# 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:** 6
**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 4, 2002, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/101 "2002-12-04T21:28:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*lekatt, can you provide some cites please for your claims about Randi’s testing methods? He usually does a preliminary test at the claimant’s residence before moving on to the formal laboratory test. Thus far, not one person has made it past the preliminary test. > > In order for the test to have credibility, the room MUST be cleared of all but the claimant and the tester. This is done to eliminate any chance of confederacy with observers. The entire test is video taped, however, in a complete unedited, and non-deceptive way. Thus far no claimants have alleged that Randi has lied about results or called a positive test a failure. They always say stuff like “the spirits didn’t trust the tester,” or claim there was “interference with the vibrations,” or some such nonsense like that. > > As to the TV show, I don’t know what you’re referring to exactly, but I know that he has occasionally rejected such stunts because they are not controlled environments. I’m aware of one so-called psychic named Koda, who once offered to perform his act in front of studio audience, and then have the audience “vote” on whether he was genuine or not. If the audience was convinced, he wanted the million dollars. Obviously, this does not constitute any kind of credible scientific test, so Randi had to decline under these conditions, but would have no problem testing Koda in a laboratory where he can’t cheat. > > Offering to simply perform their acts in front of a credulous audience without agreeing to any of the controlled conditions is a cheap and easy way for psychics to grandstand. It is not a real test. > > The truth is very few people even agree to the preliminary test. None of the prominent celebrity psychics of the moment are willing to prove their abilities in a laboratory. > > Did you read the whole Van Prague link, or only the first paragraph? The not accusing JE of fraud disclaimer was clearly tongue in cheek. How do you respond to the obvious fishing expeditions and low strike rate of JE’s cold reading exhibitions? Why are the spirits so vague and erroneous much of the time? Shouldn’t a genuine psychic be able to do better than me in an exhibition like this? \*\* The link I have already given, I would see no reason to clear the room of inpartial observers unless something unfair were taking place. ---
**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 4, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/102 "2002-12-04T21:33:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*Psychics don’t “win” or “lose”, I think you are supplying a motive to Randi’s research. I think that Randi would be just as happy as the rest of us if he could prove psychics really existed. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’d love to prove they did, because he would win all sorts of scientific achievement awards. \*\* Since he makes his living harrassing psychics I doubt very much he would want one to win. He was throughly trounced on the Larry King show by a psychic from England a while back. [http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/Humpty%20Dumpty.html](http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/Humpty%20Dumpty.html) ---
**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 4, 2002, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/103 "2002-12-04T21:36:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*Diogenes-It’s a lawyer’s opinion…And we all know how lawyers are such great scientists and are always honest.:rolleyes: > _right?_ \*\* Another belittling remark, uncalled for in debate. If you have nothing to say then say nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/104 "2002-12-04T21:40:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Guilt by association is meaningless. Not proof. \*\* Did I claim it was proof? No. All I said was that, if they were doing the same thing as Edwards that I’d bet they were frauds. If you have **scientific** evidence that this is **not** the case, please present it. I will gladly eat my words if I am wrong, and their is scientific evidence. ---
**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 4, 2002, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/105 "2002-12-04T21:43:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Thanks, Meatros. > > Well this just backs up what I said. The claimant wasn’t asking for a legitimate test. He just wanted to perform his act without any controls and have an audience of hand-picked suckers decide the results. This was pure grandstanding on the part of the psychic. > > And what an ass that lawyer is…:rolleyes: \*\* Total subjective BS, you are entitled to your opinions, but that’s all they are is opinions. More name calling and belittleing those that don’t agree. