers then it's unfair to restrict their access to these professionals by banning them with laws and rules. It's basically just as bad as Woo's banning people freom reading books on science.

[Porterboy]

If psychic powers affect the real world in any way, then they can be tested for. If they can be tested for, they can be proven. If they can be proven, psychics can be accredited/registered/licenced just like doctors, counsellors and other professionals.

Problem solved. No need for draconian outright bans or even having to claim "it's entertainment guv" to get around the UK Fraudulent Mediums Act. Those who are actually psychic will have nothing to fear. Of course, there are already ways to be tested, to prove you have psychic powers, that would allow any successful applicant to legitimately challenge any blanket law, not to mention win the odd Nobel Prize or three...


But the need for proof is the views of science only. Not everone is a scientist. To enforce scientific principles on those who don't want them is undemocratic. The solution to the problem is for psychics to be allowed to practice freely to any mature adult who wants to use their services, perhaps with the disclaimer we proposed on the last page.

[Porterboy]

And to recap my previous question, do you (Porterboy) accept that detection and prevention of fraud is worthwhile?

Absolutely. If any psychic is caught with secret cameras or double-sided tarot cards etc then they should be prosecuted.

[chillzero]

If this is the case then the comsumer law is unjust and needs to be changed.

I've not come across anyone who questions what orange juice is. Yet there are many different views on the supernatural. Some say it is something we should never accept without proof, others claim that it is something you know is true if you can feel it intuitively. In your analogy: There may be people who like water with yellow colouring. If they're aware of what the product contains and are aware that others question that this is genuine orange juice then what right does anyone have to prevent a mature citizen of sound mind accessing that product.

Well, there is a distinct difference between the two. Coloured water is sold as cordial, and people have the choice to purchase that or orange juice. They have the choice, and they have the reassurance that if they opt for juice, that it has been checked and tested and proven to be what it says it is.

I have no problem with psychics selling their time, if they can prove they are genuine.

In fact, when I was in the new-age community, and reading tarot cards, and believing I was psychic, this was something I very much pushed for. I felt that my genuine abilities were being cheapened by frauds claiming the same things. Ironically enough, when I looked into how to test these things, I wouldn't have passed the tests myself - but then I also would not have tried to promote myself as a 'genuine' psychic.

[Solus]

Porterboy you amuse me. Reminds me why I hang around the JREF forums. Banning psychics is an ATTACK ON HUMAN FREEDOM!!!

:dl:

Anyrate I wish the same laws were passed for the rest of the country. To end the debate, it's illegal to commit fraud; that's what psychics do. Therefore the law is justified, end of story.

[chillzero]

Absolutely. If any psychic is caught with secret cameras or double-sided tarot cards etc then they should be prosecuted.

double sided tarot cards? for what purpose?

This is looking at the wrong side of the fraud perpetrated by professional 'psychics'. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Colin Fry; none of these people need physical props in order to defraud people of their money. It comes down to personality, hype and an ability to read people.

[Porterboy]

Well, there is a distinct difference between the two. Coloured water is sold as cordial, and people have the choice to purchase that or orange juice. They have the choice, and they have the reassurance that if they opt for juice, that it has been checked and tested and proven to be what it says it is.
.

Exactly! And the customer has a choice of whether to use a psychic who operates under the terms of our disclaimer or one who claims to have scientific proof of their abilites. In the second example the customer can say "OK, prove it." In the first example, the customer has made the choice to believe without scientific proof.

[Porterboy]

Porterboy you amuse me. Reminds me why I hang around the JREF forums. Banning psychics is an ATTACK ON HUMAN FREEDOM!!!

:dl:

Anyrate I wish the same laws were passed for the rest of the country. To end the debate, it's illegal to commit fraud; that's what psychics do. Therefore the law is justified, end of story.

Well then we disagree. I think otherwise for the reasons I've stated on this thread.

If I hear of any more laws like this then I will contact the solicitors involved and see if they've thought of using my argument in an appeal.

[Porterboy]

double sided tarot cards? for what purpose?



I've seen packs of tarot cards with symbols on the reverse which the reader can use to position them in the pack. I don't know how or why this is an advantage because I'm not into tarot.

[Porterboy]

double sided tarot cards? for what purpose?

This is looking at the wrong side of the fraud perpetrated by professional 'psychics'. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Colin Fry; none of these people need physical props in order to defraud people of their money. It comes down to personality, hype and an ability to read people.

Well the question is: Are Colin, John or Sylvia using cold reading to get their information or do they genuinely get it from the aether? You need to be aware of the possiblity that they might be usng cold reading. But if you accept that psychic powers are possiblity through your own personal experience of the phemomenon then leave it as a possibility that they using real aetheric communication.

There's no way to be certain so choice is simple, you either choose to visit a psychic, aware of the uncertainty, or you don't.

[Porterboy]

This issue reminds me of something I was thinking when listening to one of James Randi's lectures:

Randi laments at one point about a hospital which decided to send some of its nurses on a hands-on healing course. He said that this practice should be stopped. Why? Are hospitals funded by the taxes and insurance premiums of skeptics only?

[Solus]

Others will post here much more knowledge than myself to answer this question: Can it be legally proven that "psychics" are committing fraudulent behavior?

I consider the whole business fraud so I have no qualms against the psychics being banned. If the law can't prove it though that's a different matter. I'd still like to see all this profit psychic business made illegal. You can still call yourself psychic but no charging a person 50$ an hour.

[chillzero]

Exactly! And the customer has a choice of whether to use a psychic who operates under the terms of our disclaimer or one who claims to have scientific proof of their abilites. In the second example the customer can say "OK, prove it." In the first example, the customer has made the choice to believe without scientific proof.

You are missing my point.
People do not have the choice, because psychics all sell themselves under that same banner. None of them have undergone testing to prove their abilities, and those that are scrutinised closer do not withstand that scrutiny.

[Porterboy]

I consider the whole business fraud so I have no qualms against the psychics being banned.

Why? Because they can't scientifically prove what they do?

If so then you are imposing your own values onto others, without respecting their right to choose. In this way what makes you different from the Christians who call for books on science to be banned?

[chillzero]

I've seen packs of tarot cards with symbols on the reverse which the reader can use to position them in the pack. I don't know how or why this is an advantage because I'm not into tarot.

I don't see any point in that.

Tarot is about the client turning over random cards, and you tell them a nice story depending on which pictures come up. I can see how sometimes it might be useful to drive home a point, and say you are going to pull another card for them to determine which way a certain decision will fall, and then use an appropriate picture to support yourself, but it really isn't necessary.

My point was that the majority of psychics do not require any props, hidden cameras, or tricks to fool people. People want to believe in them, and the psychics are good at reading body language, etc.

[Porterboy]

You are missing my point.
People do not have the choice, because psychics all sell themselves under that same banner. None of them have undergone testing to prove their abilities, and those that are scrutinised closer do not withstand that scrutiny.

No, I agreed that there should be a disclaimer. Look at what I said at the bottom of the last page. Those who refuse to put the disclaimer on their paperwork can then either undergo a scientific test or lose their licence.

[chillzero]

Well the question is: Are Colin, John or Sylvia using cold reading to get their information or do they genuinely get it from the aether? You need to be aware of the possiblity that they might be usng cold reading. But if you accept that psychic powers are possiblity through your own personal experience of the phemomenon then leave it as a possibility that they using real aetheric communication.

There's no way to be certain so choice is simple, you either choose to visit a psychic, aware of the uncertainty, or you don't.

Yes, they absolutely are cold reading, among other methods. No they do not get it from the aether.

Again you have missed my point. My experience has convinced me that psychic powers do not exist. As a skeptic, of course I remain open to being proven wrong, but I do not see that ability as present in anyone I have watched so far. Otherwise I believe they would be as happy to be tested as I was.

[chillzero]

This issue reminds me of something I was thinking when listening to one of James Randi's lectures:

Randi laments at one point about a hospital which decided to send some of its nurses on a hands-on healing course. He said that this practice should be stopped. Why? Are hospitals funded by the taxes and insurance premiums of skeptics only?

Hospitals are funded very economically, and should be prioritising their funds toward systems that have been proven to work, and that actually save lives.

[Porterboy]

Yes, they absolutely are cold reading, among other methods. No they do not get it from the aether.

Again you have missed my point. My experience has convinced me that psychic powers do not exist. As a skeptic, of course I remain open to being proven wrong, but I do not see that ability as present in anyone I have watched so far. Otherwise I believe they would be as happy to be tested as I was.

Then you have the right to choose not to visit a psychic. But what's wrong with people, who understand that no scientific proof exists of psychic powers, making a different choice?

[chillzero]

Others will post here much more knowledge than myself to answer this question: Can it be legally proven that "psychics" are committing fraudulent behavior?

I consider the whole business fraud so I have no qualms against the psychics being banned. If the law can't prove it though that's a different matter. I'd still like to see all this profit psychic business made illegal. You can still call yourself psychic but no charging a person 50$ an hour.

I believe that this is behind the pending updates to the Million Dolalr Challene. I think Mr Randi wants to start addressing these things via the courts.

[chillzero]

No, I agreed that there should be a disclaimer. Look at what I said at the bottom of the last page. Those who refuse to put the disclaimer on their paperwork can then either undergo a scientific test or lose their licence.

We have a disclaimer in the UK. It is not enforced, it is not understood, and it is essentially, useless.

Psychics (I have witnessed this myself) tell people that yes, they have a disclaimer to say that they are only providing entertainment, but that this is just a legal loophole thing, and not to worry. Essentially they claim to still have the powers, but are trying to escape 'unjust persecution'.

[chillzero]

Then you have the right to choose not to visit a psychic. But what's wrong with people, who understand that no scientific proof exists of psychic powers, making a different choice?

Because people don't understand the implications of that.
Because people are still pushed to use psychics by so-called well-meaning friends and family when they are at their most vulnerable.
Because psychics seek people out at their most vulnerable and force themselves into their lives and situations for their own advantage.
Because psychics will emotionally blackmail people into using them because otherwise they clearly 'don't care' about resolving the situation they may be involved in.
Because psychics make a fortune by dismissing the real and terrible things people go through, so that they can make themselves seem important and special.

I recommend that you read this series:
http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/31106-pmp-first-of-many-part-i.html
and try to understand why mediums and psychics are so awful.

[Big Les]

Why? Because they can't scientifically prove what they do?

If so then you are imposing your own values onto others, without respecting their right to choose. In this way what makes you different from the Christians who call for books on science to be banned?

Having a right to choose is one thing, and should be supported by all. Having money taken from you under demonstrably false pretenses is quite another. In fact, it's fraud. Please try to understand, before one of us dies of old age.

[Cuddles]

Others will post here much more knowledge than myself to answer this question: Can it be legally proven that "psychics" are committing fraudulent behavior?

I am not a lawyer, but I have seen other people have answered this question before. I think that if you accuse someone of fraud, the burden of proof lies no the person making the accusation, which means it is basically impossible to prove it legally. You can prove that some psychics cheat some of the time, but the legal system essentially wants you to prove a negative. This does make sense in many cases since it means people don't have to spend all their time answering false accusations, but unfortunately it does mean that it is pretty much impossible to challenge paranormal claims legally.

Then you have the right to choose not to visit a psychic. But what's wrong with people, who understand that no scientific proof exists of psychic powers, making a different choice?

Please provide your evidence that shows everyone who gives money to psychics understands this, or that psychics actually try to explain this to anyone.

In any case, do you believe people who take money from old women are not actually frauds? They claim to be nice men from the bank, so as long as the women believe this it is not fraud, right?

[Bri]

Absolutely. If any psychic is caught with secret cameras or double-sided tarot cards etc then they should be prosecuted.

Then do you agree that all of these psychics should be periodically investigated by someone like Randi to make sure they're not cheating, the same way that orange juice is periodically inspected?

-Bri

[KingMerv00]

Update: The law has been relaxed a bunch.

Here is my local paper: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/main_line_delaware/20070503_New_look_at_law_gets_city_to_toss_psychic s_a_lifeline.html

[Porterboy]

http://www.ourstrangeworld.net/?p=8515#more-8515

Now that's an amazing piece of divine intervention; almost enough to make me believe in random chance!:D

[Porterboy]

Because people don't understand the implications of that.
Because people are still pushed to use psychics by so-called well-meaning friends and family when they are at their most vulnerable.
Because psychics seek people out at their most vulnerable and force themselves into their lives and situations for their own advantage.
Because psychics will emotionally blackmail people into using them because otherwise they clearly 'don't care' about resolving the situation they may be involved in.
Because psychics make a fortune by dismissing the real and terrible things people go through, so that they can make themselves seem important and special.

