# John Edward - ethics of providing "comfort" to the grieving **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2002, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301 "2002-11-28T05:04:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/41 "2002-12-01T02:05:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\*No one is forcing anyone else to pay a nickel to anyone to perform feats of psychic ability. Anyone who has enough money and education to be able to pay a phone bill has enough exposure to the possibility that psychics are full of shit. If they don’t agree with that, what’s it to you? \*\* Once again, **Stoid** , the issue at hand is being missed. To paraphrase the OP, it asks the question, “is it ethical to ‘comfort’ the berieved with a lie (my word…the OP called it ‘false comfort’)?” I take it that the ethics of such an act should be considered irrespective of whether it happens to actually comfort anyone. The fact that people have the free will to pay or not to pay for a comforting lie speaks only to the legality of giving people what they want, but not to the question of whether it is ethical. No one has even suggested that there was any compulsion used by Edward or others to make people “pay a nickel.” People are not compelled (except perhaps by their own desperation) to pay for nostrums to “cure” incurable diseases either, but whether or not the nostrums do any harm in themselves, their propagation is considered criminal. At the very least, offering anything false is unethical, regardless of its effects. Incidentally, you have at least twice now called a fellow doper “arrogant” just because he/she disagreed with you. In GD, as I understand it, saying you believe someone is wrong is fine, but calling a dissenter from your opinion arrogant descends to the level of ad hominem attack. Naughty, naughty! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/42 "2002-12-01T02:32:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > When anyone says that psychic ability is possible, I’m going to call bullshit and ask for some proof. Thus far not one person in history has ever produced any. > > **Lekatt** , it’s hard to tell exactly what the “challenge” actually is by reading your link. It demands that “scientific evidence” for the afterlife be rebutted (although no such evidence exists) and enumerates several books to be rebutted. It does not, however, link to any of these books, or in any way summarize the content, so there is no way I can tell, from reading the challenge as written, what, exactly, is supposed to be rebutted or falsified. > > Science thrives on testing and falsification. If the challenge you presented does not offer any"evidence" which can be tested or falsified, then it cannot be considered to be a genuine scientific challenge. it is simply fallacious, tautological grandstanding. > > I suspect that the books listed in the challenge consist of a lot of anmecdotal NDE stuff. I won’t go into the increasingly strong physiological evidence that NDE’s are simply hallucinations, but I will point out that an individual “experience” which cannot be tested, repeated, or shown to anyone else, is useless to science. > > Do you believe that REAL magic is possible? Do you believe that it is unreasonable to say that real magic does not exist? \*\* Since the challenge is hosted by a lawyer, they are usually very explicit, why don’t you ask, instead of wondering. I can tell by your NDE information you’re years behind on the present research. I agree with you, if all you are able to see is the physical world, then, for you nothing psychic can exist. However, there are billions of us that see more to life than the physical. I know we can never show it to you, because you can’t see it. Further discussion with one who has already made up his mind and ain’t about to change it is useless. Spiritual (psychic) people along with religious people have a right to help others, comfort others, bring hope and faith, without the interference of those who think they know better than everyone else. Just leave John along and quit calling him names. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/43 "2002-12-01T02:36:07Z")
**Stoid** , do you require proof that there is no such thing as vampires or elves? I am not the one making an assertion. If someone else wants to say that psychics are real, then I say prove it. I find such claims laughable. If that makes me arrogant, so be it. And yes, I do insist on empirical evidence for God or miracles if anyone expects me to believe them. However I do not find (for the most part) to be the outright con that psychics are. I think that lying is unethical. I think that deceiving people for money is unethical. Religion may not have any more evidence for it than psychics, but at least religious authorities (priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, gurus, etc.) BELIEVE what they are saying. They also, (for the most part) do not claim to have supernatural powers. Psychics KNOW that they are lying. There are exceptions in religion, of course, there are religious frauds and swindlers (Scientology, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell) and these people deserve no more respect than John Edward. I have never said that anybody doesn’t have the right to go to a psychic if they want to. My contempt is for the con artist, not for the marks. If someone were to ask my opinion before going to a psychic (which they haven’t and likely won’t) I would tell them what I know of the subject and attempt, out of human decency, to warn them that they would be swindled. Asses like Edward may be able to make somebody feel better temporarily by dispensing generic platitudes, but he really does nothing to help them through the long term grieving process, and he may impede the process by maintaining an illusion that a loved can still be contacted. These people would do much better to seek out legitimate grief counselling in either a clinical setting or from clergy. In both cases they would be advised in a sincere and personal manner by people who have real training and a professional work ethic. I know that there are exceptions to both, but on the whole, I think you’ll find far more honest psychologists and clergy. You will never find a single honest psychic. