[Chez]

I used to get the brochure for the College Of Psychic Studies in Kensington. They gave refunds if courses were cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.

[MarkS]

Oh! great, thanks.

[Jonnyboy]

Please, a comfy chair is going to be essential as well.

[Mary-Jane]

Oh yes...on both counts.

[MarkS]

Perhaps.

But there is a big difference between defrauding someone who may be desperate and lonely and defrauding people who see psychics.


oops

Or should that be : There is a big difference between defrauding someone who may be lonely and desperate and defrauding a greedy idiot.

[Brownbear]

But you can legislate against stealing from stupid people. Admittedly, they'll no doubt go on to do something equally stupid: marrying a goat, going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, entering a national beauty contest despite looking like Davros with acne, or voting Liberal Democrat.

But it's more an act to confound tricksters than to remove stupidity.

[oldish chris]

Whats the problem? Surely all genuine mediums, psychics and healers would have absolutely no problem at all with justifying their claims! (Or am I missing something?)

[cab]

All comes down to whether its a religion or not.

People are allowed to believe the claims made by religious leaders. Thats up to them. If we're treating such things as statements made by mediums in the same way then the law has no place here.

If it is claimed that such claims are testable then the law should apply, of course. I pay for a bread machine, if it can't be used to make bread then I get a refund. I pay for a prophet, if prophet fails to predict future to my requirements then I get a refund. Fair is fair.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the state should say that such such claims should be treated as 'religion', but to a great extent I already do treat them as such.

[cab]

Ahh, but is it? Many people believe that, its core to how they see the world. Its easy for you, or me, or any skeptic to say that its an unbelievable claim, but when so many people see that as absolutely true, how can we say that its okay to sell such things 'falsely' because they're unbelievable?

Difficult area, its hard to see how the law should handle something that straddles 'religion' and 'product'.

[cab]

My opinion on psychics isn't far from yours, as you know, but that isn't the point. Someone goes to a 'reading', they get something out of it, they believe it... Someone goes to a 'faith healer', they get something out of it, they believe it... Someone goes to 'confession'... Well you know where I'm going. It isn't up to me to define someone elses belief structure, the unfalsifiable, untestable part, as 'religion' or not. I can point out that there are gaping holes in a religion, a new age belief, a spiritualist meeting, or whatever. But at the end of the day it ain't down to me to define them as religion or not, and I'm not comfortable with the state doing it either.

Which takes us back to whether a medium should be in trouble if he gets his 'reading' wrong, whether what they're doing is selling a product or practicing a faith... I don't know, but I'm not happy with either the 'yes' or 'no' position here

[cab]

I agree, theres a lot of fraud out there. But to insist that a large number of people are, as part of their faith structure, beign defrauded? You're saying that because the business of being a medium can be faked, everyone who visits a medium is being duped by a fake? I don't think that follows. I agree, theres nothing 'solid' to it, its easily demonstrable that anyone submitting to be tested will be found to be not a medium, but you're willing to say that the whole belief structure based around that is therefore less valid than, say, [insert religion of choice]? Every single religion has testable hypotheses somewhere, does the retreat of established religions from defending these hypotheses and their fall back on faith make them more valid?

I'm not comfortable with singling out one faith based way of life/belief structure an requiring a higher burden of proof, which is essentially what we achieve if we require it of spiritualists/mediums and not of, say, preachers. I'm not comfortable with charlatans peddling things that are demonstrably wrong either, mind you.

[jema]

I see no point in pussy footing around with this one, mediums claim to give direct messages from specific dead people to specific living ones. When they do that, they are without exception doing a psychological con trick that requires them to be engaged in premeditated deliberate deception.
I used to try to be open minded on the issue and think maybe in some cases they are fooling themselves as well as the punter, but if you look at what is required for a psychic performance then it really does require cynical manipulation of the audience.

[MarkS]

I see no point in pussy footing around with this one, mediums claim to give direct messages from specific dead people to specific living ones. When they do that, they are without exception doing a psychological con trick that requires them to be engaged in premeditated deliberate deception.
I used to try to be open minded on the issue and think maybe in some cases they are fooling themselves as well as the punter, but if you look at what is required for a psychic performance then it really does require cynical manipulation of the audience.