I recommend that you read this series:
http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/31106-pmp-first-of-many-part-i.html
and try to understand why mediums and psychics are so awful.

I'll check it out, but I've already read "The Psychic Mafia" (I posted a review on this forum a few months ago), so I'll be surprised if it shocks me.

You're right that there are some individuals who do all the things you mentioned above, but it's not fair to tar all of them with the same brush. When you say "people don't understand the implications of that". Which people are you talking about? Most of the Woo's I know understand it perfectly.

[Porterboy]

Having a right to choose is one thing, and should be supported by all. Having money taken from you under demonstrably false pretenses is quite another. In fact, it's fraud. Please try to understand, before one of us dies of old age.

If a professional honestly says: "I have psychic gifts, but I can't prove it scientifically. If you want my services then you'll have to use your intuition to decide if I'm giving you real information or not", then where's the fraud?

[Porterboy]

Then do you agree that all of these psychics should be periodically investigated by someone like Randi to make sure they're not cheating, the same way that orange juice is periodically inspected?

-Bri

Yes, that sounds fair enough.

Although, as we discussed earlier, some forms of cheating are very hard to detect.

[Porterboy]

Please provide your evidence that shows everyone who gives money to psychics understands this, or that psychics actually try to explain this to anyone.


No, you provide evidence that shows everyone who visits psychics is just a dupe who's never read a skeptical word in their life.

I can't povide evidence that psychics always explain this though, in fact I know some don't. this is wrong and they should do.

[Porterboy]

In any case, do you believe people who take money from old women are not actually frauds? They claim to be nice men from the bank, so as long as the women believe this it is not fraud, right?

No, they're not actually frauds so long as they don't make rash claims about being able to prove what they do scientifically. They should always make the client aware of the disclaimer we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

[Bri]

Yes, that sounds fair enough.

I'm pretty sure that's all anyone in this thread has suggested. An inspection by someone like Randi would determine whether or not a psychic can do what s/he claims to be able to do without cheating.

Although, as we discussed earlier, some forms of cheating are very hard to detect.

It's not that hard to determine whether a psychic is actually able to do what they claim. Randi does it all the time. Incidentally, in the highly unlikely event that a psychic would pass the inspection, they would be eligible for Randi's million dollars.

I would predict that not a single psychic would pass the inspection.

-Bri

[Bri]

If a professional honestly says: "I have psychic gifts, but I can't prove it scientifically. If you want my services then you'll have to use your intuition to decide if I'm giving you real information or not", then where's the fraud?

Just curious, can you give an example of a psychic claim that cannot be proven?

It seems to me that most could be proven, making such a disclaimer, in fact, false.

-Bri

[Porterboy]

I'm pretty sure that's all anyone in this thread has suggested. An inspection by someone like Randi would determine whether or not a psychic can do what s/he claims to be able to do without cheating.

-Bri

If you're suggesting an inspection to see whether a psychic could prove scientifically whether they could do what they claim then I don't agree that this should be compulsory. I'd support an inspection to make sure a psychic is not using things like cotton wool ectoplasm, knowlege about people gathered by looking in their handbags when their back sare turned, secret cameras, lighting effects and things like that.

[Hawk one]

Well the question is: Are Colin, John or Sylvia using cold reading to get their information or do they genuinely get it from the aether? You need to be aware of the possiblity that they might be usng cold reading. But if you accept that psychic powers are possiblity through your own personal experience of the phemomenon then leave it as a possibility that they using real aetheric communication.

And that's your problem right there. It's like accepting coloured water is orange juice just because your own personal experience told you it was that. Naturally, the laws on orange juice can't and shouldn't be made on such a flimsy premise. They must be based on objective criteria.

And in order for psychics to show they are real, they need to go through objective tests without possibilities for fraud, and proceed better than chance would have them do. It's not hard to set up such tests, but for some reason, hardly anyone seem to be willing. And those that do fail.

So, since nobody has yet given objective, repeatable evidence that they are doing something that can not be explained with cold reading and other cheating techniques, there is no reason to allow them to sell coloured water, is there?

[Porterboy]

Just curious, can you give an example of a psychic claim that cannot be proven?

-Bri

A medium could tell you that she has found a lost piece of jewlery. She goes on to describe the jewlery in detail, including aspects that seem to rule out chance. She then tels you where to find it. You go to the place where it has been found to see that someone else has already got there and they give the piece of jewlery to you. It seems so highly unlikely that the medium could possibly have known about the jewel, but not impossible because someone else knew about it and could technically have informed her. This then means you'd need to either accept the event as a genuine psychic one or decide that that is not enough and reject it.

[Bri]

If you're suggesting an inspection to see whether a psychic could prove scientifically whether they could do what they claim then I don't agree that this should be compulsory. I'd support an inspection to make sure a psychic is not using things like cotton wool ectoplasm, knowlege about people gathered by looking in their handbags when their back sare turned, secret cameras, lighting effects and things like that.

I'm suggesting an inspection to determine whether the psychic can do whatever they claim to be able to do. Can you specify the difference between inspecting for cheating and requiring the psychic to demonstrate what they do in a controlled environment (i.e. without cheating)? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're attempting to make.

-Bri

[Bri]

A medium could tell you that she has found a lost piece of jewlery. She goes on to describe the jewlery in detail, including aspects that seem to rule out chance. She then tels you where to find it. You go to the place where it has been found to see that someone else has already got there and they give the piece of jewlery to you. It seems so highly unlikely that the medium could possibly have known about the jewel, but not impossible because someone else knew about it and could technically have informed her. This then means you'd need to either accept the event as a genuine psychic one or decide that that is not enough and reject it.

Does this psychic claim to be able to find lost jewelry then? How often does this psychic claim to be correct? Why couldn't this claim be proven scientifically?

-Bri

[Big Les]

And that's your problem right there. It's like accepting coloured water is orange juice just because your own personal experience told you it was that. Naturally, the laws on orange juice can't and shouldn't be made on such a flimsy premise. They must be based on objective criteria.

And in order for psychics to show they are real, they need to go through objective tests without possibilities for fraud, and proceed better than chance would have them do. It's not hard to set up such tests, but for some reason, hardly anyone seem to be willing. And those that do fail.

So, since nobody has yet given objective, repeatable evidence that they are doing something that can not be explained with cold reading and other cheating techniques, there is no reason to allow them to sell coloured water, is there?

Quoted for truth. I wouldn't want PB to miss this one.

[Porterboy]

And that's your problem right there. It's like accepting coloured water is orange juice just because your own personal experience told you it was that. Naturally, the laws on orange juice can't and shouldn't be made on such a flimsy premise. They must be based on objective criteria.

And in order for psychics to show they are real, they need to go through objective tests without possibilities for fraud, and proceed better than chance would have them do. It's not hard to set up such tests, but for some reason, hardly anyone seem to be willing. And those that do fail.

So, since nobody has yet given objective, repeatable evidence that they are doing something that can not be explained with cold reading and other cheating techniques, there is no reason to allow them to sell coloured water, is there?

Yes there is because some people want to buy coloured water. It's as simple as that. If they want to buy it after being informed by skeptics that real orange juice exists then why shouldn't they? If you ban the sale of coloured water against the wishes of the consumers than this is very undemocratic. It's imposing your values on others with no respect for their right to choose. You're effectively saying. "You might prefer coloured water, but you're not allowed to drink it. This is because I prefer orange juice and you're forbidden from having different tastes to me."

Is that what you're suggesting: That poeple should be forced to demand scientific proof for things whether they wish to or not?

[Porterboy]

Does this psychic claim to be able to find lost jewelry then? How often does this psychic claim to be correct? Why couldn't this claim be proven scientifically?

-Bri

Well in this instance it couldn't, but if you mean that a psychic who claims a track record in repeatedly finding lost jewlery could be tested, then yes he or she could. It would be a simple mattr to design a satisfacory experiment and see if the contender could succeed.

We both know that that hasn't happened yet though, don't we?;)

[Porterboy]

I'm suggesting an inspection to determine whether the psychic can do whatever they claim to be able to do. Can you specify the difference between inspecting for cheating and requiring the psychic to demonstrate what they do in a controlled environment (i.e. without cheating)? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're attempting to make.

-Bri

The distinction is this:

In Case 1 a psychic claims to be able to read the future, commune with spirits etc, but only she knows this because only she knows what is going on in her own mind, which is the only place where the spirits appear. So she tells her client: "I am telling you that I can see spirits, but I can't prove this. It's up to you if you wish to believe me or not."

In Case 2 A psychic knows full well that she has no psychic gift at all, yet she lies and pretends to; and uses trickery to make it look like she does.

In Case 3 a psychic has genuine gifts, like in Case 1, yet she rashly claims she can provide scientific proof of this when she doesn't understand what is involved in science.

In my view Case 1 is doing nothing wrong at all, Case 2 is a completel fraud and should be prosecuted, and Case 3 is simply irresponsible and needs to be educated. She sould either change her practice and become like Case 1 or stop altogether.

Hope that clarifies my position.

[thaiboxerken]

If you're suggesting an inspection to see whether a psychic could prove scientifically whether they could do what they claim then I don't agree that this should be compulsory. I'd support an inspection to make sure a psychic is not using things like cotton wool ectoplasm, knowlege about people gathered by looking in their handbags when their back sare turned, secret cameras, lighting effects and things like that.

We can ensure they aren't using tricks and cold-reading by using scientific protocols and tests. Psychics claim to do things that can absolutely be tested for, so they should have to prove that they have their powers before being able to sell services using said powers.

[Bri]

Well in this instance it couldn't, but if you mean that a psychic who claims a track record in repeatedly finding lost jewlery could be tested, then yes he or she could. It would be a simple mattr to design a satisfacory experiment and see if the contender could succeed.

A psychic who doesn't claim a track record better than chance isn't much of a psychic are they? Nobody would go to a psychic who claimed to find lost jewelry one time in a million attempts. That's why all psychics make claims well above chance. Otherwise, people wouldn't know to come to them. So why not have psychics specify what they can do upfront, then have them prove their claims, just like we do with orange juice?

We both know that that hasn't happened yet though, don't we?;)

Of course not. And at least one of us knows why!

-Bri

[Porterboy]

We can ensure they aren't using tricks and cold-reading by using scientific protocols and tests. Psychics claim to do things that can absolutely be tested for, so they should have to prove that they have their powers before being able to sell services using said powers.

And what if mature, adult citizens of sound mind say "OK, we can see that this hasn't been proved yet, but we've looked at both sides of the argument and we think that there are some psychics that we can trust. We've had paranormal experiences ourselves and we think that there's something in it."?

Would you tell these people that they don't have any choice and that they're not allowed access to the professionals involved?

[thaiboxerken]

Would you tell these people that they don't have any choice and that they're not allowed access to the professionals involved?

If they believe in psychic powers, they aren't mature. I don't think people should have a choice in empowering these con-artists.

[Porterboy]

. So why not have psychics specify what they can do upfront, then have them prove their claims,

I don't know. But I reserve my rights and the rights of others to still think that psychic powers are real based on our own reasoning and values.

That's the issue here: Not whether these things are real or not, but whether anyone has the right to decide what values other people are permitted to use in deciding that question.

[Bri]

The distinction is this:

In Case 1 a psychic claims to be able to read the future, commune with spirits etc, but only she knows this because only she knows what is going on in her own mind, which is the only place where the spirits appear. So she tells her client: "I am telling you that I can see spirits, but I can't prove this. It's up to you if you wish to believe me or not."

Again, few if any psychics claim only this. It would be like claiming that you can hear voices in your head that nobody else can hear. Who would care? No, it's only the claim that those voices are telling you something meaningful to someone else that you could make any money from it. So, there is always more to the claim, and the claim can nearly always be proven scientifically.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Not really. See above, and please provide a better example.

-Bri

[Hawk one]

Yes there is because some people want to buy coloured water. It's as simple as that. If they want to buy it after being informed by skeptics that real orange juice exists then why shouldn't they? If you ban the sale of coloured water against the wishes of the consumers than this is very undemocratic. It's imposing your values on others with no respect for their right to choose. You're effectively saying. "You might prefer coloured water, but you're not allowed to drink it. This is because I prefer orange juice and you're forbidden from having different tastes to me."

