I recently received an email (or perhaps it was a PM) which said, in efffect, that, by publicly criticizing Browne, skeptics such as Randi and I are helping Browne, by giving her fans someone to demonize, and to rally against.
Any thoughts on this?
It depends on how you look at it and define fans. Your site, being a pull medium, is not going to bring Sylvia to the attention of someone who doesn't already have an interest in Sylvia. In that sense you're not "helping" her gain new "fans" with your site.
But what about existing fans? A "fan" can be loosely taken to mean anybody who finds Sylvia's practices useful in some way. It could range from, "Oh, Sylvia's on Montel today. I think I'll watch" all the way to, "Sylvia has changed my life for the better and helped countless people. She has a gift from God. I think she's wonderful." Of course, there are many levels in between.
I would say that without a doubt there will be people who confuse criticism of actions with personal attacks (we see that here all the time). They will say that it's "unkind" to point out things you believe she is doing wrong or that you "have it in for her" for doing so. That can certainly result in a knee-jerk reaction to defend Sylvia. The question is whether that results in
promoting Sylvia to a new audience. I doubt that will happen.
The bigger concern is reaching people who think that there are some "real" psychics mixed in with the frauds or frauds mixed in with the "real" ones. In my experience that range of belief is pretty common. If your site comes off to them as attacking Sylvia personally, these people will have the same reaction skeptics do when presented with an ad hominem - they will dismiss your arguments. They may even reflexively regard Sylvia with more respect.
This is an inherent problem of human nature. One person's ad hom is another person's sound argument. People react differently to the same information. They may not see the relevance, for example, of the article about Larry Beck since there's really no definitive information except that he's not going to give any definitive information. They may be taken aback by you calling him her "most recent husband" because it
could sound like a dig. From a purely analytical standpoint, I get why you posted it, but I can see how others might not.
So, if an "unsure about Sylvia" person came to the site and saw that, their reaction
might be that you have it in for Sylvia. If they are predisposed to believing that skeptics are "cynics" who don't want to believe in the supernatural, this kind of "personal attack" would make sense. Since you can't "prove" she's a fraud you attack her personally. Seems logical if you have a different world view. For
that hypothetical person your site made things worse, not better.
And that's the dilemma of running a site like yours. You will get all sorts of people coming through. It's never going to be 100% effective or a 100% failure. You're going to reach some and push away others. Some will leave with doubt while others will leave believing even more strongly that Sylvia is the Real Deal not matter how illogical that might sound.
Overall, though, I think the site has a positive effect. The fact that some people will probably react the opposite way you intend doesn't negate all those that react as you hope. And the fact that it's a resource for other skeptics engaging in one-on-one discussions confers advantages that would not otherwise be possible.