[MarkS]

Um... You, Cab and me might. But wasn't this covered in the Reiki / homoeopathy debate?

[gnome]

oh but they do - more or less. many churches - particularly evangelical ones - have ministers claiming to bring a personal message from god. i get your point - but it isnt valid. i'm assuming you are a sceptic, but supposing you are wrong, and there are some people who can contact the departed, or some people that do have some mystical healing power? you can never prove that in a court of law, so they will be victimised by the law. the laws will simply drive the conmen and charletans underground, where they will be in a position to rip people off even more. the fact that it is illegal will make their services more in demand, and just as unlikely to get caught.

any fake psychic worth his salt could easily drum up testimonials to back up his claims, so he would have just as much a chance of proving himself genuine than anyone who is genuine. the law would be unworkable, and ultimately self defeating. conmen aren't stupid. if this law goes ahead, the conmen will be the only "psychics" still in business. the very illegality of it would add an extra thrill that would draw people into hiring "psychics" for parties or other such private functions.

when it comes down to it, what is the difference between a professional fortune teller and a horoscope in the newspaper? when it comes right down to it - it's the money isn't it? what it does need is some form of regulation - like a maximum charge. if a fair charge rater was set by law, then the fakes could still carry on - but they would not be able to charge ridiculous fees. that would put them off more than anything else. because the issue is not that some people are paying people for a service which is questionable - it's that some vulnerable people are being fleeced by greedy conmen, who are technically within the law. All that is required is a little regulation - a price roof, and registration. anyone who overcharges, or is proven to be using deception (using an accomplice or paraphenalia to fake a result) would have their license revoked.

[jema]

and it is a fairly short ride from there to Jonestown!

But there is a long road between a normal church and the extreme cult end of things.

Downsizer is not about challenging peoples religions, but we all have points at which we do feel obliged to say something. One of my lines is Mediums as I have no doubts what they are about, and I strongly feel they are exploiting people.

[Jonnyboy]

Someone I knew died suddenly last August, a few months later one other mate came to see me with a tape from a psychic his sister had visited. He was convinced that the guy had contacted our departed friend. I refused to listen to it and told him the guy was a cheat and a charlatan. But he was convinced.

[gnome]

and people playing loud music, people who let their mobile phones chime in cinemas and restaurants, people who talk too loud, anyone who just doesn't quite fit in - get them all. oh look, there's someone with a pierced nose - i bet he's a bit dodgy - and that guy's hair is a bit too long - oh look - that man has a beard.

[cab]

Not even in the same moral ball park though is it. Someone chooses to do something, paying money even, to a religious practice (and the spiritualist union, to which a heck of a lot of these mediums belong, is a religious organisation), and in doing so is not directly harmed and has harmed no one... I genuinely don't care, why should anyone else? It isn't the same as going out and hacking someones legs off, the same principles don't apply. Why do you believe that they do?

[cab]

Of course you can attack fraudulent mediums, but to write off an entire religion practiced regularly by tens of thousands of people by referring to all mediums as frauds (I'll remind you that you said: "mediums claim to give direct messages from specific dead people to specific living ones. When they do that, they are without exception doing a psychological con trick that requires them to be engaged in premeditated deliberate deception.") then you're blurring the line between debate and outright just picking on a whole religion. I've got no problem at all with you feeling that way, but look at comments from MarkS and gnome, are you entirely comfortable with people saying just the same thing about any religious viewpoint at all? Is it okay to pick on any religion and simply write it off in its entirity as fraudulent? Heck, I'm the most evangelical atheist you'll ever meet, but you're making me uncomfortable with comments like that, and Gervases post about headless torsos... Well, words fail me.

[Nick]

Then there is a God.

[jema]

Then there is a God.

[Mary-Jane]

Is she called Joan then?

[Brownbear]

I can't decide it that is a pun, a witticism, sarcasm, general usage or unconscious irony.

[oldish chris]

I can't decide it that is a pun, a witticism, sarcasm, general usage or unconscious irony.

[Bebo]

I'm a large and lots of the threads on Downsizer are offensive.