Is that what you're suggesting: That poeple should be forced to demand scientific proof for things whether they wish to or not?

No, that's not at all what I am saying or suggesting. Please read my posts more carefully for the future.

Again, you miss the point. It's not about whether you want to buy coloured water, it's trying to sell coloured water as orange juice. That is what the "psychics" are in fact doing.

To repeat:

To sell coloured water as coloured water is fine.
To sell orange juice as orange juice is fine.
To sell coloured water and claim it's orange juice is not fine.
The tests to see if someone claiming they're selling orange juice and not just claiming to do so must be objective tests, and not based on "personal experience".

And remember, I'm focusing on the responsibility of the seller here. Because when you sell a product, you do have responsibilities, at least in any sane society.

People can choose to buy coloured water as much as they like. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with are sellers that lie about their coloured water (by calling it orange juice) in order to sell more of it than they would have had they been honest. And they rely on people not being informed about the reality of the situation.

[Bri]

I don't know. But I reserve my rights and the rights of others to still think that psychic powers are real based on our own reasoning and values.

That's the issue here: Not whether these things are real or not, but whether anyone has the right to decide what values other people are permitted to use in deciding that question.

It is part of the government's job to ensure that products and services don't make untrue claims (i.e. to protect its citizens from fraud) since it would be difficult to individual citizens to test products and services themselves.

For example, it would be difficult for the average consumer to test orange juice to know what it contains. Therefore, orange juice makers are required to specify on the package what it contains. Orange juice is then periodically tested to make sure that it contains 100% oranges if that's what is claimed on the package.

All products and services except psychics are required to makes their claims upfront, and those claims are tested for accuracy. Otherwise, it is considered fraud.

Again, why not do the same with psychics?

-Bri

[Porterboy]

If they believe in psychic powers, they aren't mature. I don't think people should have a choice in empowering these con-artists.

Then you are imposing your own values on others and have no respect for their rights as human beings. You're saying that because they have a different outlook on life to you they are deluded and immature. Can you imagine how patronizing that sounds? It proves Robert Liddle's point in that film "The Trouble With Atheism" that we discussed a few months ago.

In my own experience people who are unscientific are not immature at all. Some are, but then others are not. Woos are like anyone else.

Tell me, if you're so eager to enforce scientific principles on those who don't want them then what makes you different from the Christian zealots who want to ban books on science?

[Porterboy]

It would be difficult for the average consumer to test orange juice to know what it contains. Therefore, orange juice makers are required to specify on the package what it contains. Orange juice is then periodically tested to make sure that it contains 100% oranges if that's what is claimed on the package.

All product and services except psychics are required to makes their claims upfront, and the government steps in to ensure that those claims are accurate. Otherwise, it is considered fraud.

Again, why not do the same with psychics?

-Bri

As I said: All psychics should operate under the disclaimer we discussed on page 1 of this thread. Do you want me to repost it?

[Hawk one]

Oh, and one more thing.

No, I don't think people should be forced to demand evidence from the seller.

But when people voluntarily ask for evidence that the seller provides the product he claims to sell, the seller should then be forced to provide such evidence, or stop claiming he sells that product when he doesn't.

Big difference.

[KingMerv00]

If a professional honestly says: "I have psychic gifts, but I can't prove it scientifically. If you want my services then you'll have to use your intuition to decide if I'm giving you real information or not", then where's the fraud?

What if:

If a doctor honestly says: "I have these AIDS pills, but they haven't be evaluated for safety or efficacy. If you want my services then you'll have to use your intuition to decide if I'm giving you real information or not"?

[Porterboy]

No, that's not at all what I am saying or suggesting. Please read my posts more carefully for the future.

Again, you miss the point. It's not about whether you want to buy coloured water, it's trying to sell coloured water as orange juice. That is what the "psychics" are in fact doing.

To repeat:

To sell coloured water as coloured water is fine.
To sell orange juice as orange juice is fine.
To sell coloured water and claim it's orange juice is not fine.
The tests to see if someone claiming they're selling orange juice and not just claiming to do so must be objective tests, and not based on "personal experience".

And remember, I'm focusing on the responsibility of the seller here. Because when you sell a product, you do have responsibilities, at least in any sane society.

People can choose to buy coloured water as much as they like. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with are sellers that lie about their coloured water (by calling it orange juice) in order to sell more of it than they would have had they been honest. And they rely on people not being informed about the reality of the situation.


But psychic powers are not like orange juice. Everyone agrees on what orange juice is. If everyone were agreed that scientific proof is necessry to accpet somethng is real then there's be no problem: We'd just put all psychics to scientific tests and ban those that failed. But not everyone agrees that scientific proof is necessary to accept something as real. Some people want to believe in things, and have access to the services that allow them to practice that belief, without scientific proof. What right do we have to ompose our values: the need for scientific proof, on them?

[Porterboy]

Oh, and one more thing.

No, I don't think people should be forced to demand evidence from the seller.

But when people voluntarily ask for evidence that the seller provides the product he claims to sell, the seller should then be forced to provide such evidence, or stop claiming he sells that product when he doesn't.

Sure. That's what I've been saying all along. It's about voluntary choice.

[thaiboxerken]

Then you are imposing your own values on others and have no respect for their rights as human beings.

No, I'm not. I'm merely saying that they will not have to pay for "psychic" advice. I'm saying that psychics can't charge for something that no psychic has yet to prove is worth any value. I'm making it illegal to sell fool's gold as gold.


You're saying that because they have a different outlook on life to you they are deluded and immature.

Yes.


Can you imagine how patronizing that sounds?

If the truth is patronizing, so be it.


In my own experience people who are unscientific are not immature at all. Some are, but then others are not. Woos are like anyone else.

Except for the immature beliefs, I would agree.


Tell me, if you're so eager to enforce scientific principles on those who don't want them then what makes you different from the Christian zealots who want to ban books on science?

Because the christian zealots are imposing their superstition into the world they are wrong. If the christians can prove, scientifically, that creationism is real, then I'll support the teaching of creationism in schools.

[Bri]

As I said: All psychics should operate under the disclaimer we discussed on page 1 of this thread. Do you want me to repost it?

Yes, please, unless you're talking about this one:

"The customer is advised that he/she enters into this service in the knowlege that is it is based on faith and intuition and has no existance in emprical science."

In this case, can you reword it so that it makes a little more sense? Specifically, what do you mean that a service has no existence in empirical science?

-Bri

[Porterboy]

What if:

If a doctor honestly says: "I have these AIDS pills, but they haven't be evaluated for safety or efficacy. If you want my services then you'll have to use your intuition to decide if I'm giving you real information or not"?

Then the doctor is being honest and not technically committing fraud. It's then up to the patient if he/she wants to risk it.

[Porterboy]

No, I'm not. I'm merely saying that they will not have to pay for "psychic" advice. I'm saying that psychics can't charge for something that no psychic has yet to prove is worth any value. I'm making it illegal to sell fool's gold as gold.
.

I've addressed the issue of "Well they can still do it for free" on page 1.

[thaiboxerken]

I've addressed the issue of "Well they can still do it for free" on page 1.

Doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

[Porterboy]

Yes.



If the truth is patronizing, so be it.
.


So science is "The Way the Truth and the Light"? I always thought that science was about respecting each person as an intellectual entitiy in their own right, able to make their own choices and be respected for that. I always saw this as the main difference between science and religion.

[Bri]

But psychic powers are not like orange juice. Everyone agrees on what orange juice is. If everyone were agreed that scientific proof is necessry to accpet somethng is real then there's be no problem: We'd just put all psychics to scientific tests and ban those that failed. But not everyone agrees that scientific proof is necessary to accept something as real. Some people want to believe in things, and have access to the services that allow them to practice that belief, without scientific proof. What right do we have to ompose our values: the need for scientific proof, on them?

I understand what you're saying here, I really do.

However, not all orange colored beverages are the same, so if the package only said "orange juice" for any type of orange colored beverage then not everyone would agree on what orange juice is. The only reason we agree is because orange juice manufacturers are required to post their claims on the package. They are not allowed to sell orange colored water as "orange juice."

Psychics make similarly testable claims as orange juice manufacturers, they're just not always upfront about those claims. Why not require the same of psychics as we do of all other products and services?

-Bri

[thaiboxerken]

So science is "The Way the Truth and the Light"?

Yes. Lightbulbs were developed with science.


I always thought that science was about respecting each person as an intellectual entitiy in their own right, able to make their own choices and be respected for that.

This merely shows that you have absolutely no clue as to what science is.


I always saw this as the main difference between science and religion.

The main difference between science and religion is that science respects reality, religion doesn't.

[Porterboy]

Because the christian zealots are imposing their superstition into the world they are wrong. If the christians can prove, scientifically, that creationism is real, then I'll support the teaching of creationism in schools.

Well Christian zealots are saying: "It's different for us because we're right"

You're saying: "It's different for us because we're right."

Spot the difference?... Me neither.

[Porterboy]

Doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

So what what would you say if Woo extremeists decide not to ban science totally, but force universities to stop paying science professors? "It's OK" they say "They can still take an interest in science in their spare time and get day jobs" Do you think that's fair?

[Bri]

The main difference between science and religion is that science respects reality, religion doesn't.

What does religion have to do with the topic? Can we stick to psychics for the purposes of this discussion?

-Bri

[thaiboxerken]

Well Christian zealots are saying: "It's different for us because we're right"

You're saying: "It's different for us because we're right."

Spot the difference?... Me neither.

The difference is I have the backing of evidence. If you don't like science, that's fine. However, as a moderator of what is real, science has played major roles in our society and in law. We don't place animals on endangered species lists because a god tells us that an animal species is endangered, it's because of scientific data. The FDA doesn't operate on divine knowledge, they use science. We regulate health-care with science. Sorry, but no matter what you think, science is the ONLY reliable method we have to determine reality.

[Porterboy]

The main difference between science and religion is that science respects reality, religion doesn't.

But this is merely your definition of reality. Religions define reality as the bible or the Koran or some revealed scripture of one sort or another. Scientists define it as what can be seen rational observation.

I don't agree with either view, but I'd never ever try to stop people expressing them. I'd never dream of demeaning someone for thinking that way.

[thaiboxerken]

So what what would you say if Woo extremeists decide not to ban science totally, but force universities to stop paying science professors? "It's OK" they say "They can still take an interest in science in their spare time and get day jobs" Do you think that's fair?

I'd fight them and there is a huge difference between psychics and scientists. Scientists actually contribute value to the world. Psychics devalue the world. Psychics provide no valuable service to society. Science has contributed a tremendous amount of value to society, and if you don't agree that science has contributed value, then feel free to stop using anything that has become better, safer or has been invented by science.

[thaiboxerken]

But this is merely your definition of reality.
Doesn't matter, science is the only reliable method that has proven itself over and over again. Religions don't even come close. If you don't like that idea, then stop using anything that science has touched.

[Porterboy]

What does religion have to do with the topic? Can we stick to psychics for the purposes of this discussion?

-Bri

I was merely using an analogy of the reverse of science trying to stop Woo by force. After all Woos have tried to ban science in the past.

[thaiboxerken]

Science isn't trying to stop woos. Science isn't a being. WTF are you talking about?

[scotth]

I was merely using an analogy of the reverse of science trying to stop Woo by force. After all Woos have tried to ban science in the past.

Religious woos are trying to ban science today.

[NobbyNobbs]

But psychic powers are not like orange juice. Everyone agrees on what orange juice is. If everyone were agreed that scientific proof is necessry to accpet somethng is real then there's be no problem: We'd just put all psychics to scientific tests and ban those that failed. But not everyone agrees that scientific proof is necessary to accept something as real. Some people want to believe in things, and have access to the services that allow them to practice that belief, without scientific proof. What right do we have to ompose our values: the need for scientific proof, on them?


Bolding mine. These are exactly the people that anti-fraud laws are in place to protect.

Recently there was a contractor in the area who was hired to refinish a driveway. He got a large cash deposit up front, did a lousy job, and disappeared with the money. He is being prosecuted, because this is fraud. He did not deliver what was promised.

Now you might say, "not everyone agrees on what psychic phenomena is". Well, not everyone may have the same opinion on what a well-paved driveway is either, but that doesn't mean we don't know a poor one when we see it. The bottom line is, you can't charge for a service that you don't deliver. And the service can't be some nebulous thing that no one can agree on a definition of. The rule is, "You pay me X, and I give you Y." If you pay and I don't give, that's fraud.