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/106 "2002-12-04T21:45:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Why don’t you work for free? Why do the scientists who develop the pills not sell them at a reasonable price? > > I don’t know the answers to the above questions, but I do know why the communication is difficult. Paul said, “we see through a glass darkly.” If you really want to talk about it come to the board on my site, away from the detractors that inhabit this one. \*\* Scientists who develope the pills do not price the items they make. The companies backing the scientists do. How is what I do (which involves accounting) in any way **related** to what Edwards does??? I’m willing to see the evidence, believe me I’d love proof positive of the “other” side. What’s your board’s website? ---
**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 4, 2002, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/107 "2002-12-04T21:49:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Cite lekatt, on Randi’s actual refusal, as opposed to this guy’s claims about it? What were the circumstances? If they are what can be found on that site, then you are being downright silly. > > What this Robinson seems to want to do is perform his act live, mugging for the cameras, while Randi watches and, presumably, is merely given a chance to criticize. What sort of “test” is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with examining Robinson’s claims in an controled environment: which is EXACTLY what people like Robinson seem to fear. > > The whole point of Randi’s set-up is that the psychic first performs his power to HIS OWN satisfaction, before there is any hint of Randi’s controls going on. The powers to be observed are not Randi’s, but the psychic’s own claims, and what goes on is no secret: it’s agreed to by both parties BEFORE the enterprise even begins! After the powers are demonstrated to the psychics’ satisfaction without controls, the controls are added. That’s the whole point: to see what’s REALLY going on in an environment in which claims can be tested. > > —This was a waste of time, the writer claims no fraud for Edward, because he doesn’t want to spend time with laywers.— > > As usual, you are handed a full on explanation of exactly how Edward could accomplish his feats without resorting to any sort of supernatural explanation, and as usual, you dismiss it without any serious comment. Yes, Rowland has little interest in trying to convince believers that Edward is a fraud: for the reason he plainly states. But that has nothing to do with the fact that he can explain exactly how Edward performs his supposedly inexplicable feats, not to mention the fact that Rowland can perform the same feats quite easily himself, without claiming any psychic powers whatsoever! > > I love your Zammit site by the way, especially this: “This is because the offeror is technically an intruding negative extraneous variable and will inevitably make nugatory otherwise successful psychic tests - he exudes too much negativity for sensitives to operate properly.” > > In other words, it’s the old: “my magical powers don’t work whenever anyone who doesn’t believe they work is around, or when you try to impose controls on me.” > > Like Robinson’s goofy challenge, what Zammit is demanding is simply to perform without any hint of actually testing what’s going on: “It is only fair, equitable and reasonable that in any demonstration conditions be conducive for a psychic to perform without unnecessary encumbrances.” > > Well, what Randi does, and has made no bones about doing, is to try to control for the ways in which people could cheat or use alternative and quite mundane methods to acheive the desired effect. That’s the WHOLE POINT of the challange: that the skeptic get to examine the claim via the use of controls for potential ways of cheating (i.e. “unnecessary encumbrances”). If that weren’t the case, all we would have is a magic show. Heck, David Copperfield could win the 1 million quite easily under Zammit’s lax conditions, when no one is allowed topeak behind the curtain. So could I. And with nothing but parlor tricks. \*\* Impartial tests need to include observers from both sides, that is the normal way it is done. Of course, Randi has a motive, if he didn’t he wouldn’t be doing what he does. There has been no real proof shown here of John fraud or anyone else’s. You demanded cites from me on the NDE thing and I give you qualified scientific studies, which you trashed, you give me opinions nothing more. Send proof or quit belittleing. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/108 "2002-12-04T21:52:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Another belittling remark, uncalled for in debate. If you have nothing to say then say nothing. \*\* Yeah, it wasn’t that harsh, but I retract it-you’re right it shouldn’t be in debates. However, how does a lawyer constitute an expert in the scientific method? I would also like to add that, in my opinion, Czarcasm wasn’t belittleing you. How can someone prove to you, anything, if you don’t accept scientific evidence? Which is exactly what I was trying to call attention to. You also said "Guilt by association is meaningless, yet **you** lump all scientists together. ---
**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 4, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/109 "2002-12-04T21:55:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Miskatonic \* > \*\*Your understanding is wrong. The test can be public or private as the cahllenger wishes. Of course, you don’t let facts get in your way. > > Maybe becaus ethey don’t have pschic powers? > > False, and disproven by Randi’s recent test of homeopathy on Horizon on BBC. A simple reading of the challenge conditions also shows that your are making false statements. > > Now who has the closed mind? \*\* All I know is that Randi refused to permit cameras or impartial judges in the sessions, read the link above. If you are calling me closed minded because I believe my own experiences then so be it. I had eggs for breakfast and I believe that also so much that you couldn’t get me to say different. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Zahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@John\_Zahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Zahn)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/110 "2002-12-04T21:57:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > what I read was one individual that had been on his show and had his question taped to a different answer. > > The rest of the article was assumptions and methods he could of used but no one saw him do it. > > I was impressed by the taping and managing of the show. But since I or the writer have not seen the out tapes, nothing is provable. > > The most here is a charge of exageration on John’s part may be assumed but not proven. > > What I am looking for is evidence I can call the studio with, something a great deal more than offered. Just what kind of evidence are you planning to go to the studio with? If you’re critical of the show, do you think they are going to give you the time of day? JE today, is probably where Uri Geller was at in the seventies. JE will have his fun in the spotlight, as long as the media continues to help him, but it won’t be too long before the critical media catches up to him, and some of his closer aides start talking and really spilling the beans. You mention lawsuits. Geller sued Randi on numerous occasions. He had cost CSICOP so much money in legal defense that he voluntarily stepped down to keep from draining that organization financially, and he went out on his own. You want to guess how many times Geller won against Randi? I’ll give you a hint: it’s less than one. That one link of Shermer’s gave you many places you could have went to if only you would have done so. There are various TV shows listed on Shermer‘s cite, and I’m sure you can find on-line scripts to probably most of them. You can also go to CSICOP which has decades of experience investigating paranormal claims. I also went to James Randi cite and did a search engine with “John Edward” and got 93 hits. [Commentary, February 15, 2002 — The Vatican Declares on Illness, Monty Python is Blamed, John Edward (Again?), Astrology Business/Business Astrology in Denmark, Moon Madness Revisited, A Dedicated Teacher Is Betrayed, And Part One of the Russian Psychic Test.....](http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html) The very first one deals with some of the information listed on his John Edward’s CO cite, and it concerns some of the rules and regulations that audience members consent too, and I’ll comment on a couple of them here as well. I think you’re too quick to be dismissive with the man that was interviewed. If this interview is credible, it is very telling, wouldn‘t you agree? Do you just need corroboration? If many others shared the same story, would you then start to have your doubts about JE and the whole editing team? Let’s look at parts of the interview here: **"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess “hit” on me that was featured on the show. However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched. Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show.** And you want to talk about accountability? You made the charge that Randi isn’t accountable because he wouldn’t let what you claim was an impartial observer into the test area. I’ll get to that later on in my post, or an entirely new post altogether. If you really believe what you just said, why don’t you apply that to the JE show? Did you see the restrictions the JE producers put on 20/20? And once they found out they were taping JE, they immediately had them leave. Let me show you the pertinent part of the quote in bold type: **After watching the 20/20 piece the producer immediately realized what was really going on inside Edward’s studio. She began to ask a few probing questions and was promptly cut off by Edward and his producers. ABC was told they would not be allowed to film inside the studio and that they, the Sci Fi network, would provide edited clips that ABC could use.** So explain JE and the accountability of his producers if you will? I want to hear why Randi isn’t accountable for not allowing what you claim was an impartial observer into his test area, but why you think maybe JE is accountable for not letting 20/20 do their own filming instead of having to rely on their JE’s producers edited versions? If JE is any good at all, why does he need the editing team in there to show this kind of blatant deceit as was shown in the edited question and answer session? Or do you just dismiss it as an honest mistake? If this show did this with him, do you think it has happened with others? Notice that his show on the Sci Fi network is only 30 minutes. Would you expect an all day taping for a 30 minute show?! Under the rules and guidelines of that show featured on the Sci Fi page it says this: **By entering the studio, you consent to a post-interview session with the Crossing Over producers. . . . Please expect an all-day taping (at least six hours . . .)