I just watched five minutes of a TV show that made me feel sick. I have watched the show before, but can never get past five minutes before I change the channel.
I now live in San Francisco, but grew up in a town in England (Wolverhampton) where there is a particular nasty crime that is commonplace. In this crime, crooks dress as Government officials; knock on the doors of elderly, poor, sick, or disabled people; gain entrance and then steal their savings, which are usually stashed in a jar or under the bed. It is despicable, and when they are caught heavy sentences follow. So, back to the TV show.

John Edwards, talking to the dead. Or, more appropriately, John Edwards bilking dollars from grieving families whose loved ones passed away with unsettled emotional business. Tonight he cornered his victims and then ran numerous names by them quickly. I mean, very quickly. Two names a second. After 30 names somebody bit. He then told them of an event in their life. “No”, the victim said. Without pause, he ran through numerous events with “no” hits until one “sort of” fit. The audience sighed in awe. Isn’t it great that somebody can communicate between you and your dead loved one, who always says nice things and makes peace?
Why is it that you cannot sit in his audience without first giving massive personal details and being assigned a seat that you are not allowed to change?

Why is it that when a “ghost” arrives, he/she will only utter a sound that may be interpreted to be one of the many letters in the alphabet, yet suddenly become lucid and fluent when an audience member buys it? “Sounds like a C, could be a B, or an E, maybe looks like a C. Could be an O, or a U etc.” And then, once the victim is hit, Uncle Harry gets over his inability to utter a single syllable and says things like “I have forgiven you for that bad thing you did”. John Edwards says that you know what he means. “Oh, he means when I ran over the cat”, says the victim. “Yes”, John Edwards says. He told me that’s what it was, but asked that you admit it first. He wants you to know that the cat is on his lap right now. “Fluffy, right”? “No, his name was Hairless”. “Well, Harry wants you to know that Hairless has grown massive hair and is now known as Fluffy and is very popular in Heaven”. Woman cries, audience sighs.

When I first come upon a fraud I tend to have disdain for the victims. How can they be so stupid? However, having lost somebody that I love, I understand the compulsion to talk to them again, to set things right, resolve that stupid argument. However, it is not possible.
John Edwards sees that need and, for a fee, pretends that he is talking to your dead loved one. Hey, he’s a nice guy. He always delivers the words that grievers need to hear. You’ll never hear him say, “Your wife says that she hates you and she slept with your brother”.

So, back to Wolverhampton, England. Men knock on doors and defraud the physically or emotionally weak of their money. If caught, they are put in Jail.

Questions for debate:

1. Is this fraud?
2. If yes, why is John Edwards not in Jail?
3. If not, why not?

1. Is this fraud?

Welcome to the world of consumerist capitalism. These pop psychics are merely a shamefully blatant embodiment of what drives so much of our American Enterprise: suckering people into giving up their money. It's shameful because it is using peoples' grief in order to turn a profit. But it's more than just that. It's giving people a false answer to their grief.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad for the person who really believed it happened - maybe it would be cathartic. However, imagine what happens when that person, for example, later watches Penn & Teller's show (I can't use the title here, due to the profanity filter), where they show people like Edwards for what they really are: charlatans offering false hopes. Imagine how angry and shaken you would be!

2. If yes, why is John Edwards not in Jail?

He probably ought to be. What he's doing has no chance of being true. ((I'm not saying anything one way or the other about life after death, or anything existential - for all I know, there are people who can communicate with the dead, or raise zombis, or bend spoons with their big brains - it's just that we actually know how Edwards' con is done; there's no question of it being real.)) It's like playing three-card Monty on the street - you lose, not because you guessed wrong, but because the game is fixed.

3. If not, why not?

hmmm. Though it is fraud, I'm not sure we can make this illegal. People submit to it willingly, and one can't really prove in a court of law that these dead spirits do or do not exist. The only real defense we have against it is education.