These poor fools want to believe, that's fine. They want to pay, that's fine. But the end result is that they do not get what they paid for. They aren't being connected with their dead relatives, they aren't being told their futures. Psychics want to charge for services? Fine. That makes it a business, and they have to operate under the same rules as any other business, regardless of how nebulous their service is. And the most basic rule of business is to make good on your claims of service.

[Porterboy]

Doesn't matter, science is the only reliable method that has proven itself over and over again. Religions don't even come close. If you don't like that idea, then stop using anything that science has touched.


I'm not anti-science at all. I accept that science has done wonderful things for humanity. All I'm saying is that I don't see it as the one and only way to see the world and I think everyone else has that right to see it that way too. I'm a pluralist.

I've got to go now, but I'll talk to you later.

[Porterboy]

Religious woos are trying to ban science today.


I know, and I'm totally opposed to them.

See you later.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not anti-science at all. I accept that science has done wonderful things for humanity. All I'm saying is that I don't see it as the one and only way to see the world..

It is the one and only proven way to determine reality.

[Bri]

I was merely using an analogy of the reverse of science trying to stop Woo by force. After all Woos have tried to ban science in the past.

The discussion of religion only muddies the water.

I agree in principal that if something cannot be scientifically proven, people should be free to make their own choice as to whether or not to believe it real (provided they are given all available information).

However, I've never heard of a psychic claim that cannot be proven, and you've yet to provide an example.

Nearly anything that people would be willing to pay money for has to make a real claim of some sort, and psychic abilities are no exception. Nobody would pay unless the psychic claimed to be able to do something that affects the real world. Psychics rely on the fact that the average person doesn't have the expertise to test the claim, just like the average person doesn't know how to test orange juice. However, like orange juice (and nearly every other legitimate product and service), such claims can and should be tested.

-Bri

[Hawk one]

Sure. That's what I've been saying all along. It's about voluntary choice.

Well, someone -did- ask the self-proclaimed psychics in Philly if they could prove they provided the service they claimed. These someone were the officials, acting on behalf of the public.

So far, none of the alleged psychics has provided any evidence that they are for real. And there are indeed ways to test this.

So, until that happens, they stay closed. If you show me someone who does provide such objective evidence and -still- won't be allowed to sell his or her services, then I'll be supporting that person to get such a permission.

[Bri]

Well, someone -did- ask the self-proclaimed psychics in Philly if they could prove they provided the service they claimed. These someone were the officials, acting on behalf of the public.

So far, none of the alleged psychics has provided any evidence that they are for real. And there are indeed ways to test this.

So, until that happens, they stay closed. If you show me someone who does provide such objective evidence and -still- won't be allowed to sell his or her services, then I'll be supporting that person to get such a permission.

If only that were the case. As KingMerv00 pointed out here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2573930#post2573930), Philadelphia officials have now allowed the psychics to return to business as usual without providing any evidence. From Philly.com (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/7307696.html):

The city backed off after Mitchell's attorney, John Raimondi, filed a request last week for a restraining order and preliminary injunction on the ground that the statute could be invoked only in cases of fraud.

"What we said is the law is part of the crimes code. You have to prove that someone has been taken advantage of, and you can't expect L&I to enforce that," Raimondi said.

Before the case even reached a judge, he said, "we got a call Monday afternoon from the City Solicitor's Office saying they were agreeing with us and advising L&I to discontinue."

It's unclear to me why this isn't fraud, and why they claim that nobody has been taken advantage of.

-Bri

[Hawk one]

Bri: So much for sane and evenly applied consumer laws... :(

[Kaylee]

This case could really use a good investigative reporter. I’m sure there is a good juicy story here, ripe for a Sunday morning newspaper feature.

Why were the psychics ignored for so many years before last week? And why, after a forgotten law was finally and briefly enforced, did the city's attorneys decide to cave-in so quickly?

[Bri]

Bri: So much for sane and evenly applied consumer laws... :(

I'll reserve final judgment until Porterboy can explain how psychics differ from other consumer products and services in that regard.

-Bri

[Porterboy]

It is the one and only proven way to determine reality.

We'll have to differ on that. It's a useful, intelligent way to determine reality, but it's not the only way.

[Porterboy]

The discussion of religion only muddies the water.

I agree in principal that if something cannot be scientifically proven, people should be free to make their own choice as to whether or not to believe it real (provided they are given all available information).

However, I've never heard of a psychic claim that cannot be proven, and you've yet to provide an example.

Nearly anything that people would be willing to pay money for has to make a real claim of some sort, and psychic abilities are no exception. Nobody would pay unless the psychic claimed to be able to do something that affects the real world. Psychics rely on the fact that the average person doesn't have the expertise to test the claim, just like the average person doesn't know how to test orange juice. However, like orange juice (and nearly every other legitimate product and service), such claims can and should be tested.

-Bri

Well I think the introduction of the disclaimer would solve that problem. In my experience plenty of Woos are easily capable of understanding the concept of the provable and unprovable. Simply stating that psychic power is not science should be enough.

This is a bit like the Creationist debate: Many of the school teachers and parents in the USA currently engaged in the battle against those proposing the teaching of the Intelligent Design Theory do not object to the theory bewing taught at all, they just object to it being taught as a science in classrooms. If it was shifted to the Religious Studies class then we could all go home happy.

[thaiboxerken]

We'll have to differ on that. It's a useful, intelligent way to determine reality, but it's not the only way.

It's the only reliable way. Feel free to name the others and prove that they are reliable.

[Porterboy]

If only that were the case. As KingMerv00 pointed out here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2573930#post2573930), Philadelphia officials have now allowed the psychics to return to business as usual without providing any evidence. From Philly.com (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/7307696.html):



It's unclear to me why this isn't fraud, and why they claim that nobody has been taken advantage of.

-Bri

I'm glad they've been allowed back to work, but I agree with those of you who support the idea of the disclaimer. Once it's in place I don't see how the psychics can be accused of fraud.

[Porterboy]

I'll reserve final judgment until Porterboy can explain how psychics differ from other consumer products and services in that regard.

-Bri

Because most people agree on what orange juice is, as opposed to orange cordial or orange crush. Chocolate can only be called by that name if it contains so much cocoa, anything less than a certain amount and it must be called "chocolate flvoured".

But psychic powers are different. They have no objective presence in this world that can be perceived with the physical senses measured with instruments. Therefore how can anyone set up established values on how they can be judged as real or not? One should be allowed to choose whether to accept them as real or not based on whatever cognitive system one likes: Science, intuition, paranormal experience.

[Porterboy]

It's the only reliable way. Feel free to name the others and prove that they are reliable.

That's a bit of an oxymoron. The other ways: Intuition, gut feelings, subjective experience, cannot be proved. If they could then they wouldn't be intuition or gut feeling, they'd be scientific.

[Porterboy]

Where's RandFan these days?

I could do with his help here, cos I'm fairly sure he'd be on my side. :cool:

[thaiboxerken]

The other ways: Intuition, gut feelings, subjective experience, cannot be proved.

Exactly, thus they are irrelevant to law.

[Steven Howard]

I'm late to this thread, but I just need to ask one thing:

Am I right in thinking that Porterboy is doing that thing where you demonstrate how absurd something is by pretending to believe it, with a completely straight face?

I know Porterboy himself won't break kayfabe and acknowledge this, so I'm throwing the question open to floor. Does anybody else get that impression, or is it just me?

[Porterboy]

In this case, can you reword it so that it makes a little more sense? Specifically, what do you mean that a service has no existence in empirical science?

-Bri

My draft disclaimer could be a bit more detailed like this:

Psychic and supernatural phenomena have never been scientifically proved to exist. The client is advised that he/she is entering into a service that can provide no objective evidence of any information that the professional provides. Therefore our services are taken on the basis of faith and belief only. Individuals who require objective evidence of any information provided herein are advised not to use this service.

How does that sound? Give me your version if you like.

[Porterboy]

Exactly, thus they are irrelevant to law.

Then why are their laws protecting people's right to freedom of religious worship?

[Porterboy]

This merely shows that you have absolutely no clue as to what science is.


Yes indeed. I've been under a big false impression.

[thaiboxerken]

How does that sound? Give me your version if you like.

Psychic and supernatural phenomena have never been scientifically proved to exist. The client is advised that he/she is entering into a service that in which the "professional" is simply a liar or a deluded person. The information given by said professional has no basis in reality and will give no valuable information that could otherwise be found with rational or logical methods. In short, if you pay for this service, you're a moron.

[thaiboxerken]

Then why are their laws protecting people's right to freedom of religious worship?

Because it's one thing to believe in weird stuff, it's another thing to take advantage of other people's beliefs.

[scotth]

Psychic and supernatural phenomena have never been scientifically proved to exist. The client is advised that he/she is entering into a service that in which the "professional" is simply a liar or a deluded person. The information given by said professional has no basis in reality and will give no valuable information that could otherwise be found with rational or logical methods. In short, if you pay for this service, you're a moron.


:clap:

[Beth]

All products and services except psychics are required to makes their claims upfront, and those claims are tested for accuracy. Otherwise, it is considered fraud.

Again, why not do the same with psychics?

-Bri

A great many businesses make claims that not only cannot be tested for accuracy, are absolutely not accurate and are not considered fraud. For example, the "Best Coffee in the World" is served in many places. How would one go about establishing the accuracy of that claim? And who would bother to do so?

In addition, many service providers only promise to give you their best effort because success cannot be guaranteed. Lawyers won't guarantee that they will win your case. Doctors don't guarantee to cure you of whatever illness you may have. Beauticians don't guarantee that you'll be good-looking after they cut your hair.

At any rate, I think most fortune-tellers operate under a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. Thus, I don't think they can be prosecuted for fraud any more than Quentin Tarantino could be prosecuted for making boring films.

[Hawk one]

At any rate, I think most fortune-tellers operate under a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only.

Where is the entertainment in a "psychic" telling a mother that her child is dead when he's actually alive?

[Bri]

My draft disclaimer could be a bit more detailed like this:

Psychic and supernatural phenomena have never been scientifically proved to exist. The client is advised that he/she is entering into a service that can provide no objective evidence of any information that the professional provides. Therefore our services are taken on the basis of faith and belief only. Individuals who require objective evidence of any information provided herein are advised not to use this service.

Well, it would be fine if it weren't false. Can you honestly name a psychic who makes claims for which no evidence can possibly be provided? Sure, one could argue that some psychic abilities cannot be tested, however psychics make money not by simply claiming to have psychic abilities, but by claiming to be able to do things in the real world as a result of their psychic abilities like talk to dead relatives, find missing items, etc. which can most certainly be tested. So far I've not heard of a psychic who makes claims that can't be tested, because a claim that can't be tested (such as hearing voices that only speak gibberish) would be useless and can't make the psychic any money.

-Bri

[Bri]

A great many businesses make claims that not only cannot be tested for accuracy, are absolutely not accurate and are not considered fraud. For example, the "Best Coffee in the World" is served in many places. How would one go about establishing the accuracy of that claim? And who would bother to do so?

I'm sure you can see the difference between "best coffee in the world" and "I can give you a message from your dead mother" or "I can tell you if your missing child is dead" or "this pill will cure AIDS" right?

In addition, many service providers only promise to give you their best effort because success cannot be guaranteed. Lawyers won't guarantee that they will win your case. Doctors don't guarantee to cure you of whatever illness you may have. Beauticians don't guarantee that you'll be good-looking after they cut your hair.

But there is some serious oversight when it comes to lawyers and doctors. Careful records are kept of all cases/patients and their outcomes, and the public has access to that information. And if an attorney or a doctor performed no better than chance, they would hopefully be disbarred or sued for malpractice. Again, I think you can discern the difference, right?

At any rate, I think most fortune-tellers operate under a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. Thus, I don't think they can be prosecuted for fraud any more than Quentin Tarantino could be prosecuted for making boring films.

Some do, some don't. And some people go to them for entertainment purposes only and some don't. The problem is that those who don't also tend to be the most desperate. Few if any people who go to psychics wouldn't know how to tell whether they are being duped or not, and many psychics (probably all of them) depend on that. Most of us are pretty ignorant when it comes to telling whether or not our orange juice is 100% juice from an orange, which is why the government requires juice manufacturers to put their claims right on the package, and periodically inspects it for us to make sure their claims are accurate.

