Pharyngula

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | March 20, 2011 2:33 PM

I've never seen this Doctor Oz person, but I understand he's one of Oprah's discoveries/creations.

Why do these people hate humanity so much?

Posted by: CCLCarm | March 20, 2011 2:34 PM

I shut it off the minute I saw that was on. Also his pseudo-medical advise is BS most of time too. I checked with credible science resources to see if some of what he was saying had any merit on a show about diet and exercise. BS pure and simple. I have no respect for OZ- He's no better than the Wizard of OZ- who is that man behind the curtain?

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | March 20, 2011 2:37 PM

Edward is the worst kind of parasite. He feeds on grief, steals legitimate sorrow from people and spins them a tale of his own to replace their own memories.

Our dead live only in our memories, and for this bastard to sully our thoughts with his oozing, malicious faux necromancy is just sick. And it's almost worse that Oz gives him a platform, a favorable editing, and the trappings of respectability.

Posted by: Zeno | March 20, 2011 2:38 PM

It seems to me that John Edward is not getting enough respect here. After all, in 2002 he was proclaimed "The Biggest Douche in the Universe." The rest of us (like Dr. Oz?) can only dream of attaining such a pinnacle.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | March 20, 2011 2:40 PM

Why do these people hate humanity so much?

I think it's just that they prefer money.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 20, 2011 2:44 PM

I don't know that it's even about the money - they prefer to have everyone fawn all over them and reassure them that they are unique and special and possessed of knowledge that is fantastic that no one else has. They're complete and utter narcissists, who have enough of a following to keep them indulged that every random thought they have is truth, that every opinion they have is the best opinion out there, that they can do no wrong.

Posted by: geralcorasjo | March 20, 2011 2:51 PM

According to the spirits, one of the commentors here has watched this Family Guy clip on psychics..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JaRObcLsds

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | March 20, 2011 2:59 PM

Good lord. My mom buys into Oz's crap hook, line, and sinker.

I've only caught one show of his-- the topic was weight loss and Oz was claiming that if you paint your dining room a particular color (orange, I think), it will suppress your appetite. That was more than enough for me.

But this... this is really beyond the pale. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there was deceptive editing or that Edward would deliberately hurt an audience member, but fuck. I thought John Edward had dropped in popularity lately-- I guess I was wrong.

Why do I feel like Edward has been debunked in the past? (Beyond the usual "it's cold reading, duh." Didn't someone deliberately trick him or is that just wishful thinking on my part?)

Posted by: Dick the Damned | March 20, 2011 3:04 PM

-----> BWAHAHAHAHA -----> rnprog @ #3

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | March 20, 2011 3:13 PM

rnprog #3, provide a credible unbiased citation to your accusation or I will assume you are lying(and libeling Randi).

Secondly, only the most odious, despicable, morally bankrupt of minds could possibly consider these two situations and think that there is any sort of equivalency at all between them.

Posted by: juju | March 20, 2011 3:18 PM

"Oz brought in a critic, Katherine Nordal, to assess Edward's psychic readings, and she has since complained about what the show did with her commentary."

Kind of reminds me of the Expelled movie. If what science is saying doesn't fit with their conclusions, then they will go to any means necessary to make it fit.

Posted by: isilzhaveni | March 20, 2011 3:20 PM

What if the insurance companies or other injured parties involved in the son's accident happen to see and believe this crap? It can't be good that the father admitted the accident could have been suicide. Seem like there could be some serious legal repercussions to this.

Posted by: jstackpo | March 20, 2011 3:23 PM

For an extended view of psychic chicanery get and read Christopher Brookmyre's "Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks" (a curious title) - it is an English crime novel, but, I'm sure, based on facts, and clearly good research. And it a whole boatload of fun to read. And sneaky. A clue to its point of view is its dedication to James Randi and Richard Dawkins. It sets up a neat situation of really carefully scientifically testing psychic powers in a highly controlled academic situation - but that is enough for here. Read it!

Posted by: KG | March 20, 2011 3:30 PM

read Christopher Brookmyre's "Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks" (a curious title) - it is an English crime novel - jstackpo

Scottish. Very definitely Scottish.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 20, 2011 3:35 PM

Rnprog, do you not have any idea how easy it is to figure out just how wrong you are.

Let me briefly explain the grudge that Rupert Sheldrake has going against me. First an article entitled "James Randi," located at sheldrake.org:

"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, 'We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail.' No details were given of these tests."

Clever. This implies that I was referring to the specific tests that Sheldrake claimed to have done. I was referring to general tests that the JREF has done over many years involving animals, particularly dogs. To have gone into details of all these tests would have been impractical, but a search of our site would have supplied him with all the details he could possibly wish. Alternately, I could have supplied them, if only he had issued a request. That's what we do at the JREF.