** > **[Scifi.com](https://www.syfy.com/scifi/johnedward/abouttheshow)** > > Visit Syfy.com So the show has at least six hours of tape to do a 30 minute show, and on top of that you have to consent to a post-interview session with the producers if they so choose! My gosh man, how much freakin’ tape does that man need to give his editing team to edit through to make a two-bit 30 minute production of JE basically just asking questions to the studio audience? I haven’t even seen his new show on the local networks now (at least not for more than five minutes at a time), but what did they do, expand it to one full hour? If so, the whole damn studio audience probably needs to bring their camping gear and plan on an overnight stay. I doubt Van Praagh needs this much tape. Here is another bit that appears on the _Crossing Over_ cite: **Don’t get “psychic amnesia.” John coined this phrase to describe what happens when he goes to someone in the audience and they all of a sudden forget their family tree. Bring a copy of your family tree to the show, just in case.** Bring a copy of your family tree? Hmmm…You reckon any of this info gets fed back to JE? Even considering it didn’t, how many names are generally going to be on a family tree? A good 50 or more, perhaps? He could pull a name out of his ass with that many and still get a hit. Getting back to what the one man said in his interview: **Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."** So if this man’s account is accurate, you’ve got people sitting in the studio audience for two freakin’ hours, talking about their dead relatives, with a very good possibility that the microphones and cameras are already on. You’ve probably got plants spread out through the audience, and nothing is still probably registering to you that anything is going on, and you probably think things are still on the up and up, and that JE is actually getting his information through the dead people, right? Let’s suppose I was back there filling in for John Edward. If the microphones and camera are on for two hours with people talking about their dead relatives, and I have 15 people planted in the audience gathering information from their family trees, which the show encourages them to bring, how well do you think I could do with the readings? How well do you think you could do? Not only do I think I could put on a better show, I could also let the editing crew take half the day off to boot! Does it ever occur to you that he’s the one asking virtually all of the questions? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Why can’t he just give answers, and not wait on any feedback from them? What is your opinion of the others such as Uri Geller, Van Praagh, Sylvia Brown, or for that matter all of the wrestlers on Championship Wrestling? Did you know that even when Championship Wrestling came forward a few years ago to admit that the matches are choreographed and staged-- like no one knew that already (except maybe people in Alabama, just kiddin‘ Alabama)-- but nevertheless, they are more popular now than ever. People just like a good show. Ask any faith healer… JZ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Zahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@John\_Zahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Zahn)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/111 "2002-12-04T22:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > As for James Randi, it is my understanding that Randi conducts his tests of psychic ability behind closed doors. Only Randi’s assistants are allowed in the room. The psychics always lose. > Randi was asked to do a test on stage in front of camers, he refused, he was asked to allow an impartial observer in the room, he refused. So much for Randi’s accountability. How do you know it was an impartial observer? And even assuming he was an impartial observer, as any good magician knows, they too can give out clues and details to a good reader without even being aware of it. This is how skilled magicians, when they do their mentalist acts are able to go find hidden objects in an audience even without having plants. They are trained to read the slightest bit of expression on people’s faces, voices, and body language, and the host often helps without even being aware of it. There is more being giving away to a skilled magician than you think. Why may I ask does the psychic have to have somebody in the room with them? I’m glad they don’t have somebody of your caliber running the tests, they would all come back positive. How would you like the test to be? Let the so-called psychic’s bring in family members and friends, and let them have their friends run the camera’s to, do all of the editing, and even the test itself? Surely you think some controlled environment is important, yes? Should the editing be similar to JE’s top-notch film crew? Can’t you see how this is going to open up the possibility of cheating? I dare you to show me any credible cite that thinks Randi has a problem with accountability. Pah-leeese go find us somebody, and hopefully not Uri Geller and the like. That guy is still sulking about how his career has been ruined as a psychic because of Randi, but he doesn’t still seem to have much of a problem finding suckers, although in the US his TV appearances have pretty well dried