-Bri

[Big Les]

I'm late to this thread, but I just need to ask one thing:

Am I right in thinking that Porterboy is doing that thing where you demonstrate how absurd something is by pretending to believe it, with a completely straight face?

I know Porterboy himself won't break kayfabe and acknowledge this, so I'm throwing the question open to floor. Does anybody else get that impression, or is it just me?

Based on his comments in a couple of cryptozoology related threads, I don't think he's given psychics much thought until arriving here to talk about his own compartmentalized branch of woo. I have a feeling he's not too bothered either way, but sees us as a bunch of reactionary naysayers and is playing this out to see what we come up with.

In short, it's a wind-up.

[Beth]

I'm sure you can see the difference between "best coffee in the world" and "I can give you a message from your dead mother" or "I can tell you if your missing child is dead" or "this pill will cure AIDS" right?

I do, but I think there is a basic similarity in that adults who are intelligent enough to buy coffee can discern that the claims are very likely not true.

But there is some serious oversight when it comes to lawyers and doctors. Careful records are kept of all cases/patients and their outcomes, and the public has access to that information. And if an attorney or a doctor performed no better than chance, they would hopefully be disbarred or sued for malpractice. Again, I think you can discern the difference, right?

Yes, I can. But I don't think hairstylest get the same level of oversight and psychics strike me as more comparible to a barber or a taxi driver than a lawyer or physician, thus I think arguments for things like 'standards' 'oversight' and 'malpractice' are a bit overblown. Actually, I tend to think of professional psychics as being a small notch above drug dealer and prostitute and needing about the same level of 'oversight'. Personally, I think such 'victimless crimes' ought not be considered crimes in a rational society.

Some do, some don't. And some people go to them for entertainment purposes only and some don't. The problem is that those who don't also tend to be the most desperate. Few if any people who go to psychics wouldn't know how to tell whether they are being duped or not, and many psychics (probably all of them) depend on that. Most of us are pretty ignorant when it comes to telling whether or not our orange juice is 100% juice from an orange, which is why the government requires juice manufacturers to put their claims right on the package, and periodically inspects it for us to make sure their claims are accurate.

-Bri

It's a reasonable concern. It is a problem. But then again, the problems of alcohism are quite real too, but our society has decided the problems with prohibition of it are worse. I think that's true with this situation as well.

Part of it is just personal preference. I prefer to allow people the freedom to seek whatever comforts work best for them. I think it's better than the alternative of shutting such businesses down which then breeds all the social and political problems of prohibition.

[Tamazon]

I guess I agree with Porterboy in the sense that if you want to be an idiot and throw your hard earned cash at at psychic for a bit of whimsy knowing full well that your being duped, that's just hunky dory.

But the laws should be in place to protect those that are desperate, vulnerable or just uniformed from wasting their money on a service that they are not getting.

A disclaimer would be great but as it's been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, it would be a quick cursory thing that the psychic would just brush off as those "bad unbelievers" trying to squelch the poor honest psychic and keep her from helping the grieving. The suckers will buy that and carry on.

[Solus]

You seem to be bending on your position porterboy. It's ok if psychics are in business ONLY if they have a disclaimer would agree with that? Or should psychics be allowed to do whatever they please without a disclaimer?

I'd say I would agree it that it would be ok as well provided the disclaimer followed legally mandated rules. Such as size and message content; that would prevent the so called psychic from writing whatever weak kind of disclaimer they wanted to.

[Porterboy]

Based on his comments in a couple of cryptozoology related threads, I don't think he's given psychics much thought until arriving here to talk about his own compartmentalized branch of woo. I have a feeling he's not too bothered either way, but sees us as a bunch of reactionary naysayers and is playing this out to see what we come up with.

In short, it's a wind-up.


:s2: Methinks that be an Ad Hominem!

[Porterboy]

Psychic and supernatural phenomena have never been scientifically proved to exist. The client is advised that he/she is entering into a service that in which the "professional" is simply a liar or a deluded person. The information given by said professional has no basis in reality and will give no valuable information that could otherwise be found with rational or logical methods. In short, if you pay for this service, you're a moron.




So any irrational person who choses not to take a scientific viewpoint is a moron?

In that case do you think forcing them to take a scienfic viewpoint is therefore justified?

[thaiboxerken]

Would it be ok for a con-artist to take money from people playing the shell-game if he had a small disclaimer that said "warning, this game is rigged."?

[Porterboy]

Because it's one thing to believe in weird stuff, it's another thing to take advantage of other people's beliefs.

Well if the psychic is displaying a satisfactory disclaimer then nobody's taking advantage. If the customer doesn't like the deal then they can spend their money on something else.

Besides, religions do take money. In every church service they pass the hat round.

Actually that's a good point. Have the Philadelphia psychics ever considered appealling under the basis of Freedom to Worship laws?

[thaiboxerken]

So any irrational person who choses not to take a scientific viewpoint is a moron?

Yes.


In that case do you think forcing them to take a scienfic viewpoint is therefore justified?

Is is force to not let the morons get conned by con-artists?

[Porterboy]

Would it be ok for a con-artist to take money from people playing the shell-game if he had a small disclaimer that said "warning, this game is rigged."?

Yes. If the provider is truthful about what is on offer then there is no con, by definition of the word. "Con" only applies when some kind of deceit is involved.

[thaiboxerken]

Well if the psychic is displaying a satisfactory disclaimer then nobody's taking advantage.


Right, because everyone takes those disclaimers seriously. :rolleyes:

[Porterboy]

Yes.



Is is force to not let the morons get conned by con-artists?

But what if they want to... what you term "get conned"? Don't they have that right?

[Porterboy]

Right, because everyone takes those disclaimers seriously. :rolleyes:


Well it works for cigarettes. "Government Health Warning- Smoking can seriously damage your health etc" Ciggy packs have had that on them for years and still do.

[thaiboxerken]

But what if they want to... what you term "get conned"? Don't they have that right?

No

[thaiboxerken]

Well it works for cigarettes.

Provide evidence that the disclaimers on cigarettes work.

[Porterboy]

No

Then we'll have to differ.

[Porterboy]

Provide evidence that the disclaimers on cigarettes work.

Well, they stopped me from smoking!

Mind you it doesn't make any difference because you've said that people should not be allowed to choose to "get conned". By your ethics; my fags would be snatched away from me by force!

It wouldn't be too bad in this case because I don't smoke, but what if I'd chosen to. I'd feel very different about being told I was not allowed to smoke.

[Porterboy]

No

May I ask you something? If you lived in a Christain fundamentalist state (well you're American so maybe you do! :D ) and the govt told you you were not permitted to learn about science. "Science is a con!" they said "It's against the teachings of the Bible". Would you think that was fair?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that cigarette companies are conning people. They really are selling the product that the customers pay for.

[thaiboxerken]

Would you think that was fair?

No, but that's only because science is a proven method. Also, religion should play no role in legislation at all.

[Porterboy]

I'd say I would agree it that it would be ok as well provided the disclaimer followed legally mandated rules. Such as size and message content; that would prevent the so called psychic from writing whatever weak kind of disclaimer they wanted to.

I agree with you there. So long as the disclaimer was fair.

I'm not in favour of psychics just doing anything they like. I'm opposed to false claims of proof, cotton wool ectoplasm, secret cameras etc.

[Porterboy]

No, but that's only because science is a proven method. Also, religion should play no role in legislation at all.

We're clearly not going to reach agreement here.

Have a nice day.:)

[Porterboy]

I guess I agree with Porterboy in the sense that if you want to be an idiot and throw your hard earned cash at at psychic for a bit of whimsy knowing full well that your being duped, that's just hunky dory.

But the laws should be in place to protect those that are desperate, vulnerable or just uniformed from wasting their money on a service that they are not getting.

A disclaimer would be great but as it's been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, it would be a quick cursory thing that the psychic would just brush off as those "bad unbelievers" trying to squelch the poor honest psychic and keep her from helping the grieving. The suckers will buy that and carry on.

That's a fair point. Psychics can be greedy and heartless just like any other people. Having psychic experiences doesn't automatically make one enlightened and philanthropic! Of course there are those who pretend to be psychics who are no more psychic than Richard Dawkins. And I agree that they need to be dealt with.

Actually this is something that the industry itself could have done, but has failed to.

[Porterboy]

Where is the entertainment in a "psychic" telling a mother that her child is dead when he's actually alive?


I've heard of that incident and it was a pretty sordid affair. It's a shame all those who have, or pretend to have, psychic abilities could be responsible enlightened people, but they're not.

[Civilized Worm]

Reputation is the best way. Ask around and find out who's got the best record within the Woo community.


By this logic whoever has the best record within the mafia must be a legitimate businessman!

[Porterboy]

By this logic whoever has the best record within the mafia must be a legitimate businessman!

Not at all. By this logic if you want to rob a bank or kidnap a millionaire for ransom then the best man in the mafia is the one you're after.

If you're looking for a psychic to provide a service: Ie: one that you know cannot be proved, but you don't mind that it cannot be proved, then you can't say that you're being conned. You'd only be conned if the "psychic" fooled you by saying "I've got scientific proof of this" when she hadn't. Or that she threw cotton wool in the air and made out that it was ectoplasm.

[Porterboy]

There's a distinction here. Can yuo spot the difference between these three cases?:



In Case 1 a psychic claims to be able to read the future, commune with spirits etc, but only she knows this because only she knows what is going on in her own mind, which is the only place where the spirits appear. So she tells her client: "I am telling you that I can see spirits, but I can't prove this. It's up to you if you wish to believe me or not."

In Case 2 A psychic knows full well that she has no psychic gift at all, yet she lies and pretends to; and uses trickery to make it look like she does.

In Case 3 a psychic has genuine gifts, like in Case 1, yet she rashly claims she can provide scientific proof of this when she doesn't understand what is involved in science.

In my view Case 1 is doing nothing wrong at all, Case 2 is a completel fraud and should be prosecuted, and Case 3 is simply irresponsible and needs to be educated. She sould either change her practice and become like Case 1 or stop altogether.

[Civilized Worm]

If they predict future events that repeatedly come to pass as described then that would be proof of an ability.

[jstro]

Well, when I heard about this law, I smiled and laughed. Finally, an instance where the woos are not being catered to!

After giving it a lot of thought, he's my $0.02. While any and all claims of psychic powers are fraudulent IMO, I am not so sure that the service that a psychic provides is necessarily fraudulent, strictly in the legal sense. The psychic performs a service for money, the service being the whole psychic reading ceremony and all the fan-fare that goes along with it. Woos go to psychics to feel good about their choices and their future, and that's exactly what the psychic gives them, a feel-good session The woos get what they pay for. And as far as I know the psychics never offer guarantees as to the effectiveness of their advice. Without a money-back guaranteed psychic prediction, it is very difficult to make a legal case of fraud or deceptive practices, unless the supposed psychic is fully aware that she has no such power yet deceives her patrons into thinking so. I think there would be some kind of legal case there. I'm no lawyer, however, so I may be out to lunch on this legal stuff, but that's how I understand it.

So I really don't think fortune telling should be criminalized, as egregious as it is. I'm more in favor of activities that will inform and educate the public about what kind of services they are actually buying.

[Civilized Worm]

I don't know. But I reserve my rights and the rights of others to still think that psychic powers are real based on our own reasoning and values.

That's the issue here: Not whether these things are real or not, but whether anyone has the right to decide what values other people are permitted to use in deciding that question.


What about vulnerable and easily manipulated people? Are you saying we shouldn't protect the elderly, the uneducated and the grieving from being taken advantage of?

[Porterboy]

If they predict future events that repeatedly come to pass as described then that would be proof of an ability.

Sorry, but I've been through this several times in the last few days. Have a browse through this thread and if you can't find a satisfactory response in anything I've written then I can't help you.

[Civilized Worm]

Tell me, if you're so eager to enforce scientific principles on those who don't want them then what makes you different from the Christian zealots who want to ban books on science?


That we're the complete opposite of them?


Well Christian zealots are saying: "It's different for us because we're right"

You're saying: "It's different for us because we're right."

Spot the difference?... Me neither.


No we're saying "it's different for us because we're right AND WE CAN PROVE IT". That's one hell of a difference.

[Porterboy]

Well, when I heard about this law, I smiled and laughed. Finally, an instance where the woos are not being catered to!