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/44 "2002-12-01T03:09:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lekatt_ > > However, there are billions of us that see more to life than the physical. I know we can never show it to you, because you can’t see it. Further discussion with one who has already made up his mind and ain’t about to change it is useless. Guess what, Lekatt, I have had a couple of experiences similar to those you speak of. A few years ago I was heavy into Zen meditation. Once, during an especially intense session, I had the sensation of losing my physical body and sort of floating around in the air. I felt, very keenly, the sensation that I was part of the entire universe and not separate from it. The experience seemed to match very clearly some descriptions I had read of “satori,” the Zen state of enlightened consciousness. In that few seconds, everything seemed to make sense. I felt like I knew all the answers to the meaning of life. After I returned to my normal state of consciousness, I couldn’t remember what those answers were. I just had a general memory of the physical sensation, and an overwhelming sense of euphoria. A few weeks later, I had the experience again, spontaneously this time, as I was walking out the door of a friends house. On the whole, I feel that these experiences were an interesting mental gymnastics, and very pleasant, but I don’t think they were particuarly spiritual or instructive. They certainly didn’t make me any wiser. I never considered for a moment that they were in any way supernatural. Recently, I read a psychiatric study which suggests that meditation affects that part of the brain which is responsible for differentiating between the body and its environment. It gives us our sense of physical “self.” If meditation erodes that sense, then that would explain the whole “one with the universe” experience. Makes sense to me. > [@](#): > > Since the challenge is hosted by a lawyer, they are usually very explicit, why don’t you ask, instead of wondering. Ask who? Do you know? Precisely what am I being challenged to falsify. Is there any piece of evidence which can actually be subjected to a test? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/45 "2002-12-01T03:26:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \* > \*\* > > Incidentally, you have at least twice now called a fellow doper “arrogant” just because he/she disagreed with you. In GD, as I understand it, saying you believe someone is wrong is fine, but calling a dissenter from your opinion arrogant descends to the level of ad hominem attack. Naughty, naughty! 😉 \*\* No, I have called the assertion/belief arrogant, and it is. As for the rest… I think the ethics of the thing should be determined on a case-by-case basis. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DTC \* \*\* > Stoid, do you require proof that there is no such thing as vampires or elves? \*\* I’m not invested in the answer either way, so it doesn’t matter. But I will point out that I have never heard of anyone, anywhere asserting the existance of vampires or elves as real. The same can hardly be said of psychic phenomena. > [@](#): > > \*\* I am not the one making an assertion. If someone else wants to say that psychics are real, then I say prove it. I find such claims laughable. If that makes me arrogant, so be it.\*\* No, you are entitled to your opinion, and it is perfectly reasonable for you to have a set of rules for what you will believe or not. The arrogance is in stating, as though you have any real idea, what is truly possible or not, or that human beings know pretty much everything there is to know and can therefore state to a certainty that X, Y or Z is or is not true or possible. You know what makes sense to you, and you have a way of determining that. That’s all you know for sure. > [@](#): > > \*\* And yes, I do insist on empirical evidence for God or miracles if anyone expects me to believe them. \*\* How about if no one gives a fig whether you believe or not, they just want to be left alone with what they believe? > [@](#): > > \*\* Religion may not have any more evidence for it than psychics, but at least religious authorities (priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, gurus, etc.) BELIEVE what they are saying. Psychics KNOW that they are lying. \*\* More assertions you have no business making. Do you know for a fact that all psychics are liars and know that they are lying, and have no belief in what they do? No, you absolutely do not. > [@](#): > > \*\* Asses like Edward may be able to make somebody feel better temporarily by dispensing generic platitudes, but he really does nothing to help them through the long term grieving process, and he may impede the process by maintaining an illusion that a loved can still be contacted.