Confused

What edwards does is one of the oldest and most develpoed scams of all times.
It is effectively used by all manner of people such as salesman and politicians.
and of course Con Men.
It is called Cold Reading and is fascinating to research. Basically it counts on the stupidity and ignorance of your fellow man. It can also really takes advantage of those who really WANT to beleive.

Its not fraud since you have to be an idiot to fall for it. but hey, plenty of people talk to a "spirit" daily and think it works miracles. Nuff said.

Its legal because you cannot legislate to protect idiots from themselves. As for edwards he's not in jail because all he has to say is he is an entertainer giving people what they want, and he would be correct.

The definition of fraud is: The intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. In this case, the victims obtained what they wanted, and it was what they were actually paying for. They wanted him to (ostensibly) give them 'happy', or at least reassuring, news of their deceased loved one.

Exploitation of the naive, stupid, and/or ignorant? Yes, I'd say it qualifies as that, but we're treated to this every time we turn on the television and view a commercial. If this qualifies as criminal, it could be argued that each and every politician could be in jail on these grounds.

Is it fraud?

To be honest, I have no idea. Maybe Mr Edwards really believes he's "that special", he may be delusional or may be schizophrenic. Or maybe ghosts really are sending him consonants and vowels, and maybe Vanna White is a hero in the netherworld.

I know that other dude who sees dead people seems to really believe he's seeing dead people, so how can you really determine if it's fraud or not? Only a confession would seal his fate.

Should he go to jail?

I guess I see Edwards as small potatos. He's not asking for $1000s to find the dead, those people in his shows aren't losing their life savings. And if you condemn Edwards, how about any church across the world that asks for offerings?

No, you look at someone like the guy who published "Natural Cures", now there's a guy who deserves to rot in a jail cell. Or any of the execs at Enron.


I guess a foreigner would be aghast at Edwards, but to me he's just a pimple on the butt of the blight of the unethical American landscape.

How many commercials do you see that you ABSOLUTELY KNOW they are lying? Pills that consume your fat? What? Or how about Cordisol pills that supposedly mess with your Cortisol levels in the body to make you skinny? Huh? That could kill you if it were true.

For foreigners, let me introduce you to the latin phrase that defines America:

Caveat Emptor!


If it's too good to be true, it most likely isn't. Welcome to America, home without ethics and a nation of fools.

John Edwards is 'alleged' psychic to the rich and famous, besides having a cable TV show, he's not bilking money from little old ladies, hes actually paying plenty of families who 'appear' to believe on his show. This is no 'rent a tent' evangelical, its high performance TV, everyone makes money.
Find someone whos been fleeced by Edwards? Noone, because the show itself makes $$ and likely there are no 'real' people being asked for any money.
Really, as Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute, and you might actually be the one, as youve been suckered to believe the 'people who believe' are real. They may all be actors. Dont believe everything you see, its television!

Yahno, if Edwards were to be put into the slammer for his schtick, a whole lot of other people would have to be busted too. Let's do a little list here.

Priests, preachers, reverends, and others of the cloth -- hey, demonstrate in a court of law that God exists.

Salespeople, marketers, advertising folk -- it's all a freaking lie.

Politicians, lobbyists, political wonks, corporate execs -- need I say more.

Lovers, friends, associates, partners -- well, if not now, then later.

Virtually everyone. We chose to believe in what we WANT to believe in.

Anyway, we can see that Edwards does a service for folks. He allows for a belief in an afterlife from which those who have passed to the other side have the ability to communicate with those of us who are left behind. Is that a bad thing?

Nope. We want to believe in this. It's a mighty popular idea. Besides, it might be true. Demonstrate in a court of law that life exists. Or anything, for that matter.

We have to believe in something. I don't care if it is science or math or spirits in the sky. It doesn't matter. We have to believe in something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. Demonstrate the existence of zero in a court of law.

Or the existence of any darn thing. It becomes a circular argument. Things exist because I say so.

I am because I say so. Not because I think, bull. I say so. That is an exercise of will, nothing more or less.

