Amateur Debunker, Or Killjoy?

Great Debates
41

I don’t see what you’re trying to argue with me about. Is there something about “a lot” that insinuates in your mind that it is an equivalent statement to “most”?

Your statistics are largely meaningless unless you’re arguing that it’s the propensity of this group of people (people who would go to psychics) to actually believe in the results of the reading that justifies the active debunking.

And FYI, I’m sure there are a lot of people who watch magicians for entertainment without ever buying into the “magic” part of it. In fact, I can point you to dozens of websites made by fans and amateurs who fully realize it’s all an illusion, but are entertained by the craft anyway.

Equally, I know (I realize this is anecdotal) many, many people who would go to a tarot reader/psychic for pure entertainment reasons. Trust me, I have some of the most skeptical friends in the world, and we still get a kick out of taking trips to ghost hunt or go to strange and scary places. I still get a short thrill out of having a psychic read me my future. And, yeah, I even got pleasantly scared when I watched The Grudge at the movie theater, and I even paid $7 to see it :stuck_out_tongue:

Just because you find the cold read insulting doesn’t mean that everyone does. It doesn’t even mean that being insulted is the rational response. If you want to be truly rational on the subject, it’s easy to realize just how this industry is attractive to even the most rational and skeptical people out there.

If anything, being insulted by this kind of thing seems to me to be a knee-jerk, irrational reaction. It’s not like these entertainers are proselytizing on your front porch.

On the money issue, I don’t see anyone berating people for spending money on seeing the newest sci-fi trilogy in theaters. My gosh, that person’s spending $7 to $10 of their own money to be entertained by things that didn’t really or couldn’t really happen! Please, if someone wants to spend a pittance on that kind of entertainment, let them.

Where your concerns are valid is when people make real, lasting decisions based on the results of their “reading” or whatnot. If your friend is going to a psychic every other day and is balancing her budget by it is a whole different story from what I’m talking about. I’m also somewhat offended by the concept of psychics who can communicate with the dead. That one really seems to cross some ethical lines by its very nature.

42

You guys must all type way faster than me. That’s easy to do.

Diogenes, I must respectfully take exception to your assertion that, “All psychic acts are is stage magic.” Not because I disagree with you, necessarily; but because I think for all intents and purposes, that fact is essentially what they call unknowable. There is just no way that anyone can truthfully say that they can be verifiably certain of that.

Unless you literally mean “psychic acts” – i.e., performers on stage presenting as entertainment a sequence of events which is designed to suggest psychic phenomena have taken place. (Are you old enough to remember Carnac?) I would be comfortable agreeing with that specific assertion.

But, there are people who are sometimes consulted by police in order to locate the victims of crimes or their remains. Such people are commonly referred to as “psychics”. I readily admit that even the best of these are successful in only a small percentage of cases. And I would not try to say that this constitutes “proof” that psychic phenomena exist. However, I think that this example along with others which may come to mind, taken together, must surely represent a body of information suitable for the acknowledgement of the existence of doubt, however flimsy or unlikely one may consider the information to be.

[end of response to Diogenes specifically]

And therefore, I stand by what I was trying to say in my OP but perhaps expressed in too vague a fashion. If there is factually no reason to assert that you know someone’s belief is wrong; if you feel that you “know” because, well, that stuff is all a bunch of hocus-pocus, Goddamnit! – then in my opinion it is cool to believe as you do about it, it is cool to enter into discourse with that person in a frank exchange of ideas including stating that you personally find their beliefs to be hogwash, but it is just not cool to get up in their face and insist that you are both equipped and entitled to tell them what to believe.

43

Sure you can. If something is impossible, you can be certain it didn’t happen.

[quote]
Unless you literally mean “psychic acts” – i.e., performers on stage presenting as entertainment a sequence of events which is designed to suggest psychic phenomena have taken place. (Are you old enough to remember Carnac?) I would be comfortable agreeing with that specific assertion.[/.quote]
No, I mean anyone at all who claims to have psychic powers is either lying or deluded. Just like they are lying or deluded if they say they can flap their arms and fly. It is literally impossible for them to be actual psychics.

Those people are frauds and it only goes to show that police (especially if they’re desperate) can be as easily gulled as anyone else.

There are no documented examples of psychics being able to solve criminal cases. There has never been a single verifiable example – or even strong indication – of genuine psychic powers ever being demonstrated by anyone ever. Not a single time.

