John Edward - ethics of providing "comfort" to the grieving

Great Debates
21

I have never heard a psychic claim absolute knowledge, if they did I would assume they were amateurs or frauds. Your statement about a serious scientist may be true, but there are plenty who do claim knowledge far beyond their ability to prove it.
Many of them post on the dopers board. It is evident you don’t understand psychics.

Every once in a while John invites sceptics on his show, I wish you could go, they are always impressed, and on the last show one remarked he would rethink his belief system.

I am not necessarily defended psychics here, they probably don’t care what either of us say about them. What I don’t like is the egotistical arrogance of those who are ready to call them dirty names without any kind of proof or knowledge of what their talking about.

22

I think anyone dumb enough to ignore the big “FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY” warnings deserves what they get if they lose their life savings to psychics.

23

Saying we can’t prove psychics do not exist is like saying that we can’t prove that goblins do not exist. The persons making extraordinary assertions are the ones with the burden of proof. In the case of psychic ability we are talking about not just an extraordinary claim but an impossible one. There is simply no conceivable mechanism by which anyone could see the future, read minds, or talk to dead people which would be in any way compatible with the laws of physics. The assertion that these abilities exist is no different than asserting that some people can fly under their own power, or that they can see through walls. It is patently absurd, laughable, and unambiguously false on its face.

Not one genuine psychic or instance of authentic psychic ability has every been verified in all of human history, although plenty (including John Edward) have been debunked.

A lot of psychology is still highly theoretical, ast least as it pertains to psychotherapy. Psychiatry OTOH (that is the empirical study of the brain and brain chemistry) uses scientific method to try to remove as much mystery as possible from understanding the human mind. (The mind is only meat, after all).

Psychiatry is a legitimate scientific field based on legitimate, peer challenged inquiry. Psychics are completely and consciously fraudulent. Psychic “readings” are a pure con. There are no exceptions.

Say what you will about science, but unlike psychics or religion, it delivers the goods.

24

If only Woody Guthrie had lived longer:

“Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots and lots of con;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with names of John.”

25

So-called psychics are fakes, all of them, without exception. Tarot card readers, past life regressionists, spirit channelers, and that douche, John Edward, are all frauds who prey on the desperate and the congenitally gullible. You’ll note that people who claim to be in contact with the dead or with disembodied intelligences never come out directly with any concrete revelations that can be independently verified. Psychics and channelers practice cold reading, chumming the waters with leading questions that don’t tie them to any specific claims while spouting the usual feel-good inanities like, “The Space Brothers from Altair-7 wish you to be at peace and free the person within.” If psychics are so awesome, why didn’t any of them say on September 10, 2001, “Yo, New York City, heads up, tomorrow’s going to be a bitch”? If psychics healers are so useful, why don’t they clear out the hospitals? If John Edward talks to the dead, why does he have to play 20 Questions first instead of just wowing folks from the get-go with straight-up revelations? I’ll tell you why–he’s a big, fat, phony and the Biggest Douche in the Universe.

And that South Park episode was freakin’ hysterical.

26

It looks like the “genuine bad” that is being done, according to those who believe same, is that people they believe to be fraudulent are profiting from the service they provide to people who purchase the service freely.

Would it be ok if it were free? And if not, why not? And if so, why so?

So far, the argument sounds alot like the argument against prostitution, which I also find bogus.

And the placebo analogy is perfectly legit, if we are comparing placebo pain relievers to John Edwards. Grief is not a disease to be cured or not cured, it is pain from a condition which cannot be changed. There is nothing wrong with a chalk placebo for pain arising from an incurable physical condition, and there is nothing wrong with a psychological placebo for pain arising from heartbreak and loss.

Since the dead person cannot be resurrected, it is silly to insist that there is a “right” way or a “wrong” way to ease pain. So long as the person remains in touch with the important reality of the loved one being dead, so long as the end goal of a productive and happy existance sans lost loved one is reached, * that is all that matters. * Your judgments about what makes other people feel better is utterly beside the point.