What other people believe in might seem silly. Or it might be a threat. Some might believe that my tush needs to be snuffed. Okay, well . . . I believe differently.

Let's rock.

But when it comes to Edwards, I see him as being no threat to anyone. He has developed a good shtick. He makes decent money at it. People might even believe in something worthwhile.



'Scuse me whilst I kiss the sky.

Questions for debate:

1. Is this fraud?

I think it's fraud it the traditional sense of the word, but not in the legal sense of the word because there really isn't a way to actually prove that he doesn't actually talk to the dead. I believe without a doubt that he doesn't, but I really can't prove it to the satisfaction of those who'd like to believe in his "abilities."

2. If yes, why is John Edwards not in Jail?

Because his abilities really can't be disproven. Even if the number of "readings" he got wrong far outnumbered the ones he got right, the ones he got right will be the only ones shown on TV. He uses cold reading, something anyone who can think and speak relatively fast can do - if no one in the audience could relate to a Samantha, then change it to Sarah, and then to Tara until someone recognizes the name. And claim that "psychic interference" or whatnot makes it so that you can't immediately know their exact name - after all, it's all metaphysical.

3. If not, why not?

Well I definitely believe he's a fraud, so I can't answer this one.

(p.s. his last name is actually Edward, so not to be confused with the former aspiring vice-prez )

Here is an article about this charlatan from the good folks at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal (CSICOP):

Link


It contains an interesting quote from the great magician Harry Houdini, who dabbled in this sort of chicanery early in his career.



I must strongly disagree with those here who have suggested that this is somehow harmless or even helpful. Edward may not be quite as loathsome a vulture as those self-styled "faith healers" who drain money away from the poorest and the sickest; he may be more glamorous than the storefront "psychic" who takes your cash and offers only lies in return. But he is clearly a con artist.

Anything which increases the credulity of human beings is bad for us. Everything which increases our skepticism is good for us.

I disagree. Skepticism is fine, but so is belief. We choose what to believe in, including skepticism. Edward (sans s) is capitalizing on those who choose to believe in an afterlife, whereas Penn and Teller capitalize on those who choose to believe in skepticism.

Who makes better money at the schtick?

How about this: rock song about how love stinks versus wanting to hold yer hand?

Romance novel versus scientific book on human responses?

Edward is an entertainer. He makes money off of other people's beliefs, and might I add, need to believe. Perhaps someday he will get an epiphany about how he makes his living, which might be a necessary thing as in Houdini's life. Otherwise, he's no better or worse than the next shyster.

Shysterism itself isn't illegal. It might be immoral, and I'm getting that impression here from his detractors.

Okay. Why is what Edward (drop the s) does for a living immoral? What would be a moral way to make a living?

Hey, I'm writing fiction. It's made up. These people don't really exist, and they didn't do what I claim they did. It's all a horrible LIE!

But, and this is the important point again, I say they exist. Ergo, they do. And they can only do certain things within a limited range, because . . .

I say so.

The book will be successful if I can convince others of my created reality. If Edward is really good at his own schtick, he has to believe it too. If he loses this belief, then he'll have to break out of fake locks or something.

But it is all a horrible LIE!

Yeah, and that will gain you a television show. Yup, sure. I believe I'm skeptical on that point.

I've actually known people who were "healed" by faith healers. Now, it might have been their own minds healing them (and they paid no fee), but they came out of the experience MUCH better off than they had come into it. I'm not sure why or how that could be wrong. Those who try this experience already know it doesn't work for everyone.

It's kind of like making a pilgrimmage to a "healing pool" of water in the hope that it will work. People need hope, want to hope, and sometimes they are right in spite of what cold hard reason might indicate.

Laughing extends a human's lifespan. So does hope. This is true even though I don't think there is a scientific calculation to explain why.