After giving it a lot of thought, he's my $0.02. While any and all claims of psychic powers are fraudulent IMO, I am not so sure that the service that a psychic provides is likewise fraudulent, strictly in the legal sense. The psychic performs a service for money, the service being the whole psychic reading ceremony and all the fan-fare that goes along with it. Woos go to psychics to feel good about their choices and their future, and that's exactly what the psychic gives them, a feel-good session The woos get what they pay for. And as far as I know the psychics never offer guarantees as to the effectiveness of their advice. Without a money-back guaranteed psychic prediction, it is very difficult to make a legal case of fraud or deceptive practices, unless the supposed psychic is fully aware that she has no such power yet deceives her patrons into thinking so. I think there would be some kind of legal case there. I'm no lawyer, however, so I may be out to lunch on this legal stuff, but that's how I understand it.

So I really don't think fortune telling should be criminalized, as egregious as it is. I'm more in favor of activities that will inform and educate the public about what kind of services they are actually buying.


:clap: :clap:

[chillzero]

I've heard of that incident and it was a pretty sordid affair. It's a shame all those who have, or pretend to have, psychic abilities could be responsible enlightened people, but they're not.

It's not an isolated incident, which is why I referred you to Kelly's site.

[Porterboy]

What about vulnerable and easily manipulated people? Are you saying we shouldn't protect the elderly, the uneducated and the grieving from being taken advantage of?

Well these people are still mature citizens of sound mind. It's not protecting them to deny them their civil rights.

It's the responsibility of the industry to make sure these people are treated with respect and that obvious frauds are dealt with.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps if the JREF or I wrote the disclaimer that had to be hung on the door frame, in open site and in large font of the psychic's business, I'd agree that they could do business. And, the client would have to sign a similar disclaimer as well.

[thaiboxerken]

Well these people are still mature citizens of sound mind.

If they are looking to psychics and tarot readers for answers, I'd have to conclude that they are not mature and not of sound mind.

[Porterboy]

That we're the complete opposite of them?





No we're saying "it's different for us because we're right AND WE CAN PROVE IT". That's one hell of a difference.

But it isn't because the whole idea of proof and rationality is just one of many viewpoints that exist on this Earth. Just because you are so sure that it is the correct one doesn't mean it's OK to stop free, mature citizens from rejecting it if they choose.

It's far wiser to say: "I'm convinced this is the correct way to think, and I advise you to do the same.. but I'll leave the decision up to you."

[Porterboy]

If they are looking to psychics and tarot readers for answers, I'd have to conclude that they are not mature and not of sound mind.

Well we differ there, as you know.

[Porterboy]

Perhaps if the JREF or I wrote the disclaimer that had to be hung on the door frame, in open site and in large font of the psychic's business, I'd agree that they could do business. And, the client would have to sign a similar disclaimer as well.

If the disclaimer was fair I'd agree.

[thaiboxerken]

Well we differ there, as you know.

Of course, a woo would disagree.

[Porterboy]

It's not an isolated incident, which is why I referred you to Kelly's site.


I never claimed it was isolated.

[thaiboxerken]

If the disclaimer was fair I'd agree.

What would make a disclaimer unfair. All it has to say is that 1. psychics aren't real. 2. this person isn't really a psychic. 3. You're a moron if you pay for this service. 4. Your name is going to be placed in the national "I'm a moron list" that will be published for public viewing.

[Porterboy]

What would make a disclaimer unfair. All it has to say is that 1. psychics aren't real. 2. this person isn't really a psychic. 3. You're a moron if you pay for this service. 4. Your name is going to be placed in the national "I'm a moron list" that will be published for public viewing.

What would make that unfair is that it is rationalocentric. It's also very aggressive and intimidating.

[thaiboxerken]

What would make that unfair is that it is rationalocentric. It's also very aggressive and intimidating.

That's the whole point. It should be aggressive and intimidating. It should discourage people from seeking these con-artists for answers from "beyond." Also, part of the profit that these charlatans make should go to skeptic organizations and programs to make commercials that describe how psychics aren't real.

[Solus]

Looks like I agree with Thaiboxen here. So then Porterboy you actually believe in psychic powers then? That's interesting, I'm psychic you know, for 500$ an hour I can give you a good reading. ;)

[Beth]

What about vulnerable and easily manipulated people? Are you saying we shouldn't protect the elderly, the uneducated and the grieving from being taken advantage of?

We have to balance protection of those groups against restricting the rights of adult citizens to make their own choices. I am not convinced that criminalizing psychic readings is worth the cost due to the inherent problems that are associated with criminalizing such transactions between consenting adults.

Protecting the vulnerable is laudable, but how do we decide who is too vulnerable to make such choices for themselves and who needs our protection? Protecting the uneducated is best accomplished by providing the means for them to become educated. And as far as I'm concerned, the grieving ought to be allowed to decide for themselves what solace they choose to spend their money on, be it church, mediums, or psychotherapy.

[volatile]

Look, Parterboy, here's the rub.

This is even about "provabilty" or "science", or even about "educated consumers". Do you think the people who pay Sylvia Browne hundred of dollars believe, truly, that she when says she's speaking to their dead relatives, she really is speaking with their dead relatives?

They're not paying her because she might able to; they're paying her because she says she can really, unequivocally, speak with the dead.

If she can speak with the dead, let her prove it. Until then, how dare she charge money for it?

I can tell someone I can make them a million bucks if only they pay me a thousand. No guarantees, mind, but, y'know, I've done it before, hundreds of times. Montel Williams has me on his show to give financial advice. Hedge funds all over the country hire me. I can definitely make you a million bucks, just hand me a grand and I'll make it happen.

Is that OK?

[Solus]

We have to balance protection of those groups against restricting the rights of adult citizens to make their own choices. I am not convinced that criminalizing psychic readings is worth the cost due to the inherent problems that are associated with criminalizing such transactions between consenting adults.

Protecting the vulnerable is laudable, but how do we decide who is too vulnerable to make such choices for themselves and who needs our protection? Protecting the uneducated is best accomplished by providing the means for them to become educated. And as far as I'm concerned, the grieving ought to be allowed to decide for themselves what solace they choose to spend their money on, be it church, mediums, or psychotherapy.

What about Solus's church of arbatel magick? For a mere 1000$ I can connect you to the soul of your dead relative so that you might feel them once again. I am a grandmaster of the arbatel of magick. ;)

Where do we draw the line? What I described is amoral, and unethical, a civilized society should not allow the grieving to be taken advantage of. The problem is the grieving party might really believe what you tell them. That's different from therapy.

I'm against banning psychics but it should be illegal for them to charge. I think if psychics could no longer charge for their services that would solve a great deal of the problem.

[Porterboy]

That's the whole point. It should be aggressive and intimidating. It should discourage people from seeking these con-artists for answers from "beyond." .

Well I'm hardly likely to endorse that now, am I? :rolleyes:

If you've read and understood what I've written on this thread then it should be very obvious that that is not my objective.

[Porterboy]

Looks like I agree with Thaiboxen here. So then Porterboy you actually believe in psychic powers then? That's interesting, I'm psychic you know, for 500$ an hour I can give you a good reading. ;)

Hmmm. Tempting... but no thanks. :cool: ;)

I choose not to use your services, because as a free mature citizen I have that right. Alternatively if I chose otherwise I claim the right to use your serives without harrassment and discrimination; and you'd have the same rights in providing me with that service.

[Porterboy]

Look, Parterboy, here's the rub.

This is even about "provabilty" or "science", or even about "educated consumers". Do you think the people who pay Sylvia Browne hundred of dollars believe, truly, that she when says she's speaking to their dead relatives, she really is speaking with their dead relatives?

They're not paying her because she might able to; they're paying her because she says she can really, unequivocally, speak with the dead.


That's why psychics should be operating with the disclaimer that there is no scientific evidence that what claim to they do is real.

[Porterboy]

I can tell someone I can make them a million bucks if only they pay me a thousand. No guarantees, mind, but, y'know, I've done it before, hundreds of times. Montel Williams has me on his show to give financial advice. Hedge funds all over the country hire me. I can definitely make you a million bucks, just hand me a grand and I'll make it happen.

Is that OK?

Well that sounds like a fair deal. At least you're honest and you say there are no guarentees. If I chose to hand over the money then nobody could accuse you of fraud. So long as your slot on Montel Williams' show is real and not just cotton wool ectoplasm.

However, in accordance with my rights as a free mature citizen i choose not to accept. Thanks anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

it should be very obvious that that is not my objective.

But it should be the objective of a civilized society.

[Porterboy]

but it should be illegal for them to charge. I think if psychics could no longer charge for their services that would solve a great deal of the problem.

But this would restrict access to those who wish to use their services. In the same way that it would be harder for science students if Christian fundamentalists took control of a university and forced the science professors to work in their spare time.

I go into this point in detail on previous pages.

[Porterboy]

But it should be the objective of a civilized society.

Any society where people are bullied and browbeaten into conforming to a certain worldview is not civilized in my opinion.

[thaiboxerken]

But this would restrict access to those who wish to use their services.

And that is a good thing.

[thaiboxerken]

Any society where people are bullied and browbeaten into conforming to a certain worldview is not civilized in my opinion.

Any society that allows a person to charge for psychic services isn't civilized.

[Porterboy]

Any society that allows a person to charge for psychic services isn't civilized.

And that is a good thing.

Well it's clear we will not agree on this matter,

so have a nice day :)

[Solus]

But this would restrict access to those who wish to use their services. In the same way that it would be harder for science students if Christian fundamentalists took control of a university and forced the science professors to work in their spare time.

Stop using bad analogies already. How would making it illegal for psychics to charge for their "services" restrict access to those who want a psychic reading?:confused:

[Civilized Worm]

Well these people are still mature citizens of sound mind. It's not protecting them to deny them their civil rights.

It's the responsibility of the industry to make sure these people are treated with respect and that obvious frauds are dealt with.


Grief stricken people are not of sound mind, that's the point. Plus we have many other laws and regulations to avoid people being taken for a ride, why should "psychics" be exempt?


But it isn't because the whole idea of proof and rationality is just one of many viewpoints that exist on this Earth. Just because you are so sure that it is the correct one doesn't mean it's OK to stop free, mature citizens from rejecting it if they choose.


What on earth? Proof isn't an opinion you know.


What would make that unfair is that it is rationalocentric. It's also very aggressive and intimidating.


Unbelievable, are you really trying to say that rationality is a bad thing?

[Civilized Worm]

But this would restrict access to those who wish to use their services. In the same way that it would be harder for science students if Christian fundamentalists took control of a university and forced the science professors to work in their spare time.

I go into this point in detail on previous pages.


Yes and we've already demonstrated that your point is idiotic, science professor perform a legitimate service that they are qualified to perform.

[Civilized Worm]

We have to balance protection of those groups against restricting the rights of adult citizens to make their own choices. I am not convinced that criminalizing psychic readings is worth the cost due to the inherent problems that are associated with criminalizing such transactions between consenting adults.

Protecting the vulnerable is laudable, but how do we decide who is too vulnerable to make such choices for themselves and who needs our protection? Protecting the uneducated is best accomplished by providing the means for them to become educated. And as far as I'm concerned, the grieving ought to be allowed to decide for themselves what solace they choose to spend their money on, be it church, mediums, or psychotherapy.


I understand that arguement, it's Porterboy's nonsense that I really object to.

[chillzero]

I never claimed it was isolated.

I now, but you are acting as if these people are not that big a deal, or a threat really. I am trying to get you to see that they are dangerous and evil.

[Beth]

What about Solus's church of arbatel magick? For a mere 1000$ I can connect you to the soul of your dead relative so that you might feel them once again. I am a grandmaster of the arbatel of magick. ;)

Where do we draw the line? What I described is amoral, and unethical, a civilized society should not allow the grieving to be taken advantage of. The problem is the grieving party might really believe what you tell them. That's different from therapy.
In my opinion we should draw the line the other side of making consensual activities that don't harm others against their will illegal. Just because an activity is immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think adultery is immoral. So I don't do it. But I don't think it should be illegal. I don't expect everyone else to live with my moral standards.

I'm against banning psychics but it should be illegal for them to charge. I think if psychics could no longer charge for their services that would solve a great deal of the problem.