Sheldrake continued:

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

Not true. A colleague of mine in Europe told me that he'd seen the tape record, and that he and his colleagues presented a version of it to some students who were asked to record each time the dog was activated. The dog never stopped, reacting to passers-by in the street, cars, any unusual noise and any sort of distraction. The only portion of tape that I was able to see was the section that Sheldrake saw fit to publish, the limited sector that indicated -- to his selective gaze -- the point he wanted to prove. Dr. Sheldrake, may we see the entire video record, so that we may repeat that student evaluation with persons who are, in your view, qualified to see it? I promise that I'll stay behind in Florida, and I'll not put out those "negative vibes" that I'm sure you feel would affect the test. Or are those tapes now lost, or perhaps not available for legal reasons?

In closing, I'll add: When I was in the UK a few years ago, I asked Sheldrake if I could test his wonder-dog, but I was told that the dog -- and its owners -- didn't want me around. I think that explains a lot about how willing Sheldrake is to face real, independent, examination of his claims.

Bow wow wow, yippy-o yippy yay.

Posted by: englemanknowledgebase | March 20, 2011 3:48 PM

Speaking as someone who's had a suicide in the family, John Edward can fuck off.

What a coldhearted jackass.

Melissa

Posted by: Kseniya | March 20, 2011 3:56 PM

Rey: Hiya :-) and "Yeah!" to Carlie @ #12.

JuJu @ #22:

Kind of reminds me of the Expelled movie. If what science is saying doesn't fit with their conclusions, then they will go to any means necessary to make it fit.

Yeah, not to mention the amusing What the BLEEP Do We Know? which, like Expelled! but even more absurdly, claims to be "one of the most successful documentaries [!?] of all time."

One of the few legitimate academics in the film, David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. “I was taken,” Albert admits. “I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson.” [citation]

Also: David Albert: ‘What the BLEEP’ Is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong

Posted by: Kseniya | March 20, 2011 4:00 PM

Oops, still rusty with the hyperlinks:

David Albert: ‘What the BLEEP’ Is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | March 20, 2011 4:03 PM

I've come to the conclusion that these people can stay in business because their victims want to believe.

Case in point: my father loves watching ghost shows. When one in-particular came on, he said it was the best because they don't try to find natural explanations, but assume that since so many people have claimed to have seen the ghost, it must be real. He criticized another show the other day for being "boring" because they "never find the ghost, and make up excuses."

(Warning: More discussion of suicide, I know it can be a very sensitive issue) On the episode of my dad's favorite ghost show that he was watching last night... the key witness to the hauntings... committed suicide afterwards. Everyone immediately assumed that he had committed suicide because he was being haunted by ghosts, not that he thought he was being haunted by ghosts because he had the sort of psychological problems that might make one suicidal. And the landlord could "feel" the ghost of the suicide victim afterwards... surely not just that depressed feeling you get when walking amongst the effects of someone you knew who has died.

Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2011 4:14 PM

As the reading continued, Edward informed the grief-stricken parent that the car accident that claimed his son's life was in fact a suicide. "I've never known that he committed suicide for sure," said the grieving father, "but I believe it."

It sounds here as if the father already thought it was suicide, but wasn't "sure." If so, Edward might have picked up on this through some non-paranormal means, and provided the parent with a strange sort of reassurance which may have actually helped this particular individual feel 'better.' I don't know.

One thing I do think Edward is good at, though -- naturally and through experience -- is figuring out what his clients want to hear. So I'd be cautious about assuming that this added to the parent's own subjective sense of grief. It may still have screwed up the grieving process -- and probably messed with some other psychological issues as well -- but I'd be a bit surprised at Edward being this clumsy and cruel if he didn't think he was still going to get a "thank you so much" reaction.

Posted by: seemeisie | March 20, 2011 4:19 PM

The same editing thing happened when Pamela Ronald was invited on to talk about genetically engineered food.

Sounds like a warning needs to go out to scientists and skeptics out there that no matter how even handedly they treat you beforehand, they'll edit you out in the end.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 4:50 PM

Sastra:

If so, Edward might have picked up on this through some non-paranormal means, and provided the parent with a strange sort of reassurance which may have actually helped this particular individual feel 'better.' I don't know.

So I'd be cautious about assuming that this added to the parent's own subjective sense of grief. It may still have screwed up the grieving process -- and probably messed with some other psychological issues as well -- but I'd be a bit surprised at Edward being this clumsy and cruel if he didn't think he was still going to get a "thank you so much" reaction.

You're probably right about that. It's hard to determine whether this may increase or decrease the father's grief (initially and in the long run). There's a lot of variability in how people cope, so jumping to one conclusion or another about his future emotional states isn't justified, especially with so little information about him as an individual.