[oldish chris]

This is the big problem with religion and the blasphemy law. According to my religious beliefs, I find quite a few of the differing religious beliefs very offensive. However, can I suggest a compromise, I will not complain if you laugh at my beliefs if I am allowed the freedom to laugh at any religious belief that strikes me as absurd.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm fairly sure no one meant to offend you personally. But these subjects do bring out strong feelings.

perhaps it would help people to understand better if you explained what you do?

[Chez]

This is the big problem with religion and the blasphemy law. According to my religious beliefs, I find quite a few of the differing religious beliefs very offensive. However, can I suggest a compromise, I will not complain if you laugh at my beliefs if I am allowed the freedom to laugh at any religious belief that strikes me as absurd.

[Chez]

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm fairly sure no one meant to offend you personally. But these subjects do bring out strong feelings.

perhaps it would help people to understand better if you explained what you do?

[Gervase]

I think you'll find that Downsizer is just like the larger world outside - there are all sorts of beliefs, but there are also people with all sorts of opinions (sometimes based on observation and sometimes just on prejudice), and the two sometimes collide.
That may be one of the reasons why the forum has more than 2,000 registered members, and yet perhaps fewer than 30 post regularly; they're - sorry, we're - the ones with big mouths and thick skins.
As for your own belief in being a medium, I don't see why you can't explain what it is and what it involves. There are rules here which prohibit personal attacks, so I would hope any discussion that followed wouldn't result in you getting ripped to shreds.
And as for beliefs in general, I don't believe that the internet ever changed someone's belief (a point we could all take on board maybe, instead of trying to grind down a dissenting view to the point where we think we can claim some sort of victory), so don't feel threatened.
Anyway, I'm sorry to think you might feel threatened or belittled - please don't be. Just nail your colours to the mast and say what you believe.

[cab]

I'm sorry you feel that way

For the record, I think its fine for people to say here whether or not they believe something, but its a mistake to write off a whole religious doctrine/set of beliefs as fraudulent. I don't believe in the power of mediums, but I've got no issue with others who do (nor do I have a problem with others beliving in Jesus, Muhammed, or anything else). Its up to them, its their own 'faith', if you like, and it has nothing to do with me. I'll state my views, I'll listen to others, I'll debate who is right... But thats it, I don't particularly want to get all het up about people having different views on the entirely metaphysical, its only part of what makes someone a good or bad person.

If its a testable claim (this practice A cures disease B) then its not the same; its something entirely amenable to testing, the results are outside of the 'spiritual', its not a faith thing any more. Different ball park then.

On all of these things I'll speak my mind, but where faith views are concerned I just can't stand picking and choosing which ones to pour scorn on. I hope I've made it clear in this thread already, that while I don't believe in communicating with the dead or various of the other things that might be affected by this legislation, I'm quite uncomfortable with new rules that may somehow single out mediums (and spiritualism); where legality steps into faith issues, its really hard to get things right.

Where I hope you and I would agree is that where people are fraudulently being 'mediums', they're acting in an entirely wrong way, and that this does happen. I haven't got any more problem with a medium who believes in what they do than I have with, say, a priest performing transubstantiation. Its a faith matter, its between the medium and anyone else involved. No one got hurt? Fine, why should anyone else be concerned?

[cab]

Yep. And I would no more ask you to prove your faith than a Christian or Muslim; it isn't a testable hypothesis. To hold a faith stance doens't make you or anyone else a fraud.

[cab]

You will never encounter a more skeptical person than me. A skeptical position is not one that assumes fraud, its one that questions. To make such an assumption is to move away from skepticism.

The most you can hope for from a skeptic is an acceptance that views like this are worthy of the same respect as are shown to other faith positions. An acceptance that you can practice your faith without anyone inferring that you're a fraudster, on the basis that everyone has a right to persue their faith without being abused.

[cab]

I'm uncomfortable with such a protection mechanism, because it almost cries out that its targetting the 'unusual' or 'non mainstream' faiths. Is it any worse if someone converts to the Seventh Church of the Apocalyic Lawnmower than if they convert to a Baptist mission of Catholicism? If someone donates their life savings to the Church Roof fund then thats barely even local news, so why do we make a bigger deal with other religious organisations?

I agree, if someone is defrauding someone else, that matters. But to navigate a route to drafting legislatgion to target those fraudsters without harming those with a right to genuinely practice their faiths any way they choose... Gosh, but thats just monstrously hard.

