The Arizona Republic is plumbing new lows, quoting "psychics" as though they were experts on the future:
Consider the way the story starts. The word "apparently" is a tip-off that the piece is based on no actual data. Who's the source for this alleged mini-flood of new customers? Why, the people selling the product. Makes sense to me: In I-can-see-into-the-future territory, we can just take their word for it.Quoting 'Psychics' Like Experts: How Low Can News Judgement Go? (Thanks, Dan!)Not a single customer is quoted. We hear only from the people who are claiming to be getting this influx of new customers. Can't the newspaper find even one client?
Look. Newspapers run astrology columns -- something I'd ban if I ran a paper, period -- with no disclaimers that there is no scientific basis for what these planet- and star-gazers tell us. But the astrology columns run, typically, near the comics, which is the fiction section of the daily paper.
No newspaper, as far as I know, gives its pages over to self-described psychics. Yet the Republic's story quotes several, along with the astrologers, with a straight face.
RSS Feed
To be fair, the psychics in this case were offering economic advice. How could they possibly do any worse than whoever the media was relying on before? A tribe of baboons would still be a step up from Jim Cramer.
I blame the quasi-cool success of FlashForward.
Just be sure your astrologer takes into account NASA blowing up the moon.
We wouldn't want those predictions to be off or anything on account of that.
What Brainspore said. How is this any more outrageous than quoting the same economists who were so very wrong over the past decade? Set aside blowhards like Cramer and even look at actual "experts". Check Bernanke's record, for instance - or Greenspan's. Check the track records of any of the major bank economists or the NAR clowns. I'd put those records up against a psychic anyday. Yet those same idiots are still being quoted today, as if what they say has any possible non-random correlation with the future.
Very telling about the Republic is how the comments on the newspaper's website are slightly to the right of Peggy Noonan.
The first half of this article is OK IMHO. It focuses on the business of being a psychic. This is similar to interviewing the town whore or or corner crack dealer about who their customers are these days.
Where it falls off the rails of course is when they start quoting the bilkers predictions. But really what is the difference between the self interest of a psychic and that of a unscrupulous economic "expert"?
Save this for a year later and send it back to the paper, be all, "I demand a refund. None of these predictions came true. Now I'm $55000 in debt due to your bad advice."
It seems to me that even the part where they give the predictions is balanced. What better indictment of psychics ability to predict the future than the fact that they do not agree?
I think you'll find David, that whores an crack dealers actually take money for providing a tangible and valued product. Don't sully their good names by comparing them to "psychics", which are indisputably the lowest scum of the earth when it comes to orders of pilfering charlatanism.
Jesus. What a bunch of tightasses. It's a human interest story. It doesn't purport to speak on the truth or lack thereof of the interviewees' stories. It's not boosting the businesses of psychics. It doesn't claim that they have answers to life's problems. It merely lets them describe what they do in their own words. It's a rather lightly written piece,a diversion from a newspaper full of depressing stuff, another angle.
Three indisputable facts: 1) There are psychics out there, and/or people who claim to be psychics. 2) They make various predictions about this and that. 3) People paymoney for their services - "Psychic Services/Astrologers" is one small aspect of the real economy.
I don't see anything whatsoever irresponsible about this reporting. If you are looking for good examples of why the mainstream media is being abandoned in droves, I am sure you can do better than this.
How abut the predictions from the leading economists and academics in 2006/2007 about how the real estate market was all roses?
Shit, I'll take the psychics.
@gniobboing: Psychics "are indisputably the lowest scum of the earth."
Now, I think this statement is a little bit unfair.
I have, in my life, met a few people who did seem to be psychically gifted. In casual conversations with me, they were able to tell me details of my life that they had no way of knowing, things I hadn't told anyone. Another time, I had a woman who I had met five minutes before tell me several placements from my astrological chart. She, again, had no possible way of knowing this.
Now, that may all be due to dumb luck, it's certainly possible. One of these women worked as a psychic, and acted in the sincere belief that she had a unique gift and was helping people.
On the other hand, I have also met at least one total charlatan, who took money to spin stories.