On the other hand (this is not to imply you are doing this), we don't need to put any weight on Edward's calculations of the potential therapeutic benefit, or even much for the positive/negative responses of his marks (or plants as the case may be). Their mistaken or deceptive evaluation of it should be part of explaining their emotions and behavior, but I contend that what would be "better" for them is still ultimately the truth rather than fiction.

Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2011 5:10 PM

consciousness razor #44 wrote:

Their mistaken or deceptive evaluation of it should be part of explaining their emotions and behavior, but I contend that what would be "better" for them is still ultimately the truth rather than fiction.

Agree. Bottom-line, psychics do not talk to ghosts, and lying to people is still lying to people, even if you think it's "for their own good."

I thought of an interesting wrinkle to this particular reading, though. What if the evidence has pointed to a reasonable inference of suicide all along (the son drove off in a fury after being dumped, the car crashed into a tree though the road was clear and straight, etc.), but the father has instead been trying to cling to the frail hope that maybe it was an accident after all --- oh, his son was just changing the radio station. In this case, the delusion was that it was an accident, and the hard truth was that no, it was suicide: face it, accept it, deal with it emotionally and move on. And ... Edward figured this out. Somehow (handwave here.)

That would then mean that the father was deliberately deceived by silly ghost-nonsense so that he could stop his unrealistic fantasizing and deal with reality.

Hmmm. Wheels within wheels, my friend, wheels within wheels.

But John Edward is still a douche.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 5:19 PM

In this case, the delusion was that it was an accident, and the hard truth was that no, it was suicide: face it, accept it, deal with it emotionally and move on. And ... Edward figured this out. Somehow (handwave here.)

Well, the truth is that Edward absolutely did not figure it out.

But John Edward is still a douche.

That is also the truth.

Posted by: elronxenu | March 20, 2011 5:56 PM

Lesson to be learned - when critiquing woo, don't try for balance. Don't make nuanced arguments. Don't try to be fair to shysters. Just go for the jugular - in every paragraph, in every sentence, in every phrase, word and letter.

Posted by: No One | March 20, 2011 6:41 PM

Cold reading is an old con. It gets dusted off every generation, "updated & modernized" and pawned off to a new set of rubes.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 20, 2011 6:56 PM

If PZ and Orac covered all the same things, one of them would be superfluous.

Posted by: SC OM | March 20, 2011 7:09 PM

I'm sure Orac will be posting about the Bishop of Phoenix and hospital policy as soon as there's a CAM angle.

Posted by: Jesus H. Christ | March 20, 2011 7:51 PM

My mom gets a Catholic newspaper in the mail every month which she never reads and gives to me to line my bird cage with. One time, there was an article on this scumbag John Edward and it was one of those debate-type of articles where both sides of the issue were introduced and debated.

Now, before you go slapping yourselves on the head and wonder why there should even be a debate on the merits of an obvious charlatan, the article's two points of contention were: (A) he's a legitimate psychic who is doing God's work and (B) he's a legitimate psychic who is NOT doing God's work but dabbling into the evil shadows of occultists and devil-worshippers.

Posted by: Hairhead | March 20, 2011 8:03 PM

John Edward. John Edward.

My father was a minister, and though I was not a believer himself, I watched him comfort people who had lost a loved one without needless speculation or cruelty -- for instance, "God has taken to heaven your 10-year old boy crushed by that bus because he loved him so much." -- which made him rare among ministers.

So John Edward (and his compatriot James Van Praagh[sic]) sets me off entirely. I have never had a fight in my entire adult life; I barely even raise my voice; my friend know me as someone of remarkably even temperament.

But if I am EVER in the same room as John Edward, I will walk up and punch him in the face. In fact, once I start I won't be able to stop, they'll probably have to drag me off. As once was said on Cheers, "I hate him with the white-hot heat of a thousand burning suns!"

Posted by: Hairhead | March 20, 2011 8:28 PM

To SC OM:

My Dad would talk about all of the good memories the bereaved had of the dead person; he would touch on all the good the dead person had done all of his or her life; he would talk about how it was the responsibility of the bereaved to carry on the good aspects of the dead person's life. Such like that. And if the bereaved would insist on discussing religion, the furthest my father would go would be to reassure the bereaved that there was no such thing as Hell, and that their loved one was not experiencing any pain.

My Dad was interesting man; he spent six years in active service as a Commando in WWII, was involved in a lot of bloodshed. He became a minister only when he was forty, mostly because he felt he had been lucky to survive (a strong case of survivor's guilt), and it was necessary that he pay off his life by doing good.

Posted by: Rick Miller | March 20, 2011 8:37 PM

Not only is Edwards making things more painful by claiming that the guy's son was a suicide, but he may also be costing the man a lot of money.

If the man says his son committed suicide, then their life insurance can refuse to pay out.