Edward sells lies and uses methods which have been proven, over and over again, to be fraudulent. "Cold reading" and other tricks of the trade are old and are very well understood. Penn and Teller sell a method for getting at the truth; the only method that has ever been proven to work -- science, in the broadest possible sense of the word.



"If a man really wanted to get rich, he would start a religion." -- attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.





I love music and literature and all other forms of art. They have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.



But he lies about what he does for a living. He does not say "I'm going to amuse you by pretending to talk to the dead." He claims to do something which he knows he cannot do. That is fraud. The fact that it is popular fraud doesn't make it any less fraudulent.



But you are not going to lie and claim that your novel is factual.

Mrs. Pigpen -- I am not going to deny the very powerful force of the placebo effect. If no money changes hands, and if the "faith healing" does not prevent the patient from also getting scientifically based medical care, fine. However, as James Randi has very carefully documented in his wonderful book The Faith Healers, this is a "profession" full of cold-blooded monsters who rake in huge amounts of money from the people who can least afford it, when they know that their methods are purely fraudulent, and when they know that their "treatments" are of no benefit whatsoever, and that their "patients" are likely to neglect real medical treatment, and often die.

But why should they care, as long as they grow filthy rich.

Look; charlantry is not just silly and more-or-less innocent foolishness, like the astrology column in your local newspaper, which often has the honesty to label itself as "entertainment only." (And even at this level, it often teaches people to believe things which can easily be proven false.) Beyond this, it is often extremely dangerous. It sometimes robs its victims of their property, of their sanity, and of their lives.

Actually, Victoria, I think you're missing the whole point about human creation. We can create God in our own image, and we can create bombs powerful enough to destroy the Earth. The beliefs that led up to these things are pretty well documented, but during the act of creation, absolute belief is required to get from here to there, whether for good or bad.

For a mathematical example, belief in the need for zero has to be accepted in order to move out of a simple view of math. Nobody can prove the existence of zero. It is simply proposed, and from there the system expands.

Does that make math a fraud? No, more like an abstraction. Belief in the afterlife is a similar abstraction from which entire systems of theology arise.

But more important than this, can a man like Edward effectively do his schtick without belief in himself? Perhaps off stage he has his doubts. Perhaps he practices illusions, but while performing, I bet he believes. I can't write fiction unless I believe the fiction, where the characters take on lives of their own and the stories tell themselves. Abstractions become realities. That's creation.

It's easy to show fraud in virtually anything. Life itself might be a fraud, or to use a spiritual term, an illusion. Here, let me try it with a painting. Let's take Stary Night.

Stary Night is just pigment on canvas. It has no intrinsic value other than as a decoration. People who believe that the painting is worth millions of dollars are kidding themselves. Who would want to pay good money for pigment on canvas? Besides, it's just an illusion. It doesn't look like a stary night.

So, this is a terrible fraud supported by mutual belief that the painting is worth something.

Edward is a terrible fraud supported by mutual belief that what he does is worth something.

See the commonality here? Now what harm is it that someone pays millions of dollars for Stary Night? Why should anyone care? Where's the harm in the fraud?

I have yet to see a demonstration that fraud is necessarily harmful. I suppose if someone believed and then got disappointed, there'd be a measure of harm. Happens all the time, you know. Recognizing illusion can be traumatic, but illusion is exactly what we work with.

Here's a short list of our daily frauds: economics, politics, religion, business and military. Every one of those things needs mutual belief in fundamental principles that cannot be proven. Every one of those things involves techniques to support the illusions, including coercion.

Edward does not use coercion. So where's the harm? He doesn't go for life's savings. Harmful? People seem to like to believe his schtick. Why should anyone else care? It don't cost very much and it lasts a long time. It's legal, too.

This is obviously an issue on which you and I are not going to agree, my friend. So be it.

Some thoughts on various topics you have raised.




I don't agree, at least when it comes to applied science/technology. An airplane doesn't fly because the builder believes it will fly; it flies (or crashes to the ground) because of the laws of physics, which have an objective reality regardless of human belief.