[cab]

A skeptic would question who made those transcripts and why, and would then ask whether just because such things can be falsified they necessarily always are

[cab]

Well, no, I'm not. You were entirely clear that you think that mediums are without exception frauds, here we've got Chez telling you flat out that she isn't a fraud, this is what she believes. You maintain now that you are open minded to the view that mediums are not all frauds (which is great, and a big shift from insisting that without exception they're all frauds), and your view on that will be evidence based. What evidence do you require that some mediums believe what they're saying?

[cab]

It isn't a valid defense for harming anyone, because by mutual agreement in our rather diverse society we agree that certain rules are not changed based on what your faith is. Want to kill someone cos God said so? Tough luck, you're not allowed.

But its rather hazy when you ask whether the law should be involved in personal matters. I'm an atheist, but if I join a religious sect I'm allowed to give my money to them. What right has the law got to be involved in that? If I join a cult because I'm convinced by their sales pitch, what business has the law got to be involved in that? I understand the principle of protecting the weak, those who need protection, but we tread a dangerous line when we try to put laws in place here.

[Bernie66]

Your outlook is so short term, you need to see a bigger picture

[cab]

No viewpoint should be regarded as unassailable, but the risk here is that we infringe on peoples right to practice their faith as they see fit. I agree, it would be great to protect people from con artists, but how do you do that without also legislating against people who genuinely believe what they're saying? Bloody hard to do that.

Like I said early in the discussion, there isn't an easy (or possibly even good) solution for how to regulate something that straddles faith and product.

[Bernie66]

I saw that coming ages ago Pen

[cab]

Maybe, but I'd be more comfortable with all religious organisations being treated the same. If mediums are asked to account for whether their faith does what it says on the tin (else they'll deed a disclaimer, or a clever way of separating collecions out from payments or what have you), then surely other religions shouldn't just do the same by convention, but via legislation?

And I just don't see laws passed that would put disclaimers on prayers (warning: recipients of prayers may suffer ill health as well as good).

[cab]

If I could formulate a workable experiment then I'd have suggested that. But I don't see that this is a testable position any more than any religious faith. Its not like 'I send healing waves and help you get better', which is testable, its not like 'I plant this cow horn full of cow poo, my geraniums all over the garden thrive', which is testable. Its 'I believe this, but I can't demonstrate conclusively that its true because at best it can be a bit vague'. That doesn't de-value the belief in the same way that, say, bottling out of testing an entirely testable hypothesis would. Thats why its 'faith'.

[jema]

Agreed, a test would be pretty simple, arrange any group of people and get a medium to blind read and say what relation is dead. Compare their reading to a competent magicians cold reading of those people. If the Medium does significantly better than chance and better than the magician, then the medium is well on the way to a million dollars.

[mark]

Maybe, but I'd be more comfortable with all religious organisations being treated the same. If mediums are asked to account for whether their faith does what it says on the tin (else they'll deed a disclaimer, or a clever way of separating collecions out from payments or what have you), then surely other religions shouldn't just do the same by convention, but via legislation?

And I just don't see laws passed that would put disclaimers on prayers (warning: recipients of prayers may suffer ill health as well as good).

[Brownbear]

I can believe that people would want to contact the dead, and I can believe that many people genuinely think they have this ability, but what I can't understand is why anyone would want to communicate with the sort of ghost who was so thick it didn't realise it was one. It would be like crossing the Sahara on foot to have a conversation about asceticism with John Prescott.

[sean]

You will never encounter a more skeptical person than me. A skeptical position is not one that assumes fraud, its one that questions. To make such an assumption is to move away from skepticism.

The most you can hope for from a skeptic is an acceptance that views like this are worthy of the same respect as are shown to other faith positions. An acceptance that you can practice your faith without anyone inferring that you're a fraudster, on the basis that everyone has a right to persue their faith without being abused.

[Jonnyboy]

Genuine question. Aren't are assuming that 'whatever' is on the other side will conform to the test principles you set.

E.G. - It will always be contactable by the medium if it exists.

[Bernie66]

You will never encounter a more skeptical person than me. A skeptical position is not one that assumes fraud, its one that questions. To make such an assumption is to move away from skepticism.

