Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

To debunk or not to debunk?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:23:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If a deluded or fraudulent psychic takes but a small amount of money from the client, and gives comfort more often than increasing grief, is it right to debunk and expose them publically?

Many of the people who believe do so because they want to, because they have to, they can't come to terms with say the death of a child. Should they be left in blissful ignorance?

Does the good of destroying a fake psychic outweigh the harm caused to their followers?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:45:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:23:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If a deluded or fraudulent psychic takes but a small amount of money from the client, and gives comfort more often than increasing grief, is it right to debunk and expose them publically?

Yes. The conditions above still allow for the truth to eventually be revealed, which cannot be stopped through any guarantee. When the truth is revealed, this causes more harm than was present before (the initial grief in combination with the knowledge that they were deceived). Given that psychics have a record no greater than chance, this circumstance is just about guaranteed to happen.


Many of the people who believe do so because they want to, because they have to, they can't come to terms with say the death of a child. Should they be left in blissful ignorance?

They go to a psychic because they are not blissful in their ignorance, they are tormented by it. They go to the psychic in a desperate attempt to rid themselves of their ignorance. The psychic exploits this and fills it in with whatever gibberish they think will be convincing.


Does the good of destroying a fake psychic outweigh the harm caused to their followers?

The harm that comes from outing a psychic is inevitable; they cannot guarantee that their results will never be contradicted by the facts. So it's not a question of destroying the psychic and, therefore, causing harm, but rather destroying the psychic now, rather than letting the psychic continue to operate until they are destroyed by their own false predictions, thus reducing the number of people that are duped.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:21:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You seem to suggest that the psychic will inevitably be destroyed, I don't think that is the case. They are careful to make vague statements, they cold read, they incorporate apparent mistakes in a reading to actual increase their own credibility, and even when flat out wrong they have an excuse for that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:27:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:23:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If a deluded or fraudulent psychic takes but a small amount of money from the client, and gives comfort more often than increasing grief, is it right to debunk and expose them publically?

Many of the people who believe do so because they want to, because they have to, they can't come to terms with say the death of a child. Should they be left in blissful ignorance?

Does the good of destroying a fake psychic outweigh the harm caused to their followers?

No
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:29:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 11:27:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 11/15/2011 10:23:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If a deluded or fraudulent psychic takes but a small amount of money from the client, and gives comfort more often than increasing grief, is it right to debunk and expose them publically?

Many of the people who believe do so because they want to, because they have to, they can't come to terms with say the death of a child. Should they be left in blissful ignorance?

Does the good of destroying a fake psychic outweigh the harm caused to their followers?

No

Want to add anything to that? I would have thought a Catholic would be well up for destroying psychics?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:34:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 11:21:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You seem to suggest that the psychic will inevitably be destroyed, I don't think that is the case. They are careful to make vague statements, they cold read, they incorporate apparent mistakes in a reading to actual increase their own credibility, and even when flat out wrong they have an excuse for that.

And yet, despite their care to make vague statements, they're ability to cold read, their ability to incorporate apparent mistakes to increase their own credibility, they are undoubtably proven wrong in countless cases where the truth comes out.

I don't believe it is possible to "destroy" a psychic, there are too many people willing to blind themselves to the truth, but I don't believe that such people are a factor in the decision to debunk or not debunk.

The odds that a psychic will eventually run into the cold, hard wall of fact only increases with the number of times they make a predictionl, basically making it inevitable they will bring about their own demise. So it's not a question of them being exposed, it's a question of when.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:40:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 11:34:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/15/2011 11:21:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You seem to suggest that the psychic will inevitably be destroyed, I don't think that is the case. They are careful to make vague statements, they cold read, they incorporate apparent mistakes in a reading to actual increase their own credibility, and even when flat out wrong they have an excuse for that.

And yet, despite their care to make vague statements, they're ability to cold read, their ability to incorporate apparent mistakes to increase their own credibility, they are undoubtably proven wrong in countless cases where the truth comes out.

I don't believe it is possible to "destroy" a psychic, there are too many people willing to blind themselves to the truth, but I don't believe that such people are a factor in the decision to debunk or not debunk.

The odds that a psychic will eventually run into the cold, hard wall of fact only increases with the number of times they make a predictionl, basically making it inevitable they will bring about their own demise. So it's not a question of them being exposed, it's a question of when.

So you wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to speed up the process?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:43:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 11:40:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/15/2011 11:34:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/15/2011 11:21:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You seem to suggest that the psychic will inevitably be destroyed, I don't think that is the case. They are careful to make vague statements, they cold read, they incorporate apparent mistakes in a reading to actual increase their own credibility, and even when flat out wrong they have an excuse for that.

And yet, despite their care to make vague statements, they're ability to cold read, their ability to incorporate apparent mistakes to increase their own credibility, they are undoubtably proven wrong in countless cases where the truth comes out.

I don't believe it is possible to "destroy" a psychic, there are too many people willing to blind themselves to the truth, but I don't believe that such people are a factor in the decision to debunk or not debunk.

The odds that a psychic will eventually run into the cold, hard wall of fact only increases with the number of times they make a predictionl, basically making it inevitable they will bring about their own demise. So it's not a question of them being exposed, it's a question of when.

So you wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to speed up the process?

On the contrary, I'd say it'd be morally acceptable, if not morally obligatory to speed it up, to reduce the number of people they can dupe and harm.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 12:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would add it is not wrong to speed up the process of debunking a fraud.

However, lieing, equivocating, strawmanning, ineptitude, dedective fallacies should be avoided.

I enjoy a religious discussion for example from other religions far more than athiests. (exception would be muslim, they could not use logic or avoid outright lieing).

The ends clearly must justify the means of the debunking.

It must be use genuine truth to debunk.

I like James Randi's approach with his BBC series, a couple of times though he was too dismissive to convince.
Like the Emma Brown, being unable to correctly identify items and such with her powers. We have no idea if eating bananas decreases or increases the power. One single attempt is not scientific. A multitude of observations must be made to be valid.

Additionally, pressure or stress to execute under such dismissive conditions will lead a sportsman to do badly why is the phsycic excluded?

It only made James Randi look the part of a zealous bigot, not a valid debunker.

Approach is very very important that is be genuine and patient, while at the same time scientifically explored.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:15:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 12:00:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would add it is not wrong to speed up the process of debunking a fraud.

However, lieing, equivocating, strawmanning, ineptitude, dedective fallacies should be avoided.

If it's from me you know I am talking about genuine debunking.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:42:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rule of the streets is to not fvck with another man's hussle.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 1:42:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rule of the streets is to not fvck with another man's hussle.

I am not bound by the rule of the streets.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 4:04:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 1:42:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rule of the streets is to not fvck with another man's hussle.

ROFLMAO.

I could not stop....
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 9:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:23:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If a deluded or fraudulent psychic takes but a small amount of money from the client, and gives comfort more often than increasing grief, is it right to debunk and expose them publically?

Many of the people who believe do so because they want to, because they have to, they can't come to terms with say the death of a child. Should they be left in blissful ignorance?

Does the good of destroying a fake psychic outweigh the harm caused to their followers?

I would say yes because their followers should find a legitimate and qualified person to gain comfort from, and because the psychic isnt qualified, there is a good chance that they could cause great harm.