In fact, the existence of zero -- and any other purely mathematical concept -- is defined, and is therefore stronger than a truth which is merely "proved" by evidence.



I strongly reject this. Without getting into any kind of theological debate, survival after death is either true or false. Edward and his ilk claim to have physical evidence (his claimed "ability" to communicate with the dead) that it is true. This removes the question from the realm of theology (untestable) and into the realm of science (testable.) (And, in fact, he has been tested and proven a fraud.)

As far as the analogy with Van Gogh's Starry Night . . .

I love that painting. I love Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. I love Moby Dick. I love "Ozymandias." None of these things which I love have anything to do with determining the truth or falsity of claims about the physical universe. That is science, which I also love. Our arts and our sciences are the best things about our species.

I could not live without fantasy and daydreaming; but I never confuse these things, which are so dear to me, with reality. And I resent those who would use my love of the unreal to lie to me about the real.

Thank you for a fascinating conversation.

Oh, can't let you have the last word, Victoria.

I certainly understand the resentment of someone lying straight-faced and the difference between reality and fantasy. I'm no fan of Edward or his schtick. It's not what I want to do, that's for sure. And it's real easy to just turn away and follow a different path, or to break one of my own. Well, that's more difficult, going down an unknown, undocumented path. Scary.

Flight is common these days. I'm sure you've seen the videos of the early attempts at flight, people jumping off cliffs and the sort. Pretty funny stuff. What were they thinking?

Indeed.

They must have been crazy. But I don't think that these early failures were lying. They had to have believed that flight was possible to the point of risking the reality of life, of which we have little understanding.

Belief is a very powerful force, and it doesn't register on the physics scale of energy. Belief has no weight, dimension, particle or wave. But it is real.

Humans would have never gotten from there to here without belief. Certainly belief can be manipulated and abused. It's disgusting to witness, and it happens every day, every hour of every day, every moment of existence. If I had a nickle for every time, yadda yadda yadda. Yet someone has to jump off the cliff to get from here to there. Someone has to believe in flight.

Well, belief in an afterlife is different. It's not a part of reality, afterlife. Can't be measured, demonstrated, perturbed or scratched. It might not be anything like life at all. Or it may be a pure fantasy, a desire for continuity where none exists.

Aye, lots of literature on this theme. For some reason, organic chemicals get up, walk around, and wonder: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?

It's one of those mysteries of the Universe. At least this one.

Others might be more clear on the subject. Reality is pretty darn HUGE!

Take care & best wishes, Victoria.

But they do have something to do with this topic. Art (and likely music) is something you value, it's something that has an actual impact on you, but you can't come up with a hard scientific equation explaining why. How can you appreciate art or music, or even a good novel for that matter, and then dismiss all that which can't be "proven" about the physical universe? Hope, faith, love are all like that. They have power, and value beyond price, but there is no way to define them or place them into a neat little equation.

What do we know for certain? We simply know what is explainable today. Why was the four minute mile physically impossible until the day one man did it? The next year everyone was breaking this "anatomically impossible" barrier. Back when Semmelweis ended childbed fever by insisting that students washed their hands before delivering babies (after working with cadavers), his observations were widely rejected. Why? The microscope hadn't been invented yet, so believing in what couldn't be seen was viewed to be on-par with believing in "spooks", and no one in the scientific community would admit to believing in spooks.

Many people have experienced mild changes in personality (craving chicken wings for the first time if their donor loved them, for example), or vivid dreams of the dead donors they've never met, after receiving organ transplants. Perhaps there is some explanation or mathematical equation for these things that we simply don't understand at this time.

Regarding James Randi, I admit I've never read his book. He might very well be right about so many charletans. I've seen him on television and must say that he comes across as a very angry man. Have you ever read the best seller 'Love, Medicine and Miracles'? It was written by a surgeon who had tremendous, "inexplicable" success rates with terminal patients. His secret? Basically faith. I'd say he and Deepak Chopra, who both use techiques of faith, hope and love, and are also surgeons, have had more experience than Randi.