The most you can hope for from a skeptic is an acceptance that views like this are worthy of the same respect as are shown to other faith positions. An acceptance that you can practice your faith without anyone inferring that you're a fraudster, on the basis that everyone has a right to persue their faith without being abused.

[jema]

Genuine question. Aren't are assuming that 'whatever' is on the other side will conform to the test principles you set.

E.G. - It will always be contactable by the medium if it exists.

[Chez]

That's part of the problem. You don't always have the right grandmas in the queue. And, when you are working as a medium - actually doing the medium bit - one of the easiest ways to raise your energy frequency is to use the energy 'donated' by the people that you are reading for. So if you're in a room full of skeptics - and I think that it is fair to say that Randi is a skeptic rather than open minded - that energy isn't freely available. So it becomes much harder.

Has anyone heard of the 'cross correspondence'? Supposedly it 'proves' the existence of the continuation of existence. By some people in the '30's who made an agreement to pass stuff back to mediums once they'd passed on, in a provable way. Again, Society of Psychical Research stuff. I haven't looked at it myself, as I feel my own personal proofs are enough for me.

As far as 'conversion' goes though - I loathe the idea of converting people. Faith isn't actually important in the long run I don't think, because either what one believes is true, or it's false; spiritualist, atheist or spaghetti-monster-worshipper. 'Conversion-type' missionary work is ridiculous, who-ever does it. I think it's just important to live your life well and not hurt people. Obviously chopping children's heads off and throwing them in to rivers is a no-no - but so long as faith does no harm, everyone should just get on with their own, have good discussions about it if they want to and make the life they want.

BB - apparently, if you pop your clogs suddenly, or if you've got dementia as my grandmother had, you can be unclear about the fact that you are no longer technically alive .

Re: religion and donations - no-one has mentioned L R Hubbard yet. He was quite clear about having made up Scientology. And look how rich they are as a church.

[cab]

If I have, say, 20 test tubes of litmus, and they respond to acid 20 times, that does not mean that if a magician gets the same colour change 20 times using a different trick that litmus suddenly stopped working as a pH indicator. You're inferring from the fact that this can be faked that people who do so are always faking, and such does not logically follow.

[cab]

Simply another metaphysical belief structure for me not to believe in.

[jema]

If I have, say, 20 test tubes of litmus, and they respond to acid 20 times, that does not mean that if a magician gets the same colour change 20 times using a different trick that litmus suddenly stopped working as a pH indicator. You're inferring from the fact that this can be faked that people who do so are always faking, and such does not logically follow.

[cab]

Why? When they're quite clear that they don't expect to get really accurate statements, why ought they expect to do better than trickery that is proven to be as good if not better at eliciting a similar response from a crowd? And if the magician can get that response using mundane cold reading techniques how does that invalidate the belief a medium has in what they say, and the belief that others have in the medium? What, because it can be fraud it must be? Would you go to a surgeon or a magician when you need an operation; remember, no surgeon ever successfully sawed a woman in half, so clearly the work of surgeons must be suspect when magicians are better at it. Wonky.

[Chez]

I sometimes think of it as 'magic' . I have no idea how or why it works - just sometimes it seems to.

[cab]

Well I'm glad you're not offended by it I used to hang around with a bloke who was a medium (or he thought he was), nice enough chap, but got really quite wound up if someone referred to it as 'magic'. Fair enough really, you wouldn't walk up to an orthodox Catholic and refer to transubstantiation as 'magic'.

[Chez]

Well, Jema might

I think, whatever one's belief system, one has to accept the fact that one might be wrong. And realise that some of it IS down to blind faith that makes non-believers point and laugh.

It doesn't mean they're not wrong, though .

As an aside - we have slightly odd things happen in our house - we keep finding the baby's blanket neatly folded over the side of his cot in the middle of the night and neither of us have done it. I gave Arvo hell about it until one night he wasn't here and it still happened. Someone came to visit who said that she thought it was a lady who used to live in our house who had had seven children and was worried that Leo was getting too hot. I mentioned it my elderly next door neighbour who said that she thought that years ago a lady with seven children DID live in our house. She asked around about her, but no-one in the village could remember her name as it was so long ago. I haven't had a look in the electoral roll yet, but I plan to.

[cab]

I prefer to save pointing and laughing for people who believe in things that are amenable to testing and have been shown not to be true