Posted by: Orac | March 20, 2011 8:47 PM

If the man says his son committed suicide, then their life insurance can refuse to pay out.

Fortunately, I don't think insurance companies believe psychics--yet.

Give them time, though. Woo is infiltrating everywhere.

Posted by: SC OM | March 20, 2011 9:05 PM

He just beat me to that one. I can't post as often as P.Z. can.

"Hi, Orac!"

(Is there a Competitive-Creditoholics Pseudonymous?)

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | March 20, 2011 9:21 PM

yahoomess @57:

When women called to ask if their husband was cheating, I'd say something like, "I sense you already know the answer to this question." This was usually greeted by a gasp and a, "wow that's amazing. How did you know that?"

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 20, 2011 9:36 PM

When callers would ask about which games they should play to win money at the casino I'd say something like, "I get the sense that you'd probably lose if you go to the casino , so you should stay home and save your money."

That's a very nice thing. Now I'm thinking of a ring of infiltrators getting these jobs and telling people "I feel that there is something in your house that is not fixed - you need to spend your money on that, not the lotto" and "I sense a need from your family to spend more time with them" and other common-sense platitudes. :)

Posted by: john.marley | March 20, 2011 10:22 PM

Posted by: rnprog | March 20, 2011 2:34 PM
This reminds me of when the Amazing Randi debunked those psychic dog experiments run by Rupert Sheldrake by not actually watching the evidence provided. You have to watch out for those sneeky woo-meisters...oh, wait, that's an example of those wonderful, honest, truth-seeking skeptics telling an outright lie. Never mind. Let's just point and laugh at those crazy people we don't like!!

I'm a pretty avid fan of James Rzndi, and I've never heard of this. I'm sure you can provide a link though. Right? ...Right?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | March 20, 2011 11:32 PM

I'm very disturbed to learn from an anonymous internet source that James Randi has been getting paid to tell bereaved dogs that their puppies have committed suicide by running in front of cars. Or something. It's late, and I'm tired.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 21, 2011 12:00 AM

I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ! PAY NO ATTENTION THAT THAT WOO BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | March 21, 2011 12:29 AM

I've read that Edwards gets the guests in long before the show and leaves them in their seats, talking, while microphones are picking up what they're saying or while confederates circulate among them asking questions and gathering details for him to use later. It's been several years but I do remember that there was no psychic power involved.

Posted by: Aliasalpha | March 21, 2011 12:35 AM

I know its wrong to judge by appearances and all but the very first time I saw that dr oz bloke my very first instinct was "disingenuous arsehole homeopath" and it seems I wasn't that far off

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | March 21, 2011 2:11 AM

Carlie writes:
I don't know that it's even about the money - they prefer to have everyone fawn all over them and reassure them that they are unique and special and possessed of knowledge that is fantastic that no one else has. They're complete and utter narcissists, who have enough of a following to keep them indulged that every random thought they have is truth, that every opinion they have is the best opinion out there, that they can do no wrong.

I'm thinking, as I read that, that what you wrote could apply to every religious "holy man" politician, and music critic...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | March 21, 2011 5:41 AM

It sounds a lot like the time I attended a "séance". The obvious scam-ness of the whole thing was quite funny, but it was also a little ghoulish and exploitative.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 21, 2011 7:08 AM

As the reading continued, Edward informed the grief-stricken parent that the car accident that claimed his son's life was in fact a suicide.

It strikes me that Edward might actually believe he has this power. If I were working as a cold-reader, and the idea of saying "it was a suicide" popped into my head, I would stifle that impulse as inappropriate.

Edward might really think that the first bullshit that pops into his head is really inspired by spirits. Well, he may also think of himself as a liar who needs to go with his gut to keep up his act, but as there have been many consultants of spirits who didn't think themselves liars, it's plausible he still might be one of them.

How to teach kids that it's immoral to merely spew whatever it's their first impulse to say, so they don't grow up to be another John Edward?

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | March 21, 2011 11:51 AM

What's up with all these elderly mothers is selection bias. Those of us whose mothers are sensible, skeptical women aren't going to post to this thread. I'm doing so only to note that such women exist.

My elderly mother recently went to India for three weeks, on a tour. She was complaining of insomnia on her return. So she talked to her GP about it.

I may boast of my mother now and then, but "my mother doesn't believe in ghosts" and "my elderly mother never gave a nickel to any psychic" is a "dog bites man" sort of story. I hope.

Posted by: Schenck | March 21, 2011 8:37 PM

"Instead, it seems that 'The Doctor Oz' show intentionally edited my responses in a way that gave the appearance of my endorsement of Edward's methods as a legitimate intervention."

Which gives all the more reason to be as 'harsh' and unaccomodating as possible, leave no room for interpretation / misrepresentation.