From that book:

Mrs. Pigpen, my friend:

I have been waiting quite a while to reply to this, in order to try not to come across as being anybody's enemy here. The fact that I find myself having to disagree on this topic with two of the most highly respected members of is genuinely distressing to me. Half of the time I think I should just keep my mouth shut, in order to avoid offending people who are worthy of admiration. The other half of the time I realize that this subject is too important for silence. I will try to speak as carefully as I can, as we skeptics often come across as cold-hearted, cruel spoilsports. That is not my intention.

Before I begin, let me say that I am greatly pleased that you took the time to respond to my statements. Thank you.



These things all have to do with emotion. I certainly do not deny the profound power and importance of emotion. However, in my opinion, emotion is the result of a physical process within the brain. This does not render it of any less of value to me. If anything, the fact that the brain can experience such things -- and that neurobiology is beginning to unravel the mysteries of how this works -- increases my awe and respect for the universe.



The two events you list are good examples of how science constantly creates a more and more accurate model of the universe. The ability to break the four-minute mile was proven by undeniable, precisely measured evidence. It was not proved by having somebody claim to be able to do it, without proper, objective witnesses. Similarly, Semmelweis was able to prove that his policies reduced the rate of puerperal fever, with hard statistics.

Link



Why was the use of this simple method delayed? Well, partly due to the fact that Semmelweis failed to present the hard evidence that he had collected.



And, yes, some of the delay was due to scientific conservatism. The plain fact is that the human species needs scientific conservatism, even though there are times when it will be on the "wrong" side.

There's a famous anecdote about Thomas Jefferson. According to the story, when he heard reports of meteorites falling to the ground, he said that he would rather believe that a Yankee professor would lie than that stones could fall from the sky. This tale is often told as a way of poking mild fun at Jefferson, and the fact that we know better today.

Guess what? Jefferson was absolutely right to be skeptical about a claim which was supported only the word of a tiny number of witnesses. Remember the "cold fusion" reports of some years ago? When these reports were looked at carefully, the original researchers were shown to be wrong. (To their credit, and unlike the typical devotee of the paranormal, the original researchers admitted their error.)

So, although skepticism will sometimes be wrong (and I must point out that it has an absolutely outstanding track record of being right), it is absolutely vital.



At this point, it is important for me to speak as carefully and as gently as possible. I also avoid offering any theological opinions on human survival after death.

With that in mind, the paragraph I have quoted above is one of the most extraordinary claims I have ever heard. So extraordinary, in fact, that I am forced to classify it with the reports from many, many people who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens. Such reports would require overwhelming, verifiable evidence. Until such is forthcoming, I am forced to dismiss them as non-factual.




Let me make myself clear. Obviously, a positive mental attitude is beneficial to physical health. There is no debate about this, and there is nothing mysterious about it. If a patient feels better because she is being prayed for, great! What I object to are those evil parasites who prey on the suffering and the dying for their own benefit.

A few final points about the three gentleman we have been discussing.

No doubt James Randi is angry at the charlatans he exposes. I am angry at them, too. I am angry at Christian Scientists, no matter how sincere they may be, who allow their children to die from diseases which could have been easily treated. Personally, James Randi is one of my philosophical heroes (along with the late Isaac Asimov, the late Carl Sagan, and Martin Gardner, among others.) There must be some people who agree with me, since Randi was awarded the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship (often known as the "genius grant.")

I know nothing about Brian L. Weiss. But his own website tells me this:

Link



No doubt Dr. Weiss is a nice, kind, sincere fellow, and the things he does make people feel better. I do not compare him to the likes of Peter Popoff, the fraudulent faith healer who is quite rightly denounced by many people of faith as well as skeptics.

Link

(I have deliberately chosen a very conservative Christian site, with whom I would not agree on any other topic, to show that con artists are no more popular with the faithful than with the skeptical.)