\*\* Really? Have you done extensive studies that prove this to be the case? Somehow I doubt it. > [@](#): > > \*\* You will never find a single honest psychic.\*\* Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to. Hardly an irrefutable statment of proven fact. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/46 "2002-12-01T03:41:28Z")
How about,“Not one single honest psychic in the history of mankind has come forward and shown themselves to have paranormal abilities.” How about,“Every single psychic that has come forward to prove their abilities has been proven to be a fraud or self-deluded.” How about,“I am tired of psychics that claim that they don’t need the million dollars that James Randi will give them if they can pass a simple test, but still take thousands upon thousands of dollars from people that can ill afford to spend that kind of money.” The hell with it. How about,“people who con other people ought to be put in prison.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/47 "2002-12-01T04:32:54Z")
What Czarcasm said. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/48 "2002-12-01T05:39:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The arrogance is in stating, as though you have any real idea, what is truly possible or not, or that human beings know pretty much everything there is to know and can therefore state to a certainty that X, Y or Z is or is not true or possible. **Stoid** , as has been pointed out, we know thamany things are not true or possible: the apparent motions of planets and stars have no effect on human activity; humans cannot fly by flapping their arms,; you can’t make things happen by wishing, and so on. If you are going to ask us to accept John Edward’s claims, you are going to …wait…for it… **provide evidence**. The burden is not on us, it’s on him, and by extension, you, to show why his claims should be believed, especially given that John Edward’s repertoire consists of old carny tricks. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/49 "2002-12-01T07:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > Death is the most profoundly terrifying and heartbreaking thing that we experience. \*\* Death is something that we’ve all got to deal with at some point or another. I don’t see how it is the most terrifying and heartbreaking thing we experience though. Imagine how heartbroken you’d feel if you realize that you’ve lost your life savings to a psychic who took advantage of your pain and bilked you out of your life savings? > [@](#): > > \*\* > When dealing with other people’s deaths, the healthy goal is to be able to move on and remember the person with joy and love and not too much paralyzing sorrow at the loss. If it takes John Edwards to help some people do that, so what? Why would you want to interfere? \*\* Do you have any evidence that people like John Edward do a decent job of helping greiving people to get on with their lives? How many people feel as though they’ve been cheated months after giving money to pyschics? > [@](#): > > \*\* > So far, the argument sounds alot like the argument against prostitution, which I also find bogus. \*\* There’s only one arguement against prostitution? At any rate, at least prostitues actually provide a tangible service that doesn’t require them to lie to their clients. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/50 "2002-12-01T18:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\ ***Stoid** , as has been pointed out, we know thamany things are not true or possible: the apparent motions of planets and stars have no effect on human activity; humans cannot fly by flapping their arms,; you can’t make things happen by wishing, and so on. If you are going to ask us to accept John Edward’s claims, you are going to …wait…for it… **provide evidence**. The burden is not on us, it’s on him, and by extension, you, to show why his claims should be believed, especially given that John Edward’s repertoire consists of old carny tricks. \*\* Good grief, when and where in here or anywhere did I ever ask anyone to accept John Edwards’ claims? Go ahead, look around, I’ll wait. \ Great, now that you realize I have never said anything like that, how about we get back to what I DID say: Some people believe in psychics and miscellaneous paranormal phenomena. Some psychics even believe in themselves. There is no definitive proof that all such phenomena are false. As long as everyone has the option to say “No, thank you”, why concern yourself with what others believe? For the record, and before you continue to accuse me of claiming that John Edwards is the real McCoy, I neither believe nor disbelieve. While I know, as we all do, that there are many fakes and much trickery, I do not know that it is all so. I also know what I’ve experienced in my own life and family, some of which forces me to pause before condemning all of it carny tricks and madness. I am not arguing for any particular person, I am arguing that it is not within our ability to say with absolute certainty one way or another in every instance. Period. And since it seems to make some people happy, I don’t see why it should concern you. And furthermore, yes, I condemn con artists that bilk people out of their life savings with fear tactics and impossible promises. But I have no problem with someone charging a fee for a reading. The exchange of money in and of itself does not automatically render the service suspect. If I had a psychic ability, you can bet your ass I’d charge for it, just like I charge for any other skill that others find useful. That’s capitalism, bubelah. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/51 "2002-12-01T19:27:02Z")
