Please tell me why I'm wrong.

[briandunning]

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

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

Education and freedom of choice are great partners.

 

[RandFan]

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

Education and freedom of choice are great partners.

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

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

 

[briandunning]

Is it OK to profit through the use of fraud?

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

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

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

The deluded should be offered enlightenment, not predation.

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

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

 

[RandFan]

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

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

 

[briandunning]

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

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

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

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

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

It's a great read, highly recommended.

 

[briandunning]

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

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

 

[Kopji]

The hedgehog and the witchdoctor

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

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

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

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

 

[RandFan]

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

Why is this theft? I'm not being flip. You justify your lie by stating that no harm is being done, right? Well the person who lost the ring has already been harmed. You can't cause any further harm. Finders keepers. Your ethics seem to be rather fluid.

The difference between the doctor's lies and your example is a difference of degree. Both are intended to help. "Reform," says the doctor, "reform, and tell lies!"

Really? How do you reconcile this with the above statement about theft? What constitutes theft? So any lie for the purpose of your enrichment is good so long as it is a convincing lie that makes someone feel good?

 

[RandFan]

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

Oh, I agree. So the fact that it is not new makes it ok?

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

 

[Ladewig]

Is it OK to profit through the use of fraud?

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

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

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

 

[Ladewig]

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

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

 

[Squishua]

Fraud is theft by deception.

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

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

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

A benevolent con-man...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a suggestion.

 

[Ladewig]

Education and freedom of choice are great partners.

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

 

[Ladewig]

Fraud is theft by deception.

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

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

 

[Squishua]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ladewig]

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

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

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

 

[RandFan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ladewig]

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

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

 

[skeptifem]

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

 

[Ladewig]

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

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