44

Unfortunately, Diogenes, you run into the Unicorn problem- people essentially fall back on “you can’t prove a negative,” simply that any specific instance isn’t true. It’s amazing how people can gain a grasp of logic when they need to.

45

I think it does justify the debunking. I consider it a moral responsibility to warn somebody if I know they’re being swindled. I don’t see it as being any different than warning a mark off a Nigerian scam.

That was my point. I would be amazed if ANYBODY (except maybe small children) really believes a stage magician is doing real magic, yet somehow they can’t see that the idea of real psychic powers is just as preposterous.

[quote]
Equally, I know (I realize this is anecdotal) many, many people who would go to a tarot reader/psychic for pure entertainment reasons. Trust me, I have some of the most skeptical friends in the world, and we still get a kick out of taking trips to ghost hunt or go to strange and scary places.

At least the movie doesn’t lie to you and tell you it’s true.

How so? what is attractive about being bilked and treated as a stupid mark?

If they admit that they’re only entertainers, I have no problem with them. It’s the ones who claim to be genuine that I think are con artists.

Once again, sci fi movies don’t pretend to be true.

No arguments here.

46

Actually, I think I agree with Tris, mostly - it’s just that there are a number of situations in which such behaviour is socially acceptable by default.

I suppose there’s also altruism, but then I’ve heard others say there’s not really any such thing.

47

Some people are dedicated to knowledge and accuracy. Social acceptability imposing what they see as lies gets their blood boiling, all-eater.

48

Personally, I think I’ll add, it’s what got my blood boiling in the RCP thread.

Those so dedicated to the social idea of pro-choice that they had to suppress potential information or investigation into it by attacking its credibility simply because it might be used by their opposition- valuing the social over objective truth or what the goal should be?

Same reason I get pissed at people that insist that “well, the government should make a gesture, even if it’s meaningless” when there’s the option the government can take, where it invests money in actually solving the problem instead of a solution acknowledged to not work that wastes the money and wastes the drive to solve the problem.

49

Okay, this conversation is starting to remind me of this.

No man blind from birth has ever seen a sunset. Why aren’t they all raging at us for believing in sunsets?

My mistake. GD, after all, is an acronym for Great Debates, not Genuine Discourse.

50

I love the Flatland analogy…

Love your point too. It’s what I was planning to say, and probably more elegantly than I was going to put it.

I don’t mind when someone refuses to believe something because they haven’t seen evidence for it. Perfectly reasonable. But, like you said, not all experiences are objective and repeatable. If I’ve seen evidence that they haven’t I may be led to a different, perfectly reasonable, conclusion. If they tell me that I shouldn’t believe because they haven’t seen evidence, they’re putting themselves in the position of knowing-everything-that-has-ever-happened-to-anybody.

51

Is this a response to what I said? I’m not talking about the social acceptability of lies, I’m talking about the social acceptability of correcting what you perceive as incorrect.

52

If I make the claim that cats can’t fly, am I required to toss every single cat in the world off the top of a tall building before you will agree with me? If not, how many would it take?*

*do not respond to this query if you just hate cats

53

A couple of weeks ago, I had emergency surgery to repair a sudden-onset inguinal hernia with intestinal incarceration. I’m back at work as of yesterday, but walking with a cane. Various co-workers, on seeing my obviously infirm state, have naturally inquired as to the state of my health, whereupon I have summarized the situation in greater or lesser detail depending on the closeness of the acquaintance.

One officemate, a man whom I don’t know well, overheard one of these exchanges, and approached me separately. “Sounds painful,” he said. I murmured agreement.

“Do you mind,” he said, “if I pray for you?”

A split-second decision tree unfolded in my brain. Not only do I have no belief, I am assuredly Not a Believer. I’m as strong an atheist and skeptic as it’s possible to be and still remain functional, I think. The man’s prayer would have zero effect on my health and recovery. On the other hand, zero effect means not just lack of positive but also lack of negative, and it was clearly important to him to make the offer; it came with the best of intentions, regardless of whether it was based in any kind of objective reality.

“Sure,” I said with virtually no hesitation. “Whatever you like.”

He reached out toward my injury site, put his hand on me, closed his eyes, and said softly, “Jesus, please, see to this man, and see that he gets better quickly, and suffers no more pain, Amen.”

“Thank you,” I said when he opened his eyes and took his hand away.

“You’re welcome,” he said.

“Have a good day.”