Assuming they are all charlatans, here's the question - how can you call a psychic charging $50 an hour to spin stories worse than, say, a corrupted stock broker, telling people to put their life savings into securities they knew were baloney, but were being paid to promote? Or a crooked mortgage dealer, luring dupes into ARMs that would blow up on them and face foreclosure and loss of their down payments?
@David: A last point, is that the psychics are actually giving good economic advice. From a purely economic standpoint, being careful with money and saving as much as possible is the best possible advice in these times - one that is underrepresented in the "reputable" media.
@GniobBoing:
I of course would never sully the name of hard working street vendors who do indeed provide valuable sexual and mood altering services.
I noticed that both you and Cory referred to "psychics". To me this use of quotations infers a distinction between fake "psychics" and real psychics.
I like to keep an open mind but so far no one has managed to convince me that there are any real psychics. This would require peer reviewed double blind testing similar to Mr Randi's $1^6 challenge.
On the other hand there are very convincing and skilled magicians, but I don't believe in actual magic either. Some of them are very honest about what they are capable of. Some less so. It that what earns them quotes?
Osprey, the comments on all newspaper sites are very far to the right; I suspect there are church groups and talking-points newsletters and blogs who are encouraging the dusty right to send letters to the editor and post comments on newspaper sites as an AstroTurf exercise, to maintain the deeply believed fiction that they are a vast majority and that non-conservatives are a loopy marginal elite trying to turn America into a Stalinist dictatorship. Look at the comments on the Boston Globe website, sometime - the right is represented 9:1 on a newspaper site for a state with no Republican representation above the state senate.
I knew something like this would happen sooner or later, when BOTH my daughters got degrees from an accredited four-year private college without taking more than a semester's work in either mathematics or science. Forty-five years ago, at a state university, I needed a whole year's work in science (I took two five-credit units of geology), and math (college arithmetic and pre-calculus). When I went to grad school, I had to take calculus. As Bob Dylan said, "Things have changed." Idiocracy is here.
I dont' think it's bad reporting. The tone is non-judgemental, and I would certainly have liked it better if they were ridiculing the whole phenomenon, but there's nothing in the article that actually promotes or confirms the notion that their "powers" are real.
I think it is bad reporting on the side of BoingBoing to use the inflamatory title you used for this piece. The Arizone Republic did not quote them as experts. The two "predictions" quoted in the article were just a side note to show what people are paying for when they consult with psychics.
I've studied astrology and what I know as astrology 'works'. As far as the astrology in the newspaper, there's a reason it is next to the comics.
The weather forecast is in the paper too. It's very, very scientific but not so accurate. But I check the weather radar daily.
Predictions, err, well they are predictions. Guessing about the future seems to be a major human preoccupation like the stock market, lottery, weather, horse racing, the World Series, etc.
A lot of our decisions are based on 'predictions' that aren't scientific.
If I believed I was actually psychic and could use my abilities for good, I sure as hell would not charge anything for my services.
Non-judgmental newspaper articles about charlatans like these folk lend a certain amount of credibility to them even if they don't promote or confirm the notion that their "powers" are real.
The critical thinking skills of the American public are already frighteningly low, and while this may be in the best interests of those with agendas that regularly include spouting lies to the electorate and having them accept them uncritically (if you can think of anyone who would do such a thing), IMO it hardly serves the interests of a nominally democratic society.
Any article about "psychics" that does not include any mention of the fact that no evidence of its efficacy has ever been found despite hundreds of controlled studies and a current million dollar prize for anyone who can successfully demonstrate such abilities is not doing the more gullible sector of our society, or indeed society at large, any favors.
As for economists, I think Arthur Motley said it best:
If the nation's economists were laid end to end, they would point in all directions.
If it were an article on the economy, and they quote a harvard economist, an IMF statistician, and a psychic - yeah, that would be ridiculous. And that's what the headline you chose implies. But it's an article about psychics, asking what sort of things people ask them about. It's not an economics article, it's a sociology article. The headline BB chose is completely misleading, and should be changed.