> [@](#): > > For the record, and before you continue to accuse me of claiming that John Edwards is the real McCoy, I neither believe nor disbelieve. Well, that certainly guarantees that you can’t be proven wrong. > [@](#): > > Some people believe in psychics and miscellaneous paranormal phenomena. Some psychics even believe in themselves. > There is no definitive proof that all such phenomena are false. > As long as everyone has the option to say “No, thank you”, why concern yourself with what others believe? Well, that is best answered by a quote from Carl Sagan > [@](#): > > seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas… If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you… On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones A healthy dose of skepticism helps us sort out truth from bullshit; it keeps us from getting fooled by Nigerian scams and perpetual motion machine cons; it keeps us from being suckered by quacks and snake oil salesman. It is in the interests of a healthy society that liars and conmen like John Edward be exposed. > [@](#): > > And furthermore, yes, I condemn con artists that bilk people out of their life savings with fear tactics and impossible promises. But I have no problem with someone charging a fee for a reading. The exchange of money in and of itself does not automatically render the service suspect. If I had a psychic ability, you can bet your ass I’d charge for it, just like I charge for any other skill that others find useful. That’s capitalism, bubelah If you had a psychic ability that actually worked and had been demonstrated to work in lab conditions to prevent trickery then , yes, charge all you like. But the point you seem not to understand is that **none of these people like John Edward or Miss Cleo have real psychic abilities**. If psychic abilities exist, then they should function under strict lab protocols; that they never do should be a clue that so-called psychics are frauds. If people make claims, then those claims should be examined. So far, no claim of psychic ability has ever withstood skeptical scrutiny. Mind, this makes it a lot easier to understand your politics. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/52 "2002-12-01T19:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\*Well, that certainly guarantees that you can’t be proven wrong. > \*\* Please stop assigning arguments and ideas to me that I have not made. I have not asserted anything to be right, so why would you be interested in proving me wrong? All I’ve said is basically: leave people alone to do what the hell they want. If they want to watch John Edwards, so? Is he bilking people out of their life savings, destroying their lives? Nope. So what’s your problem? As I said earlier: lots of people believe lots of wacky shit. Scientologists, for instance. Are you advocating the dismantling of the C o S? Because the Scientologists believe in it with all their hearts, and seem glad to hand over their life savings to the church in pursuit of “clear” status. I think they’re insane and obnoxious and total frauds to boot, but it’s their lives and they are entitled to do what makes them happy so long as they don’t mess with me. A good friend of mine is a Jew. His synagogue charges for special priveleges that would strike some of us as charging for special access to God. I think that’s revolting and dishonest, but it aint’ my life and it makes them happy, good for them. The LDS church, which believes that its members can all become Gods themselves if they play their cards right, populating their own planets someday, makes it pretty damn clear that God expects their members to cough up 10% of their income to the church. Since the church president is supposedly having brunch with God on a regular basis, I consider it downright coercive of the Church to ask for a damn thing, since the threat of hell is implicit in failure. I think they’re nuts. But it’s their church. They like it like that. Some people believe it is possible to communicate with the dead. It makes them wildly happy to find someone who will support that belief, and they are glad to pay for that service. They find it comforting. It’s probably crap, but it what they want. My argument is this: it’s all the same. People are entitled to believe in and contribute to whatever the fuck they like, and it doesn’t matter if you think it’s crazy and stupid. You are not the one who gets to decide for everybody what the criteria are for legitimate beliefs vs. illegitimate beliefs. That’s for each person to decide for themselves. You are entitled to make debunking your life’s work. Which some people will be glad to hear about and others will happily ignore. We live in a free society. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/53 "2002-12-01T20:11:37Z")