up. But there is a new generation who isn’t aware of his earlier career, so I have a feeling we haven’t heard the last of him in this country. Randi has had thousands of people come forward to be tested for whatever paranormal ability they claimed to have possessed. He also doesn’t always conduct his tests behind closed doors. This suggests that no one even knows what is going on. More on that in just a minute. I have also seen him test several people on a live TV show featuring Bob Barker many years back. Shows like that generally don’t last long though. Sponsors want positive results of some paranormal activity going on or they lose viewers quick. PBS is about the only network that encourages the kind of work Randi does. Did you see him on the PBS Nova special when he tested the Russian psychics? I’ll spare you the results. When Randi tests someone for the million dollar prize, before they take the test, they all agree beforehand of what the test is going to consist of, and what will constitute both a positive result and a negative one. They also all sign the necessary paperwork which is in writing on what they just agreed to. Nobody spends as much time documenting their work as Randi does. After each session, besides everyone failing, all have said they were treated fairly, and I think they also sign something afterwards to that effect. They don’t sign that they didn’t have paranormal abilities, only that at least on that day of testing, they failed. Now how’s that for accountability? Randi, I believe also has unedited film of every single participant that has been tested. It’s open up to networks, journalists, education facilities, and the like. This isn’t accountability? I‘ve followed his career for over 20 years, and when the controls are relaxed, and the camera’s stop rolling the person miraculously starts to get all of his paranormal powers back in working order again when the experiments are not being under the controlled skilled eye, of say, someone like a magician who has the necessary skills to know when deception is occurring. When CSICOP first started doing testing, they noticed early on, that scientists wasn‘t always the best to run the experiments. Many were getting fooled even by children. They had to be trained on what to look for. This is where Randi came in. Participants don’t get the benefit of the two-bit editing jobs going on with the JE show either. Randi has also conducted tests of water dowsers out in the field, hardly a closed room. Although this exposed him to possibly cheating going on, Randi had a site prepared where underground pipes were installed and water ran through them, and all the water dowsers had to do to pick up the prize money was place the flag’s along the pipe’s path. I don’t think you want to hear the results. Are you familiar with Hume’s scale? It’s an important philosophical tool that can be applied to psychic’s and other’s claiming some supernatural ability. Do you put your trust in a person who thinks he can violate the laws of nature, or do you put your trust in nature? E.g., how many times has gravity failed you? If you hear of somebody claiming to walk on water, do you think that the laws of nature have gone cuckoo, or do you think the person telling the story hasn’t got his facts straight? JZ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/112 "2002-12-04T22:07:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*All I know is that Randi refused to permit cameras or impartial judges in the sessions, read the link above. All you know is what Victor Zammit told you. Every other test that Randi has done has shown the opposite of your claim. FLim-Flam, and [www.jref.org](http://www.jref.org) have several examples showing you to be wrong. Zammit’s arguements are foolish, and unscientific, he is baised beyond belief (Randi was hardly ‘slaughtered’ as he asserts.) and his challenge has lead plating designed to make it unwinable. His complaints against skeptics are loaded with strawmen, and other logical fallacies. Furthermore, the guy is just plain sloppy. He states in one rant that the challenge has been around since 1987. Which is wrong in all ways. By the way, you didn’t actually link to a page that said Randi hid from cameras. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/113 "2002-12-04T22:11:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Why don’t you work for free? Why do the scientists who develop the pills not sell them at a reasonable price? Why do you think the scientists set the price? Scientsist devlop the product, other factors set the price. Complain to marketing, not the science. Were it not for the scientists, you would not have medication in Canada or Mexico to compare prices with. This lack of simple business knowledge is not encouraging. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/114 "2002-12-04T22:23:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*I think his “evidence” of Randi’s methods are on this page: [http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/Humpty%20Dumpty.html](http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/Humpty%20Dumpty.html) \*\* Here’s what Victor is not telling you: Randi was offered a free trip, but a time limit was set. Randi would have to drop everything on his schedule for this TV stunt. Furthermore, Robinson was setting the rules, playing the “my rules and Randi’s money” game that woowoo’s seem to think is so clever. Randi never refused to appear on the show. He simply wasn’t going to jump through hoops for them. He is under no obligation to do so. It is not on record that MI5 used Robinson. This is Zammit fantasy. Robinson was not proven to be a gifted psychic by any means. Schwartz experiments were hideously flawed on several levels, not even employing a simple double-blind. Robinson was already tested in a preliminary test for the challenge by a British scientist friend of Randi and he failed miserably. Robinson called Randi and the friend a coward for not jumping through his hoops. His attack on the friend was particularly desipcable since the reason this person could not attend any TV show was due to a medical crisis in the family. Zammit avoids mention of it. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/115 "2002-12-04T22:48:58Z")
Is it just me, or does **lekatt** provide a rather conclusive refutation to the premise of the thread? We all know John Edward is a fraud. We’ve explained how it works. The likelihood that he’s performing supernatural feats is dwarfed by the overwhelmingly more probable explanation that it’s all just carnival magic. But for whatever reason, **lekatt** absolutely _needs_ to believe that Edward can speak to the dead. Nothing will shake his belief. He attacks any possible contrary view, or any attempt to wake him up to reality. In other words, the premise of the thread should not be about the ethics of deceiving people. Rather, it should be about people’s willingness to grasp at straws to feed their delusions. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/116 "2002-12-04T23:07:50Z")
FWIW I think John Edwards’ psychic abilities are a crock of shit, he’s a complete fraud and at least runner up for biggest douche in the universe. The ethical question is another matter. I draw a parallel to the _21_ quiz show scandal. Plenty of folks justified what was done by placing Charles Van Doren as a hero for education in America. Perhaps so but it was fraudulent and unethical. Things were a little different back when there was direct sponsorshiup of network TV shows and no individual was directly defrauded out of money but the ethical issues are unchanged. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/117 "2002-12-04T23:46:50Z")
Courtesy of Ian Rowland’s site, here is the disclaimer that flashes up at the end of JE’s show: > [@](#): > > The Producer has relied heavily on the contribution of John Edward and other third parties in the creation of this program, which has been produced for entertainment purposes only. > > The materials and opinions presented in this program by John Edward and other third parties, including statements, predictions, documents, photos and video footage, come solely from their respective third party sources and are not the views, opinions and responsibility of the Producer and are not meant or intended to be a form of advice, instruction, suggestion, counsel or factual statement in any way whatsoever. The last part is especially interesting: “…statements, predictions, documents, photos and video footage … are not meant or intended to be … factual statement[s] in any way”. Sez Ian: “These 93 words appear for 65 frames, or less than 3 seconds of air time. Can anyone read at 31 words per second? Doubt it.” What does all this say about the producer’s (or JE’s for that matter) confidence in his abilities? Volumes, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Gunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Dan\_Gunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Gunter)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/118 "2002-12-04T23:51:27Z")
I’m just hoping the negative comments about lawyers were directed toward Zammit\* and not me . . . - What a great name! I can imagine a judge barking it out: “Zammit! I have warned you previously about leading your own witness!” ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/119 "2002-12-05T01:05:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Zahn \* > \*\*So the show has at least six hours of tape to do a 30 minute show, \*\* First off, I want to say that Shermer is a good “read”, I’ve read a few of his articles and one of his books. Second, I just wanted to say that 6 hours is a bit long. I mean, let’s say that he’s totally legit-I ain’t waiting six hours for grammy to tell me anything! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301/120 "2002-12-05T01:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dan Gunter \* > \*_I’m just hoping the negative comments about lawyers were directed toward Zammit_ and not me . . . > > - What a great name! I can imagine a judge barking it out: “Zammit! I have warned you previously about leading your own witness!” \*\* No, my comments weren’t intended toward’s you, or most lawyers as a matter of fact. The public’s perception of a lawyer is not a good one, for the actions of a few lawyers. It’s my opinion that the lawyer Zammit, is not an expert in the scientific method and therefore the opinion that he broadcasts on that website isn’t a reputable one. Am I an expert on the scientific method? No, but then again I don’t proclaim a questionable opinion, as fact, on a website either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-edward-ethics-of-providing-comfort-to-the-grieving/139301.md?page=7)