So the tone of the article is "non-judgmental"-- I'm sure most of us here think astrology is a load of horse dung, and we will read the article and roll our eyes, and those that believe in astrology will have their convictions confirmed, BUT they would probably STILL believe in astrology even if the tone of the article were more critical-- some people are just like that.
I admit the quoting-of-sources is a bit suspect, as if the astrologers are just getting free advertising time disguised as a news article, but I think there probably IS an increase in people going to psychics for economic advice, just like there are probably more people buying lottery tickets-- it's just a logical indicator of how desperate and fearful people are in this economy.
That's what's called a "cold reading", isn't it? Vague, likely-to-be-true statements that seem specific and personal while actually applying to just about anyone in any situation.
The advice to be careful with money, in particular, may be safely given to anyone.
Actually, that would be homeopaths. Several people die each year because they depended on homeopathy, not so many from psychic nuttery.
But if you want to understand why this type of 'news' gets published, just watch Network again.
Sybil the Soothsayer!
"Maybe she could do the weather."
I think its sad that
A) the article in question was news worthy
B) the article commenting on the article was considered news worthy
C) said articles were perpetuated on boing boing.
I mean really? REALLY? Look at the subject matter...
just plain disappointing...
Cory, I think you are missing the bigger point by focusing your criticism of the Arizona Republic's choice to talk to psychics.
Jack Shafer over at Slate.com occasionally runs a Bogus Trend Story of the Week on his Press Box column, that points out lazy journalists trying to make up a story out of conjecture.
Newspapers try to run stories all the time about trends, but have no real proof that its an actual trend. And I think this article is a perfect example. Just asking a psychic "how's business" isn't good enough proof to print an article.
A more accurate depiction of the relationship of the Future and Newspapers:
Future: I'm the Future!
Newspapers: Hey there, wanna buy a classified ad? Why do you have that fork in your hand?
Future: OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM
Douglas Adams addressed that rather eloquently in Mostly Harmless with the character, Gail Andrews-- "In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people."
Several people die each year because they depended on homeopathy
Several million die each year because they depended on MDs.
Does it really need to be explained to you that the reason we tolerate a certain small percentage of (unintentional) harm caused by one of these things and not the other, is due to the fact that one actually possesses the ability to cure disease and the other is pseudoscientific quackery without any such proven ability whatsoever?
That one person, just ONE, should die as a result of being dissuaded from seeking genuinely efficacious medical treatment by a person who thinks that water has memory and that the magical invisible ponies inside can treat the sarcoma found on someone's lung better than a course of cisplatin and a beam of relativistic electrons, is a disgusting outrage and a needless travesty of unreason.
I have carefully noted the content and nature of your posts here on BB for some time now, and I find a consistent thread of both gross bias and anti-scientific irrationality (not to mention an often nauseating level of sanctimony). You embarrass yourself.
http://bit.ly/DHqyg
People who believe wholeheartedly in "science" are just as deluded as people who believe in anything else. Criticising someone for their insane beliefs is a sign of insanity.
As good old Al Einstein pointed out, everything is relative, I think he was some sort of scientist.
No they're not, no it isn't, and no he didn't (And yes, he was).
Wait, you aren't trying to say that homeopathy might in any way be a valid way of treating anything other than thirst, are you?
Even with PERFECT health care, millions of people will die every year. You can't live forever.
But, come on, homeopathic "cures" are misleading, dangerous, prey on the naive, and really should be outlawed as fraud.
Living in AZ, I can say there is a reason the paper is referred to alternately as the Arizona Repugnant and the Arizona Republican. It's only a matter of time until the phrase "end times prophecies" sneaks into their stories
Science is just a methodology of evaluating truth claims. I believe wholeheartedly in any reasonable method of deciding the difference between bunkum and ideas supported by the evidence that actually works. If you have any besides science, please share.
(Interestingly enough, a few rigorous clinical studies have indicated some efficacy for homeopathy that completely baffled and surprised those doing the research.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/
While I reason dictates a good deal of skepticism is in order, the book about homeopathy is not as closed as some would have it be.)
Criticising someone for their insane beliefs is a sign of insanity. Ummm...not so much, really.
That was a fantastic Tim Minchin Mr.W, never seen that one before!