27

It COULDN’T be free. That’s like asking if Three-Card Monte would still be a scam if they did it for free. The money is the POINT, and the only point. There is no such thing as psychic ability, and if there is no money to be made there is no motivation to FAKE it.

28

Diogenes, you ** finally** posted something that I might disagree with! I was beginning to think it would never happen.

Do we really know enough to know that there is no such thing as psychic ability? As a good skeptic, I try to remain open-minded.

That said, the techniques that John Edward uses are obvious and can be taught. I think that most marginally intelligent people could do the same thing with the same results. For more information, just send $50 and a SASE to Zoe, c/o Straight Dope.

Original quote by lekatt:

I think that John Edward is one of the most manipulative and unscrupulous con men around. He exploits grieving people for his own gain. Talk about treating people as objects!

Who sponsors his programs? I’m ready to boycott!

Does he really have a disclaimer that what he does is for “entertainment only”? If so, that’s a dead giveaway.

Wait! Silence! I’m getting a message! Is anyone here related to someone named Chris?

29

Yes, we really do know enough. We know there are no real psychics the same way we know there are no real magicians, because it’s impossible. It is physically impossible to do what psychics claim they can do. Can we know for sure that no one can breathe underwater? Psychic abilities are just as impossible. They would violate the laws of physics, therefore they don’t exist.

30

OMG! Yes, I am! The SDMB’s very own Zoe is a psychic!

I’ll send my money in a SASE as soon as I find a stamp. :wink:

31

Aw, come on. Psychics can’t exist because psychic phenomena are impossible? I completely agree with you on this one, but it seems that this is a bit of circular reasoning.

Oh, and I’m an ametuer magician in my spare time. To ask the thread-participants as a whole, is it immoral for a professional magician to charge admission to his/her shows?

On another note, Mr Edward should be kicked in the shins.

32

Oh goodie. I get to say it again…

It is the very height of arrogance to think that the limits of your perception constitute the limits of what there is to be perceived. We emphatically do not know all there is to know, and that would be the only condition under which your statment could be true.

Get a grip, man!

33

A good skeptic does not make a priori judgements; instead he or she demands evidence to back up claims of psychic ability. I, for one, would be thrilled to see that ESP and the like actually exist. So far, there has been no evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon. John Edward does not have psychic ability, and he cannot talk to the dead. If he could, he would not have to use old carny mentalist tricks to fool people.

Stoid, think this through. Are you really going to swallow every wacky claim someone makes merely because you choose not to test such claims? While it is true that there are many unanswered questions in science, it is falase to claim that therefore we cannot reject claims of psychic ability. Every form of energy falls somewhere on the electromagnetic spectrum, so where would we place telepathy? How would such a signal be propagated? If we can detect the wave of neutrinos that herald the death of a star millions of light years away, why can’t we detect the energy signature of telepathy?

You see, a reasonable person demands evidence to back up wacky claims, and when such claims contradict mountains of evidence to the contrary, extraordinary evidence is required. If we are to swallow John Edward’s claims that he can communicate with the dead, we are going to need better evidence than “I see an M…maybe an N…something about a…a…man…do you know a man?”

I would urge you to get a grip, and also to learn something about how science works. In short, nothing in science is proven absolutely, but the more evidence we have for the existence of a phenomenon, the more evidence we will need to accept claims to the contrary.

34

Well, here we have another open-minded truth seeking scientist?

I would say everything you wrote, including the part about how science delivers the goods, guess you haven’t studied the cure rate of mental illness. Religious organizations have a far greater success rate with things like 12 step programs.

You are so sure, it is scary. Most still wonder about the things you say you can prove. Really?

Near death experiences gave us strong evidence of life after death. John confirms this.

If you wish to earn money showing how much you know, there is now a million dollars offered to any closed-minded debunker than can prove life after death is false.

http://www.victorzammit.com/

Hop to it my friend, lets see how much you really know.