Hmmm, isn't that what we current do with sexual activities? It's not banned to have sexual relations with someone you aren't married to, but charging for it is illegal. IMO, it's not worth it. But at this point, we're deep into discussing ethics, morality, value systems, etc. If you want to discuss that, I suggest moving the conversation to a different forum.

[Beth]

I now, but you are acting as if these people are not that big a deal, or a threat really. I am trying to get you to see that they are dangerous and evil.

While I can understand the problem you are talking about it, I would hesitate to describe such people as "dangerous and evil". Weapons of mass destruction and those who would use them are dangerous and evil.

I regard the type of psychics you describe as more on a par with lawyers who use the law as a weapon against others, not as a tool to achieve justice. And frankly, I consider such lawyers a bigger deal and more of a threat than psychics.

[Civilized Worm]

What kind of world is it when people can get on TV and make millions for exploiting people's grief but consenting adults are unable to exchange sexual services if money is involved?


I'll to you what kind, the BIZARRO kind!

[TjW]

The distinction is this:

In Case 1 a psychic claims to be able to read the future, commune with spirits etc, but only she knows this because only she knows what is going on in her own mind, which is the only place where the spirits appear. So she tells her client: "I am telling you that I can see spirits, but I can't prove this. It's up to you if you wish to believe me or not."

In Case 2 A psychic knows full well that she has no psychic gift at all, yet she lies and pretends to; and uses trickery to make it look like she does.

In Case 3 a psychic has genuine gifts, like in Case 1, yet she rashly claims she can provide scientific proof of this when she doesn't understand what is involved in science.

In my view Case 1 is doing nothing wrong at all, Case 2 is a completel fraud and should be prosecuted, and Case 3 is simply irresponsible and needs to be educated. She sould either change her practice and become like Case 1 or stop altogether.

Hope that clarifies my position.

That's interesting. It seems that in none of the cases do the actual results affect your opinion of what's going on.

What makes Case 3 irresponsible?
Would Case 3 still be irresponsible if convincing scientific evidence is provided? (These are hypothetical cases, right?)

[Porterboy]

Stop using bad analogies already. How would making it illegal for psychics to charge for their "services" restrict access to those who want a psychic reading?:confused:

Because it would make it harder for the psychics to operate. They'd have to get day jobs and do it in their spare time.

I don't think my anology is bad. It's demonstrating how the supposed opposite is really the same.

[Porterboy]

Unbelievable, are you really trying to say that rationality is a bad thing?

No, I'm saying that rationality imposed by force on people who've made a positive decision to be irrational is a bad thing. It denies them their fundamental human right to choose their own viewpoint.

[Porterboy]

Yes and we've already demonstrated that your point is idiotic, science professor perform a legitimate service that they are qualified to perform.

OK, well I'm not going through my argument yet again; my fingers are sore from typing!:boxedin:

We'll just have to differ on that one.

[Porterboy]

I now, but you are acting as if these people are not that big a deal, or a threat really. I am trying to get you to see that they are dangerous and evil.


But it sounds like you want to tar all psychics with the same brush. That's unfair and prejudicial. It's like attacking every traffic warden just because one of them gave you a ticket in the wrong place.

I know that the industry has not done enough to control its corruption, but that doesn't justify branding all its members as evil and dangerous.

[Porterboy]

That's interesting. It seems that in none of the cases do the actual results affect your opinion of what's going on.

What makes Case 3 irresponsible?
Would Case 3 still be irresponsible if convincing scientific evidence is provided? (These are hypothetical cases, right?)


They're hypothetical, yes.

No, Case 3 would only be irresponsible if she claims she has scientific prioof when she doesn't realize exactly what that means. If she did succeed in passing a scintists experiment or getting Randi's $million then that's a different matter.

[Porterboy]

I don't think we're going to find any common ground here are we Solus and Civilized worm et al?

But I can tell you this: I regularly attend a Spiritualist church. Why? Because I choose to; it's as simple as that. If I change my mind then it will be because I have chosen to. Nobody has the right to tell another what to think and believe. Nobody has the right to prevent people accessing their religious institutions.

No priest in a cassock, no boffin in a lab coat will turn me aside. I may not have passed the exams and gone to university, but I am just as human as any scientist and I have a human mind. That mind is sovereign to myself.

[TjW]

They're hypothetical, yes.

No, Case 3 would only be irresponsible if she claims she has scientific prioof when she doesn't realize exactly what that means. If she did succeed in passing a scintists experiment or getting Randi's $million then that's a different matter.
Okay, for Case 3 apparently results matter.

Wouldn't Case 1 then be irresponsible if the advice/predictions Case 1 made to clients caused harm/were incorrect? Regardless of whether or not Case 1 were absolutely positive of his powers?

If you don't think the two cases are equivalent, why not?

I don't think most skeptics are asking for "proof". They're asking for reliable evidence. I don't think that's too much to ask. Arthur C. Clarke is rather widely quoted as saying: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's cute, it's pithy, and easy to understand.
But its inverse is also true: Sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology.
So how reliable does it have to be? Not all that reliable. Science is really good at measuring very small effects. Almost by definition, if it's useful, it's reliable enough to be detected.
An effect doesn't have to be completely understood by science to be accepted by science. Wilbur and Orville flew in 1903, and demonstrated a practical airplane in 1908. Prandtl didn't publish his equations regarding lift theory until 1913. But no one in the interim was taking the position that they couldn't possibly be flying. The circumstances of Wilbur's demonstration at Le Mans were pretty conclusive.

I don't think Case 3 is irresponsible. Indeed, if he is certain of his abilities, supporting his claims to all comers, believer or skeptic, is the moral thing to do. If he is certain, why differentiate between observers?

[thaiboxerken]

No, I'm saying that rationality imposed by force on people who've made a positive decision to be irrational is a bad thing. It denies them their fundamental human right to choose their own viewpoint.

And so? We do the same thing with pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

[thaiboxerken]

But it sounds like you want to tar all psychics with the same brush. That's unfair and prejudicial

Since when is telling the truth unfair and prejudicial? Psychics are all deluded or liars, either way, they have no right to charge for a service that they can't give and can only use trickery to provide.

[chillzero]

But it sounds like you want to tar all psychics with the same brush. That's unfair and prejudicial. It's like attacking every traffic warden just because one of them gave you a ticket in the wrong place.

I know that the industry has not done enough to control its corruption, but that doesn't justify branding all its members as evil and dangerous.

I tar all psychics who are unwilling to undergo testing to confirm their abilities with the same brush.

They are dangerous because they dish out advice without the correct training to do so. They guide people's life decisions, they give medical and financial opinions, and people act on those in the mistaken belief that psychics are in some position of authority - because the authorities allow them to continue.

They are evil because they are completely unethical.

[Bri]

I do, but I think there is a basic similarity in that adults who are intelligent enough to buy coffee can discern that the claims are very likely not true.

Yes, you're right that most adults can tell the difference between an opinion and a testable claim. And yet very few have the ability to determine the truth of testable claims, such as what something labeled "coffee" actually contains. That's why nearly every product and service is regulated, to ensure that testable claims are accurate. Coffee manufacturer are required to put their claims on the package and periodically test the coffee to ensure that the claims are true. "Best coffee in the world" is an opinion. "100% Columbian coffee" is a testable claim. "I'm the greatest psychic in the world" is an opinion, but "I can contact your dead grandmother" is a testable claim. See the difference?


Yes, I can. But I don't think hairstylest get the same level of oversight and psychics strike me as more comparible to a barber or a taxi driver than a lawyer or physician, thus I think arguments for things like 'standards' 'oversight' and 'malpractice' are a bit overblown.

I was responding to your counter-examples, and ironically you chose two of the most highly regulated services as counter-examples (lawyers and doctors). So, how about hair stylists? They have to demonstrate that they went to a reputable school to learn how to cut hair, or they won't be hired by a salon. Taxi cab drivers must have a driver's license and a good driving record or they wouldn't be hired. It's as simple as that. Again, there are few if any products or services that are not regulated except perhaps new age medicine and psychics.

Actually, I tend to think of professional psychics as being a small notch above drug dealer and prostitute and needing about the same level of 'oversight'. Personally, I think such 'victimless crimes' ought not be considered crimes in a rational society.

Whether drug dealers and prostitutes are perpetrating "victimless crimes" is a topic for another thread, however I tend to agree that psychics deserve the same level of oversight -- they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they commit crimes. Fraud is a crime last I checked. Unfortunately, psychics aren't held to the same standards as nearly all other products and services.


It's a reasonable concern. It is a problem. But then again, the problems of alcohism are quite real too, but our society has decided the problems with prohibition of it are worse. I think that's true with this situation as well.

Part of it is just personal preference. I prefer to allow people the freedom to seek whatever comforts work best for them. I think it's better than the alternative of shutting such businesses down which then breeds all the social and political problems of prohibition.

I have never suggested that legitimate psychics (if they exist) should be outlawed, so the argument concerning prohibition is a straw man. Only those psychics who are perpetrating fraud by making false claims should be outlawed. The same currently holds for alcoholic beverages. Manufacturers are required to specify how much alcohol their products contain, and are required to test their products to ensure that the label is accurate.

-Bri

[Bri]

There's a distinction here. Can yuo spot the difference between these three cases?:



In Case 1 a psychic claims to be able to read the future, commune with spirits etc, but only she knows this because only she knows what is going on in her own mind, which is the only place where the spirits appear. So she tells her client: "I am telling you that I can see spirits, but I can't prove this. It's up to you if you wish to believe me or not."

In Case 2 A psychic knows full well that she has no psychic gift at all, yet she lies and pretends to; and uses trickery to make it look like she does.

In Case 3 a psychic has genuine gifts, like in Case 1, yet she rashly claims she can provide scientific proof of this when she doesn't understand what is involved in science.

In my view Case 1 is doing nothing wrong at all, Case 2 is a completel fraud and should be prosecuted, and Case 3 is simply irresponsible and needs to be educated. She sould either change her practice and become like Case 1 or stop altogether.

You brought up this argument before, and never really addressed the problems with it that I pointed out. If a psychic were to only make untestable claims such as in case #1, the psychic would never make money. Psychic #1 must make further testable claims about what sort of information the spirit can give them that pertains to potential clients. So, by itself I have no problem with Psychic #1. But most potential clients would generally dismiss such a person as having a probable mental disorder. It's only when they claim that the spirit can channel your departed Aunt Betty that they are considered "psychic."

-Bri

[Bri]

In my opinion we should draw the line the other side of making consensual activities that don't harm others against their will illegal. Just because an activity is immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think adultery is immoral. So I don't do it. But I don't think it should be illegal. I don't expect everyone else to live with my moral standards.

You are correct that psychic readings are not immoral and shouldn't be made illegal. But charging money for a product or service that doesn't do what you claim it does is both immoral and illegal. It's called "fraud." It's illegal because it does harm people against their will, both monetarily and in many cases in other more serious ways. If a client believes the claims made by a psychic, there is significant potential for harm.

Your argument seems to assume that nobody who goes to a psychic believes the claims made by the psychic, which is absurd. If nobody believed the claims, then the psychic wouldn't make the claims. We tend to prevent people from making money from false claims about products or services. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't?

-Bri

[Porterboy]

Okay, for Case 3 apparently results matter.

Wouldn't Case 1 then be irresponsible if the advice/predictions Case 1 made to clients caused harm/were incorrect? Regardless of whether or not Case 1 were absolutely positive of his powers?


If Case 1 were giving information to a client that Case 1 trule believed to be correct then he/she is operating correctly. If we then add my draft disclaimer it then gives the client the impetus to use their personal judgement a lot more to decide if Case 1 is mistaken or not. It's not about believing blindly, it's about making an assessment of the information after looking at both sides of the story.

Really the same should apply to priests, gurus etc. Many people are devout enough to hang on every word their chosen mentor says. If people were more sovereign to themselves then hopefully the kinds of tragedies we've mentioned would cease. It's not necesasrily about becoming a skeptic; it's about developing personal sovereignty.

[Porterboy]

And so? We do the same thing with pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

Does any mature, mentally-healthy person want to be raped or murdered?

[Porterboy]

I tar all psychics who are unwilling to undergo testing to confirm their abilities with the same brush.

They are dangerous because they dish out advice without the correct training to do so. They guide people's life decisions, they give medical and financial opinions, and people act on those in the mistaken belief that psychics are in some position of authority - because the authorities allow them to continue.

They are evil because they are completely unethical.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and the solution is simple: Don't go and see a psychic.