Yes malathion, you're absolutely right, there is no difference whatsoever in holding beliefs for which there exists no evidence at all, and believing a thing precisely because it holds an incredibly enormous amount of empirically derived evidence in its favor. None at all. Everything's relative. Beliefs are utterly personal things and all that really matters is if your own beliefs give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, not whether they're objectively true. The future, of course, should be one where everyone strives to tread ever more gingerly upon the eggshells of one another's beliefs no matter how ridiculous those beliefs are, because not giving someone an emotional ouchie by telling them they might be wrong is more important than the truth. Tell me, when you leave the house in the morning, do you go out the front door, or the second story window? You know, because if you believe fervently enough that humans are capable of unaided flight, it'll be true for you, and that's all that really matters.
I find a consistent thread of both gross bias and anti-scientific irrationality
Actually, dude, I worked in health care for 20 years. I know exactly what modern medicine can do and what it can't do. You've turned it into a cargo cult. 90% of the 'benefits of modern medicine' are simply benefits of access to clean food and water. Modern medicine offers many treatments, but amazingly few cures.
Homeopathy and Nutritionists Versus Real Science
I'm not, by the way, defending homeopathy. I'm pointing out that arguing that it's bad because a couple of people died is specious and histrionic. Far more people have died due to surgery, medication, radiation, etc. If you want to disprove homeopathy, there's no shortage of data with which to make your argument. Irrational arguments are irrational whether they're defending science or voodoo.
I wasn't arguing that homeopathy is bad because "a couple" of people died by depending on it. I was just making the observation that homeopaths are lower, IMO, on the scale of charlatans than psychics because "a couple" of people died because they depended on it in lieu of something with a better chance of actually healing them.
People don't die because they depended on modern medicine in lieu of something better. They died because we don't have all the answers in yet. I'll bet on the scientists getting there first.
newspaper horoscopes are not astrology. Just ask an astrologer! I love hearing psuedoskeptical science-worshipers' strident opinions on subjects they know nothing about. They sound just like the christians!
The sort of outrage over this innocuous human interest story is characteristic of the former CSICOP group (now renamed the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and sure enough, the amazing Randi is there in the comments. They spend up to 2 million each year to get into newspapers, television (and blogs, apparently) to try keep their agenda in the public eye.
Their agenda, although portrayed as an educational effort to keep science in practice, is to put political power in the hands of scientists, and to keep it out of the hands of anyone who does not use science, such as religions (their parent organization is the Council for Secular Humanism), or philosophers, or really anyone other than their members. In his old age, founder Paul Kurtz has been quite candid about why they exist.
All these little attacks on horoscopes and such are not innocuous. They're well funded, and nefarious in intent.
Dude, you've got to be kidding.
Outrage at a newspaper treating psychic prophecy as news is some kind of evil scientist agenda? Secular humanism is a nefarious scheme? This is not satan's army marching in to destroy all that is good through the use of science. Two million a year is hardly enough to finance the vanquishing of good by us evil athiests, anyway. Subway spends more on advertising every year.
Your paranoia is getting the better of you.
Yes. But please, don't make a claim about paranoia when I'm only stating factual information about what CSICOP's media outreach efforts include. Here's the New York Times article that most people who know about their group have read, to give you the primer you need:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/arts/television/19SKEP.html
I know who the man is. I happen to agree with him, by and large. Its the nefarious nature you ascribe to the aims that I find ludicrous.
What, exactly, is the problem with trying to have a society governed and influenced by things for which there is evidence, and trying to reduce the effect of ideas and beliefs on society which are unsupported and unsupportable by evidence?
Scientists are known for many things, but morals and ethics is certainly not one of them. So although I respect their efforts to stop organized religion, I would not want a world in which scientists accumulate power to guide policy.
If I want to know how to build a bomb, I'll ask a scientist. But if I want to know if I *should* drop a bomb, I wouldn't ask a scientist. I'd ask a philosopher, even though philosophers do not practice the scientific method.
