If that’s what they want. If I go to see Spiderman to be entertained, I don’t care if I’m lied to. I don’t think these people really care either. I think these people would be more pissed off if you came up to them and after the show said to them: “That man just lied to you. Your a fool. Your husbands dead, so deal with it. He isn’t trying to tell you anything”
–Chorus
I’ve already weighed in on Mr. Edward in a Pit thread from not too long ago.
He at one point, during sweeps week, was planning to do a show devoted to relatives of Sept. 11 victims. But they backed off after the instantaneous public outcry.
IIRC, Edward said he would instead do individual sessions with family members, as requested.
Operating on the assumption that this guy knows he’s full of crap, that really aggravates me.
Well you’re probably right that no-one likes to be shown that they are foolish and gullible, especially if they’ve paid money for it.
But your example of Spiderman is a completely different kettle of fish.
When the movie Superman came out, the publicity said “You’ll believe a man can fly.”
I didn’t believe it (then or now), but I couldn’t see how they did it and I enjoyed the special effects.
It was just a film - I got value for my money.
When I get offers such as ‘Learn to dowse’, I avoid them (since dowsing has never succeeded under test conditions).
I consider this fraud, but the only annoyance is that you lose money.
I don’t know if you’ve suffered the loss of a close relative, but I assure you it’s a real emotional tragedy.
A surgeon friend of mine told me that the most traumatic part of his job is breaking the news of a death to the remaining family.
These vulnerable people are the ones exploited by this crook. It’s not entertainment - they are desperate for help with their suffering.
So yuppie millionaires don’t have feelings, huh?
How about poor widows who can’t really afford it going for a ‘consultation’ with this bloodsucker. Does that bother you at all?
Chorus, you might be right that people would be upset if somebody came up to them and called them fools after Edwards or Praaaaaaagh did the cold reading bit on them. Even if they realized it was a scam they’d still be upset at being called a fool. Embarassed too.
I think though, that on reflection they would be more likely to feel hostility toward the person who manipulated them for personal gain.
Penn Gillette was on a local radio show once and was asked what he thought of Edwards. He had nothing nice to say about the man, only that what he was doing was cruel and exploitative. I agree.
LIFE ON WRY –
The difference, of course, is that the concept of God is quite literally supernatural – beyond the natural world – and therefore not amenable to proof at all. He cannot be proven, and He cannot be disproven, because He is not bound by the rules of nature and very few people even claim He can be subjected to proof.
Psychics, on the other hand, purport to extract provable information from the dead. I mean, you either had an Aunt Mary, or you didn’t. The combination of verifiable information asserted to have been received from a supernatural source means that psychic abilities are in theory provable – and, conversely, disprovable.
Now, you may be correct that psychic ability has not been affirmatively disproven, but, more significantly, it has not been proven. There is an obvious incentive to prove it if possible – the legitimating of the industry – and it is a phenomenon that in theory could be easily proven under test conditions, if it existed: “Tell me the word written on this card.” “Tell me the name of my dead grandfather.” “Tell me what color underwear I’m wearing.”
It seems to me that the evidence regarding this “phenomenon” clearly indicates that psychics are quacks. There is no reasonable explanation for their failure to prove their “gifts” except that they cannot do so. If someone makes a claim that is theoretically amenable to proof, but then refuses to put it to the proof, that IMO is reason enough to be very skeptical of whatever they say.