But I think differently. I've been to see psychics many times and I find that some, not all, but some, are very accurate in what they say. I don't allow them to have authority over me; and I've already made my position clear over the relationship between the industry and authorities. If they give me some information I apply it to what's happening in my life and see if it is useful or not. I certainly don't follow it blindly and I've already suggested solutions for those who do.

When I see a psychic I pay them with my money, not yours. Are you really going to try and stop or restrict me from expressing and practicing my worldview?

[Beth]

Yes, you're right that most adults can tell the difference between an opinion and a testable claim. And yet very few have the ability to determine the truth of testable claims, such as what something labeled "coffee" actually contains. That's why nearly every product and service is regulated, to ensure that testable claims are accurate. Coffee manufacturer are required to put their claims on the package and periodically test the coffee to ensure that the claims are true. "Best coffee in the world" is an opinion. "100% Columbian coffee" is a testable claim. "I'm the greatest psychic in the world" is an opinion, but "I can contact your dead grandmother" is a testable claim. See the difference?

Yes, but I don't see psychics making testable claims like "I can contact your dead grandmother". I see them making claims more along the lines of "I'll do my best to contact your dead grandmother". How do you test that?


I was responding to your counter-examples, and ironically you chose two of the most highly regulated services as counter-examples (lawyers and doctors). Right - but while very highly regulated, we don't expect them to be successful in every case. And we don't declare them to be frauds when they fail if they've done what they could.

So, how about hair stylists? They have to demonstrate that they went to a reputable school to learn how to cut hair, or they won't be hired by a salon. Taxi cab drivers must have a driver's license and a good driving record or they wouldn't be hired. It's as simple as that. Again, there are few if any products or services that are not regulated except perhaps new age medicine and psychics. My point was not about regulation, but expectations. We don't expect a 100% success rate from them and we don't call they are frauds when they fail. Incompetent perhaps, but not fraudulent.

Whether drug dealers and prostitutes are perpetrating "victimless crimes" is a topic for another thread, however I tend to agree that psychics deserve the same level of oversight -- they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they commit crimes. Fraud is a crime last I checked. Unfortunately, psychics aren't held to the same standards as nearly all other products and services.

Fraud is not providing the service you agree to provide. Can we say that psychics have failed to do that? In some cases, yes. But in most cases, no. If the psychic has made the effort to contact the spirits, then successful or not I don't think they are any more guilty of fraud than a lawyer who loses the client's case despite doing their best.



I have never suggested that legitimate psychics (if they exist) should be outlawed, so the argument concerning prohibition is a straw man.
This thread started because Philly was shutting down all psychics based on a law that made giving professional readings illegal. Further, opinions have been expressed in this thread supporting such that law. Thus, I don't think it's a straw man argument.

[Porterboy]

Originally Posted by chillzero
I tar all psychics who are unwilling to undergo testing to confirm their abilities with the same brush.

They are dangerous because they dish out advice without the correct training to do so. They guide people's life decisions, they give medical and financial opinions, and people act on those in the mistaken belief that psychics are in some position of authority - because the authorities allow them to continue.

They are evil because they are completely unethical.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and the solution is simple: Don't go and see a psychic.

But I think differently. I've been to see psychics many times and I find that some, not all, but some, are very accurate in what they say. I don't allow them to have authority over me; and I've already made my position clear over the relationship between the industry and authorities. If they give me some information I apply it to what's happening in my life and see if it is useful or not. I certainly don't follow it blindly and I've already suggested solutions for those who do.

When I see a psychic I pay them with my money, not yours. Are you really going to try and stop or restrict me from expressing and practicing my worldview?

Because if anyone does, I will fight them through every court in the land! I will fight them in the House of Lords and the US Supreme Court! I will fight them until you need a psychic to speak to me! :cool:

[chillzero]

Because if you do, Chillzero, I will fight you through every court in the land! I will fight you in the House of Lords and the US Supreme Court! I will fight you until you need a psychic to speak to me! :cool:

I am not going to stop you from expressing and practicing your worldview.

I would however support any action to prevent frauds from practicing. There is a difference. They are fleecing innocent people of their money, their peace of mind, or their final memories of loved ones. They commit fraud because they refuse to submit to tests to prove that they can do what they say.

Saying "I will do my best to contact your dead grandmother" is a cop out, because we all know that the statements from them are along the lines of "your grandmother is telling me ...". This should be testable. Did you forget my background in this matter?

As for your last sentence - well, that's treading a very fine line. Don't do that again.

[TjW]

If Case 1 were giving information to a client that Case 1 trule believed to be correct then he/she is operating correctly. If we then add my draft disclaimer it then gives the client the impetus to use their personal judgement a lot more to decide if Case 1 is mistaken or not. It's not about believing blindly, it's about making an assessment of the information after looking at both sides of the story.

Really the same should apply to priests, gurus etc. Many people are devout enough to hang on every word their chosen mentor says. If people were more sovereign to themselves then hopefully the kinds of tragedies we've mentioned would cease. It's not necesasrily about becoming a skeptic; it's about developing personal sovereignty.

So to be consistent, if Case 3 truly believes he can give "scientific proof", whatever he thinks that is, he is not being irresponsible. His behavior is indistinguishable from Case 1 where the client has asked for scientific proof.

[I less than three logic]

Yes, but I don't see psychics making testable claims like "I can contact your dead grandmother". I see them making claims more along the lines of "I'll do my best to contact your dead grandmother". How do you test that?
That certainly implies they are able to contact your dead grandmother, at least sometimes. Test for that, not that they are trying, as that is irrelevant, but for evidence to justify them even implying such claims. There is certainly evidence to justify lawyers claiming they can win cases, at least sometimes. And in a situation where a lawyer has never once won a case over the course of many years, I'd suspect it would in fact be fraud if they claimed or even implied otherwise to their potential clients.

[Solus]

Porterboy, I had a revelation today! I'm sorry about all I've written. I've been denying it all this time, I was trying to be a skeptic but I can't deny my powers any longer; I really am psychic. Why just last night I predicted the sun would rise in the morning and it did! I predicted a several cars would pass by my house through the night and they did! I predicted I would at see at least one person for my morning walk and I did!.:eye-poppi My powers are clearly undeniable!

I invite you to a reading, since you will be my first client it will only be a mere 100$ an hour. I will even give you a free sample of my powers now to prove my abilities: you have a mother and father, at some point today you will have to eat and drink several times. Now if I was closer and could get your "psychic feedback" I could tell you much more! Just send the cash now though we don't even need to talk, I can do the reading using this message board.

:D

[Solus]

I also predict there will be cat pictures in this thread very soon...

[Porterboy]

Porterboy, I had a revelation today! I'm sorry about all I've written. I've been denying it all this time, I was trying to be a skeptic but I can't deny my powers any longer; I really am psychic. Why just last night I predicted the sun would rise in the morning and it did! I predicted a several cars would pass by my house through the night and they did! I predicted I would at see at least one person for my morning walk and I did!.:eye-poppi My powers are clearly undeniable!

I invite you to a reading, since you will be my first client it will only be a mere 100$ an hour. I will even give you a free sample of my powers now to prove my abilities: you have a mother and father, at some point today you will have to eat and drink several times. Now if I was closer and could get your "psychic feedback" I could tell you much more! Just send the cash now though we don't even need to talk, I can do the reading using this message board.

:D

There seem to be an extraordinary number of people offering me psychic services on this forum! I'll think it over. As a free citizen I'll decide whether I accept or not, and I expect my decision to be respected without harrassment from the authorities. You too have a right to make your claim and also operate free from government harrassment. People, who all have the right to be treated as human beings with a working human mind, will decide whether this "adveretizement" justifies the financial expenditure of their own money. Try putting this up on a MySpace page and see if you get any reponse.

Personally I doubt if you'll be overwhelmed with offers, but I'll look out for you on the Montel Williams show! ;)

[Bri]

Yes, but I don't see psychics making testable claims like "I can contact your dead grandmother". I see them making claims more along the lines of "I'll do my best to contact your dead grandmother". How do you test that?

If the claim was that they are successful in contacting the departed only one time in a million, nobody would be very impressed and certainly nobody would pay money for it. Most psychics claim a high "hit" rate (like 90% of the time or even higher), since people wouldn't pay money for a psychic who couldn't contact their dead relative. Most psychics also claim a high "accuracy" rate once the relative is contacted (i.e. few say that they often receive inaccurate information from the relative contacted) for similar reasons.

Nonetheless, it would be possible to test the claim, even if they claim to be able to only contact dead relatives some of the time. One possibility would be to have the psychic attempt to contact participant's departed relatives until they are successful 10 times (if their "hit" rate is a measly 50% that would require 20 participants total). When successful in contacting a dead relative, the psychic writes down the details without the participant knowing what is written down. If the number of unsuccessful attempts are too high, the claimed "hit" rate would be false. Otherwise, when all 10 accounts are complete, each participant individually reads through all of them and picks out the one that pertains to their relative. If the psychic is really contacting a beloved relative, a participant should be able to pick out their relative from among the other accounts.


Right - but while very highly regulated, we don't expect them to be successful in every case. And we don't declare them to be frauds when they fail if they've done what they could.

Correct -- only when they fail to do as they claim. Doctors are required to keep records of how many of their patients die, how many suffer complications, how many times they are sued for malpractice, etc. The same goes for lawyers. In other words, they must be able to prove their claimed success rates. Unscrupulous doctor and lawyer generally lose their licenses.

My point was not about regulation, but expectations. We don't expect a 100% success rate from them and we don't call they are frauds when they fail. Incompetent perhaps, but not fraudulent.

I don't believe I ever suggested that psychics must have a 100% success rate. Their actual success rate must only be in line with their claimed success rate. Of course, if a psychic didn't lie about his or her success rate (which is probably actually 0%) he or she wouldn't make any money.

Fraud is not providing the service you agree to provide.

Exactly. Do you know of a psychic who has actually provided the service they agreed to provide? If I gave you orange juice that was really colored water, have I provided the service I agreed to provide? I don't think so.

Can we say that psychics have failed to do that? In some cases, yes. But in most cases, no.

You don't really believe this, do you? In all cases that I've ever heard of the psychic has always failed to provide the service they claimed to provide. All psychics who want to make money claim a high success rate. When asked to prove it, they have always been shown to be making false claims.

If the psychic has made the effort to contact the spirits, then successful or not I don't think they are any more guilty of fraud than a lawyer who loses the client's case despite doing their best.

Only if they claim to be successful only a very small percentage of the time. Of course, a psychic who doesn't claim to be successful a very high percentage of the time isn't going to make any money.

This thread started because Philly was shutting down all psychics based on a law that made giving professional readings illegal. Further, opinions have been expressed in this thread supporting such that law. Thus, I don't think it's a straw man argument.

The straw man was that you were attempting to attribute to me an argument that I never made, specifically that I suggested that all psychics be outlawed. My argument is that all psychics should be required to state their claims clearly, and should be required to prove those claims. A legitimate psychic shouldn't have any problem with this. You assume that this would be the equivalent of outlawing psychics, but only because you assume that there is no such thing as a legitimate psychic.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Does any mature, mentally-healthy person want to be raped or murdered?
Does any mature, mentally-healthy person want to be the victim of fraud? Your disclaimer idea is simply nonsense. Stating that you can't provide observable, empirical, measurable evidence (i.e. scientific) for an observable, empirical, measurable claim, and predicting the future is such a claim, is the same as stating your claim is a lie. Only it is worded in such a way that many people wouldn't understand it as such. I'd think that most people that have been committed have been done so for reasons less insane than actually understanding such a disclaimer then choosing to buy the service anyway.

[Porterboy]

So to be consistent, if Case 3 truly believes he can give "scientific proof", whatever he thinks that is, he is not being irresponsible. His behavior is indistinguishable from Case 1 where the client has asked for scientific proof.

I hope I understand you correctly:

In the case of Case 1, if the client asks if the practitioner can provide scientific proof, then the client has to answer "yes" or "no". In the case of a "no" answer then I would say that the client be advised not to use that practitioners services.

In the case of Case 3, the client is being misled if the practitioner say "Yes, I can provide scientific proof" if his/her services have not been subjected to a proper scientific experiment.

[thaiboxerken]

Does any mature, mentally-healthy person want to be raped or murdered?

Does any mature, mentally-healthy person want advice from psychics and tarot cards?