In areas where I believe that science is providing fantastic opportunities, such as stem cell research, it is not scientists who should make the decision whether to pursue it. It is people who have a wider perspective that the mere scientific method. Ethics, morals, cultural considerations, all matters that have nothing to do with science, ideally lead to an informed decision. (IMO, in my example of stem cell research, they lead to deciding that yes, it is worth pursuing).
Basically I object to the creation of a sort of "church of science", in which scientists are the priesthood, and anyone who does not use the scientific method (to debate ethics for example) is subjected to millions of dollars of their ridicule, to disempower them.
We see their silly side -- their successful effort to get newspapers to publish disclaimers next to the Horoscopes -- but it is their serious side that is much more dangerous.
He is a philosopher. Mr. Kurtz is espousing a philosophy.
Any scientist will agree that there are many realms of human culture where the methodology of science simply does not apply. Arts, the Law, ethics and morality are not subject to the rules of science because they deal with non-quantitative, unmeasurable and untestable things. You have a gross conceptual error about the aims of the organization.
To quote the article you posted:
"We are all concerned with this media distortion," he said. "We consider this area of pseudoscience to be critical."
"We are the heroic defenders of science and reason," said Mr. Kurtz, 76, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and author or editor of 35 books, including the "Secular Humanist Manifesto II." And he is not above a touch of humor in his crusade.
They are not trying to establish a "Church of Science", they are trying to get the level of nonsense in public discourse down to a minimum. Lighten up, the robots are not about to take over.
Science and morality are not as distinct as you might think. Consider the question: who would you save from a burning house if you had to pick one- your aging mother or your infant daughter?
For most people (most likely your mother included) it's a no brainer- you save the kid. But it's no mistake that the most ethical decision is also the one that makes the most sense from a biological point of view. One person represents your gene pool's past, the other its future.
To the question of "who should make the decision to drop a bomb" I might consult with a philosopher, but I'd also call in sociologists and biologists and any other experts that might provide insight into the likely consequences of that decision.
Well said.
Wow, I thought Boingboing was way more open minded and informed than this! This sounds like the comments from the Bible Belt Observer. Good lord, is there no one in the boinger audience with experience with the occult ? Are all the posts of Alan Moore and Genesis P. Orridge and similar minded folks to be scoffed at as mild entertainment and ridiculed as just some crazies who think the universe is accessible and malleable? Apparantly so. Sorry, I thought I was reading a progressive, 21st century blog. My Mistake.
it's a no brainer- you save the kid.
That's a very Western viewpoint. Many cultures would save the mother, perhaps even the majority.
That is possible Antinous, many cultures do value their elders more highly than ours, but I'd like to hear that from someone in the culture. And I'm not sure that it would apply to a mother in any case, the mother child bond is pretty powerful in all cultures. Interesting point though.
Although I do not personally espouse the viewpoint, a child is a disposable resource; you can make more. You only get one mother. Children may also be viewed as blank books, where elders are libraries full of encyclopedias. Some cultures are past-oriented and view the past as a superior time period, making preservation of the past a higher priority than worrying about the future. And of course, life for life's sake is not a universally held philosophy.
Science is wonderful, but the reality of medical research as practiced today is that it's more bullshit than science. Look at the number of drugs withdrawn that were promoted for decades. Look at the number of drugs found to be no better than a placebo that have had billions, literally, spent on them. Then there is the inconvenient fact that most medical testing is only young males between the ages of 18 and 26, and the effects on children, women, and the elderly are rarely actually tested in a scientifically rigorous way, even for drugs that are then primarily targeted at those populations.
As to avoiding medicine for homeopathy, it's exceedingly rare. Most practicing homeopaths will treat in conjunction with conventional medicine for any acute problems.
Several people die each year because they depended on homeopathy.
Several million die each year because they depended on MDs.
...Millions more are cured each year because they depend on MDs.
...zero people have been cured because they depend on homeopathy. Ever.
Fixed it for you.
All true, but I think that brainspore was easing into the slippery field of evolutionary psychology...which may well even play a part in cultural differences. It is a subject harder to get a firm grasp on than any eel, tho. We are at the edge of a very large lake of poorly understood or even conceptualized phenomena in talking about these things.