“You too,” he answered, and walked away.

(Incidentally, while I elected not to reject his offer of good will, I also didn’t tell him that, based on where his hand was, he was praying for the health of my kidney, not my hernia. :))

To me, it’s a matter of choosing my battles. This was basically harmless, and socially speaking, was a positive interaction, even if the guy was, objectively, engaging in fantasy. So I went along with it.

Now, by contrast, if the guy had suggested that we go back to his office, where he had a supply of homeopathic “memory water,” which he would administer for its curative and restorative properties, I would have had no problem at all laughing in his face, and subjecting him to endless, brutal ridicule.

On consideration of the distinction between one and the other, I have a hard time pinning down the exact dividing line between them, and why my behavior in the two situations feels appropriate. I perceive them as being very different, and yet I’m not sure I can put into words why exactly that is. Praying for me accomplishes nothing, and is neither beneficial nor harmful; administering a dose of magic water is likewise pointless. Nevertheless, I’ll give the first a friendly pass, but viciously mock the second.

I confess, I’m a little concerned that I can’t articulate the difference: if it’s subjective, then it’s hard to defend. But they are different, somehow. Mocking the guy who wanted to pray for me would have been rude and obnoxious; but scorning somebody who wants to treat me with a mystical potion is not only appropriate but obligatory. They’re both harmless fantasies, but I would handle them differently. Why? Again, I don’t know.

If anybody shares this perception, I’d appreciate an attempt to clarify the distinction.

54

I think you can decline to be faith-healed without being mocking. If someone asked me that, I’d tell them to go go to a pediatric ward and pray for kids with leukemia and burns and stuff, not my own minor problems that will be healed by time. I see that kind of thing as attention-seeking and ultimately kind of self-serving. The object is not really to help somebdy but to perform. If someone really wants to pray for me, they can go into a closet and pray in secret like Jesus told them too.

55

I say we try it.

Damn. You have to spoil everything.

56

No argument from me here.

However, with respect to the flying cat analogy, let me try putting it this way: You know a cat can’t fly because you know that all things which fly are equipped with some kind of apparatus (anatomical or otherwise) which is designed to generate lift sufficient to counteract gravity. (I’m putting that extremely crudely, but you know what I mean.)

Now, you know a human being cannot be, say, precognitive because…?
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anyone who “debunks” actually explain why it is patently impossible that metaphysical or psychic phenomena exist; apart, of course, from the lack of what they consider to be compelling evidence. And I don’t mean things like, “Well, if they know the future, why aren’t they all winning the lottery? See, it’s impossible!”, either.

57

…No plausible mechanism for precognition has ever been observed or posited?

It is different from flying cats, but not so different as to get a free pass.

58

Dawkins talks a lot about this general attitude. And he points out numerous examples of it.

The reason that you are having problems getting at a distinction is that there is none. You are 100% correct in that they are both fantasies with equal weight of empirical data backing them up (that is to say, none).

There is a social difference however. One is taken to be absolutely real by a significant portion of the population, while the other is a fringe belief. And that’s why you feel that the two things are different. Your social circle has taught you that mocking the jesus freaks is bad, simply because there are so damn many of them. On the other hand the homeopathy lunatics are few and disorganized and pose no threat to your social standing.

It’s always been the same story. At one point being a Christian would have earned you scorn and mockery from pagans, now it’s the other way around and likely the players will change yet again in a few hundred years or so.

59

There is no theoretical mechanism by which it would be physically possible to “see” the future, communicate with entities that don’t exist (that is allegedly departed souls), perceive another person’s thoughts, etc. These are physical impossibilities. They contradict known physical laws, therefore they are impossible by definition. At the very least, they should be assumed to be impossible until proven otherwise, and thus far, there has never been the slightest evidence otherwise. So-called “psi” abilities are just as impossible – for the same basic reason – as flapping one’s arms and flying or turning invisible.

60

It’s just so completely situational. If that guy had offered homeopathy to me, I wouldn’t have mocked him endlessly, but I would have politely refused. If he had rudely insisted, then I would get a free pass to give him shit.

I’m always up for a good debate about the non-existance of God, but there are times when it’s just not appropriate. When my ex’s mother was in her last, painful days, my ex would say things about how her mother would soon be in a better place and reunited with her loved ones. At the funeral when the minister asked us to pray, I prayed.

To argue with religious beliefs in either of those situations would not only have been rude, it would have been downright cruel.