Love

35

How is it circular? Any phenomenon which would violate the laws of physics is ipso facto impossible and therefore cannot exist.

No, because there is no pretense that magic shows are REAL. It is understood by the audience that magicians are performing illusions for the purpose of pure entertainment.

We DO know when something is IMPOSSIBLE, Stoid. We KNOW that humans cannot fly by flapping their arms. We KNOW that you can’t cut diamonds with glass, and we KNOW that there is no conceivable mechanism by which psychic powers can exist in the physical universe.

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?

36

Oops. the “real magic” question should have been addressed to Soup, not to Lekatt.

37

“Real magic” cannot be achieved by anyone who now walks the earth. The small caveat comes from the fact that I’m a theist, but there are numerous debates on that sort of thing.

So, discounting a “god,” “real magic” is impossible. I assume we agree on that.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to say that “real magic” does not exist, at least for humanity. Personally, I’m 99% sure that it doesn’t, but I like to keep an open mind.

Ah, so the difference between magicians and psychics is the fact that “everyone knows” that the first is false, but some still believe in the other? Good call. I completely agree.

38

Diogenes, aren’t you making a prior judgment in saying that “There is no such thing as psychic ability”? How about a slight modification: “At present there is no scientific datum to support psychic ability.” (If that is a true statement.)

The reason that I don’t demand evidence is that I’ve seen what seems to be psychic ability run in the women in my family on a small scale. That makes me think there might be something to it.

I may be mistaken, but I think that “proof” is a mathematical term and not really a scientific one. OTOH, I haven’t seen any performing “psychics” that were at all believable or read any studies that convinced me. (I think that Duke University did some research in the paranormal.)

As for violating the “laws of physics,” [maybe psychic ability has more to do with quantum mechanics which also don’t seem to follow the laws of physics as we have understood them.

That said, I don’t know a damn about science. :wink:

39

Zoe, I’m not the one who made the “a priory” statement (although I agree with it) but it is NOT an a priori statement to say that the impossible is impossible.

Let’s take one aspect of alleged psychic ability, psychokinesis, or the ability to move objects with the mind. To move an object requires force. There is simply no mechanical way to generate the reqisite force simply by thinking about. Even if it WERE possible, this force would be detectable, measurable, and quantifiable to scientific inquiry. All energy is detectible.

How about mind reading? How does this work logistically? What is the theory by which one closed biochemical system can interface with another through the air. This is like saying that I can put a tape in my VCR and have it play back on your television. This would be impossible. That is not an a priori assertion, it is flat statement of fact.

IANA physicist, (and that is an understatement) but it is my understanding that any quantum violations of physics occur only on a subatomic level. I’m not aware of any way at all in which quantum theory could be applied to psychics, but i am willing to listen.

The main problem, though, is that for science to study psychic phenomena in any meaningful way, it first must OBSERVE psychic phenomena. Despite many sincere attempts to do so, not one instance of such ability has ever been observed under laboratory conditions, or dispositively verified under ANY condition.

So here we have claims for extraordinary phenomena which seem
a)prima facia impossible, and
b)have never been observed or confirmed by science.

Furthermore, every well-known “psychic” who claims to have such abilities ( John Edward, Kreskin, Uri Gellar, the “pet psychic,” etc.) has been effectively (and rather effortlessly) debunked by skeptics.

Please show me one compelling reason that the existence of psychic phenomena deserves any more consideration than the existence of werwolves or leprechauns.

40

DTC… you are missing the point of my prior statement. Yes, psychic phenomena have so far failed to be proved scientifically. Yes, psychic phenomena and abilities so far appear to violate the laws of physics * as we understand them. * But you continue to go on as though human beings understand everything there is to understand that might apply to these matters, and I say again: what arrogance.

And just as a matter of fairness and balance, are you this insistent on proofs for religious matters? Do you insist upon scientific evidence that God exists before you will back off and leave a Christian or a Jew alone to worship as it pleases them to do so?

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?