(For the other side of the story, here is Popoff's own site. You can order "Miracle Spring Water" from him if you like.)

Link

Back to Weiss. Although he is not evil, the way that Popoff is evil, his claims of paSt (and future) lives is extraordinary, and I am forced to dismiss it as non-factual without overwhelming evidence. (Such evidence is nearly impossible to obtain with a topic such as reincarnation, which depends almost entirely on anecdote. At this point, we again move from science to theology, and I offer no opinion.)

I am slightly familiar with Deepak Chopra, and I must treat his statements in the same manner.

Link



Perhaps this paragraph says something to you. To me, it is almost entirely free of meaningful content, and is a grotesque distortion of the true concepts of quantum physics.

Chopra says to meditate. Fine! Nothing wrong with a little relaxation. But there is nothing mystical about it.

In parting, let me say that I have enjoyed talking with you, and that nothing I have said is meant to convey anything other than the highest respect.

(I am also not trying to have the last word, and response is welcome.)

Don't worry, Victoria, I expected you to respond this way.

I just wanted to offer a bit of a correction...I should have named him in my link before. I have never heard of Weiss either, the surgeon I was speaking of was Bernie Siegel.

Also, let me add, I do not bring up Chopra because I advocate or accept his theory of 'Quantum health'. He is simply one surgeon who has had tremendous results using unconventional methods, which would be (and have been) immediately discarded by skeptics, because they sound quirky. Simply opening the door to possibilities can promote health. My main contention is with your single sentence...'Anything which increases the credulity of human beings is bad for us. Everything which increases our skepticism is good for us.' In the case of Bernie Seigal's patients, skepticism might have otherwise killed them.

When one thinks of "placebo effects", it congers up images of some hypochondric being offered sugar pills that cure the fictitional illness, but there are amazing results and miraculous recoveries which, I think, go beyond simple "placebo". Perhaps it is miraculous self-healing (as Seigal's book suggests), but it is real. Belief can have very beneficial effects on health.

I won't look up the stories I've read before, because of course all could be discarded as hallucinations or lies. And of course, a admit they might all be lies or dreams. Or, there might be an explanation to those sorts of phenomenon that we simply don't know at this time. I recall you liked Jules' post regarding ghost phenomenon and white noise, a while back. Suddenly those ghost stories had much credibility because the explanation was noise. Did you dismiss all of those stories as lies before? Just a rhetorical question.

Edited to add:Link to a book on the type of donor phenomenon I was speaking of.

Allow me a rhetorical answer.

When somebody says "I saw [or otherwise sensed] a ghost," she generally means "I saw [or otherwise sensed] a dead person's spirit." Now, I am not going to say that this is always a lie. (It is sometimes, of course.) In most cases, it is simply a misinterpretation of something. (A dream, "white noise," whatever.)

People can be sincere and mistaken. (I am sure it happens to me all the time.) I would not accuse them of being liars. Creeps like Popoff are liars. Tricksters like Uri Geller (remember him?) are liars. I am not so sure about Edward, although it seems pretty likely. (I say this because, as others have said, he uses "cold reading" techniques that are well understood as part of the repetory of charlatans. If he really believes that he can communicate with the dead, why would he use such techniques?) Many, many people with paranormal belief systems are quite sincere. I think they are mistaken, and they think I am mistaken.

Victoria,

Just wanted to say that I feel no offense or think any less of you because we disagree on stuff.

All this has brought back a memory of my college days. I was taking a sociology class from a full-blood Sioux medicine dude, Eber Hampton, and we were talking about religion. I got off on this long tirade about how evil religions are. He stopped me cold with this one:

"Don't criticize the beliefs of others. The beliefs might be their only connection to the Great Spirit."

So, that's pretty much where I'm coming from. If people want to believe in Edward, fine. As long as they're not trying to cram their beliefs into my orifice, I really don't care. If Edward is somehow ripping them off, then that's their problem.