[quote] My argument is this: it’s all the same. People are entitled to believe in and contribute to whatever the fuck they like, and it doesn’t matter if you think it’s crazy and stupid. You are not the one who gets to decide for everybody what the criteria are for legitimate beliefs vs. illegitimate beliefs. That’s for each person to decide for themselves. [quote] See, you still don’t understand the difference between a belief and a testable hypothesis. Religious beliefs are not testable because they cannot conclusively demonstrated to be false. If someone, OTOH, claims to be able to read minds, that can be tested–by having the claimant read the mind of a test volunteer. Claims of psychic ability can be be demonstrated to be false, thus they fall under the purview of testable phenomena. Ditto with someone claiming to talk to the dead. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the person claiming extraodinary powers, not on the the person demanding evidence. Abdicating the responsiblity of using your bullshit filter leads only to an increasingly more gullible world. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/54 "2002-12-01T20:21:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\* > Moreover, the burden of proof is on the person claiming extraodinary powers, not on the the person demanding evidence. > \*\* True and false. Since no one is forcing you to give money, believe, or otherwise support the claimant in any way, your request for proof is certainly fine to make, but you don’t have any “right” to demand it. You are free to blow off those you think are frauds, they have no special obligation to you or anyone else to prove anything. If they charge for a reading, and the person who pays is happy, the fact that YOU think it’s all trickery and bullshit could not be more irrelevant. You aren’t part of the equation, you are merely an observer, and as such you have no rights and can make no demands. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/55 "2002-12-01T20:25:31Z")
> [@](#): > > If they charge for a reading, and the person who pays is happy, the fact that YOU think it’s all trickery and bullshit could not be more irrelevant. You aren’t part of the equation, you are merely an observer, and as such you have no rights and can make no demands. Wrong. A. the law is an outside observer, yet it prosecutes fraud (which is what we call taking money under false pretenses). B. People claming psychic ability are not immune to having their claims checked merely on your say so. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/56 "2002-12-01T20:37:49Z")
Actually, not all psychic claims are falsifiable. John Edwards does not claim to be able to read minds, he claims to be able to speak to the dead. It might be possible to prove that he isn’t communicating with a specific dead person, it is not possible to prove he has never communicated with any. And if the law was as sure about all this as you are, they’d be prosecuting JE and a whole bunch of others. Its extremely difficult to prove fraud in these matters. Note that “Miss Cleo” was nailed on fraudulent billing, not on fraudulent ESP. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/57 "2002-12-01T20:40:32Z")
And actually, is it truly possible, has it ever happened, that the law has gone after a psychic without first getting a complaint from someone dissatisfied with the service? Hard to imagine, I’d be interested if anyone could show such a case, I think they’d be hard pressed. So it would seem that if the psychic and the customer are both happy, it really isn’t anyone else’s business, not even the law’s. (this would be the prostitution analogy, btw.) ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/58 "2002-12-01T21:14:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So it would seem that if the psychic and the customer are both happy, it really isn’t anyone else’s business, not even the law’s. (this would be the prostitution analogy, btw.) You need to work on your analogies. Prostitutes provide a service for their money; psychics do not. Taking money under false pretences is a criminal offence, even if the client is happy. Moreover, the mission of this message board is to **fight** , ignorance, not perpetuate it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/59 "2002-12-01T21:39:29Z")
Psychics most certainly do provide a service, and it is essentially the same one that prostitutes provide: they make the customer feel good. And often the service is extremely similar, in that it consists of lies: “Oooh, baby, you so good! That big cock is making me feel so hot!” Lies, lies, and more lies. But the customer likes hearing it. Psychic: “Your mother loves you and she wants you to know she’s happy and at peace.” Lies, lies and more lies (maybe…if her mom has an afterlife at all, chances are good that’s what she’d want her to know…) but the customer likes hearing it. ---
**Author:** ![Cosmopolitan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/94ad74/32.png) [@Cosmopolitan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cosmopolitan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/60 "2002-12-01T21:40:26Z")
It is, I think, inherently unethical for John Edward and those of his ilk to claim that they can “speak to the dead” for the various and sundry reasons listed above by Dopers more eloquent and clear-minded than I. That being said, I’m going to say my bit anyway. 🙂 I feel that by falsely purporting to relay the thoughts of dead loved ones to _grieving, paying_ customers, psychics are: (A) defrauding said customers (if not technically - the letter of the law - then at least in the colliquial sense of the word. and B) possibly damaging the collective emotional state of their customers by wasting time. Customers getting a quick fix from a happy falsehood aren’t getting the tools they need to deal with the harsh realities of life as a human. These psychics are selling faulty mental crutches, not “cures” - placebos or otherwise. Time spent being cajoled/lied to by a psychic could be better spent by learning from a trained mental health pro how to deal with the emotions that surface as a result of bereavement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301.md?page=4)