Singh on Psychics

Simon Singh is scathing in his attack on psychics –  the subject of his article being Sally Morgan. But then, Singh is a scientific rationalist, so I am not surprised by his position (and I share his scepticism –  not to mention despair at the gullibility of those who fall for the guff being peddled). Apparently, Morgan is famous, which was news to me, so I clearly haven’t been taking notice. Singh notes some of the tricks these people use to delude the unwary. Cold reading is a fairly common one. A few well chosen questions and suggestions can get the mark nodding in agreement and from then on, once hooked they gullibly believe what they are told.

Cold reading is fairly easy to detect once you are on the lookout for it and a sceptic is unlikely to fall for the psychic’s rhetoric. Indeed, as Singh notes, talking to dead people is not particularly remarkable –  we can all do it. It’s those who claim to be hearing replies that cause concern –  not least when they charge others for doing so.

While it might be tempting to treat this as fraud (and I feel that this is the line Singh wants us to take), I am inclined to the view that a fool and his money are easily parted, but they do it voluntarily. If someone chooses to give a psychic money, well, they get what they deserve –  and if this is a little comfort, well, who am I to argue?

Singh, however, is concerned that there are greater dangers.

Not only does Sally seem to be saying that the subject does not need to be tested for HIV, but it’s a message direct from God. This is shocking.

He seems to be easily shocked. Maybe I am too relaxed about all of this. If people want to give charlatans money, well, let ’em. It’s not as if psychics’ tricks are exactly unknown, now is it?