I must say I am extremely disappointed in the direction that these comments have taken.
But maybe I'm just hurt that you all would argue about homeopathay vs. science than comment on what I thought was important :(
My problem with this article is this.
Many aspects of our society are based on a cascade of "Big Lies," more than one can easily name, more often than not propagated by the responsible authorities.
Just to name a few off the top of my head, the wholly fraudulent, misrepresented, and secretive bailouts; the massive amounts that have been "borrowed" from the SS fund in a way that would be grossly illegal if a business were to do it, the $2T announced missing from the pentagon on 9/10/2001 and promptly forgotten about, the unemployment stats that don't count people who have given up, the war lies, etc. etc.
Or, in another arena, for instance: "The only worthwhile cures to any illness are allopathics," "If a drug has been approved by the FDA, it is generally safe," etc. etc.
These big lies get swirled around the media echo chamber over and over, both explicitly and implicitly, and even if they are sometimes brought up, other stories that are logically based on them are allowed to pass through without question.
The debauchment of the media comes from these deeper underlying issues, from a pervasive disconnect with reality, that in many sources comes from the "respectable" voices. Citing a story like this as the reason media is losing credibility is simply asinine.
So it's a "disgusting outrage" if even one person dies because of skepticism concerning the medical establishment, but it's OK if 100,000 people die from prescription drugs, because they have "some potential to cure"? Your logic is outstanding, sir. You are a paragon of reason and rationality, and not sanctimonious in the least.
"I have carefully noted the content and nature of your posts here on BB for some time now, and I find a consistent thread of both gross bias and anti-scientific irrationality (not to mention an often nauseating level of sanctimony). You embarrass yourself."
Oh, excuse me, you're actually a fruitcake.
I don't have any problem with the idea that no psychic can reliably predict the future. (After all, if such people exist, they must be very rare, or our world would look rather different.)
I certainly have a problem, though, with people who write off all psychics as frauds. Many, many people genuinely believe they have some sort of power and genuinely want to help. Whether they can help is another issue. Whether it is ethical for them to charge for that help is yet another issue. But they are not frauds.
Likewise, if I genuinely believe (for example) that homeopathy can make you better, and I don't knowingly use any bullshit when I give you your medicine, then I'm not a charlatan -- although I may be mistaken.
For what it's worth Jay, I agree with you that this article could be seen as an example of media pushing trends that really don't exist or are trivial. But to their defence journalists use the same tricks to push issues that have merit.
Each reader and media source has their own definition of merit. The Fox network has their teabaggers, and CNN likes to talk-up dead celebrities. With Colbert
it's bears.
Similarly, Boing Boing comment threads have a life of their own and may not trend the way you or I would like. There is little use complaining about it. Try being more persuasive, and get in early before the trend is set. Remember that a .200 batting average is considered good. If you can set the trend for a BB comment once every five tries you are way above average I think.
Oh, you've met people who *seem* to have "psychic" powers?
That sounds pretty solid, weasel word and all.
Wait, people who are so adept at gathering information that they can fool the average person? Someone so good at using their five sense, they've fooled people into thinking they have a sixth? You should tell all of this to USA Networks so they can make it into a television show. Maybe they can call it "Pysch".
Just because someone can tell you about yourself after a short conversation doesn't mean that they have powers, it's more likely that they are rather intelligent and able to read people fairly well. The FBI sometims calls people like this "profilers".
While the point that ethical systems and scientific knowledge are far from unrelated is certainly valid, you're still not making any claims relevant to the domain of ethics here.
Your statements are descriptive. Ethics is proscriptive. As Hume noted, one cannot reason from the existence of a state of affairs - people (in Western cultures*) tend to choose to save the child - to a moral imperative for or against that state of affairs - people should choose to save the child. It's called the is-ought problem.
*Excellent point, Antinous. As far above the bulk of Internet commenters as BB's population is, I still find the incidence of blindly ethnocentric thinking - among other types of pervasive assumption - disturbing. Possibly more disturbing than if the average intelligence were more..average. One likes to think that intelligent people who be dramatically, rather than only modestly, less assumptive and ideology-driven than the broader population.