Should a Group that claims to expose fraud have people who have commited fraud as their core members?

Question

The group paranormal police part deux has at least two members who are proven frauds. To some this seems to defeat their

purpose. what do you think?

Answer 1

Not at all. Why is it that professional illusionists can see through psychic tricks? Because they know how the tricks are really being done. Some thing with people who have made a profession in the past as a professional medium, psychic, or ghost hunter. They know how the tricks are done, because they performed it themselves.

Personally, I think such a group is unnessesary, as it should be assumed anyone claiming to be psychic or have paranormal abilities is just a magician, and anyone claiming to be a ghost hunter should be just for fun.

fact: The paranormal field of research is the only place in science where rumours and old wives tales are values higher than logic and reason.

Answer 2

You would have to question their integrity.  However you can also look at it the way Las Vegas casinos look at cheaters.  Most of the best security employees that work for the casinos are convicted cheaters who were very good at what they did.  Because of this they know what to look for and are very good at catching cheats.  As long as these paranormal police are reformed, then they could be very good at catching frauds because they know what to look for.

Answer 3

NO WAY! Hypocrisy at it's worse! This is the same problem we have with our government. Favoritism and/or hypocrisy have no place in any type of watchdog group.

Answer 4

I would go further and ask if such a person should lead the group and be championed by skeptics. In that light here is some interesting reading. The link to the original web site is below.

James Randi is a conjurer (the “Amazing Randi”) and showman who is described on his web site as “the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.” He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him. Carl Sagan, in his sympathetic introduction to Randi’s book The Faith Healers (1987) described him as an “angry man.” His work as a debunker has attracted lavish funding and in 1986 he was the recipient of a $286,000 MacArthur Foundation Fellowship. In 1996 he established the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He has an ambiguous attitude to scientific authority, deferring to it when it supports his beliefs, but rejecting it when it does not.

On his web site he asserts: “Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too, and can be deceived and self-deceived.” He is not afraid to attack scientists who take an interest in subjects like telepathy, like Brian Josephson, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University. In 2001, on a BBC Radio program about Josephson’s interest in possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness, Randi said, “I think it is the refuge of scoundrels in many aspects for them to turn to something like quantum physics.” Josephson has a Nobel Prize in quantum physics. Randi has no scientific credentials. Of his current work, he writes, “We at the JREF are skilled in two directions: we know how people are fooled by others and we know how people fool themselves. We deal with hard, basic facts.” Yet in a review of his book The Supernatural A-Z: The Truth and the Lies, his fellow skeptic Susan Blackmore commented that the book “has too many errors to be recommended.” He has also been shown to invent "facts" and make up evidence, see Randi's dishonest claims . Fraud of this kind is unacceptable within the scientific community; but Randi is no scientist.

Randi’s stock in trade as a debunker is the offer of a million dollar “prize” for a demonstration of “any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability”. For details, see The Randi Prize . But as a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." ( www.skeptic.com/archives03.html)

Randi’s fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this “prize” and sees it as a stunt of no scientific value. See Randi’s Challenge

Recent comment on Randi's prize can be found at the following blogs:

Michael Prestcott's Blog and Prove Randi wrong

More on the Randi Prize... Why Randi may have to pay up

Beware Pseudo-Skepticism Sean of PsiPog finds out what the Randi Challenge is really about.

Randi's "evidence" revisited... A Skeptical look at James Randi

Web site: www.randi.org

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Answer 5

That happens all the time. Even way back in the seventies there was this man who was a professional car thief and he got caught and when he got out of jail he was hired by a huge auto company to help design anti theft devices. He was a very successful thief stealing several cars a day and he got $800.00 for each car.

Answer 6

Why not. Companies hire hackers to help with computer security, who better to expose a fake than a faker.

Answer 7

Not necessarily. For example, who better to teach the public on how to make their house secure than a burglar?  

However, such a group needs to be very well directed and controlled by a leadership of the highest integrity, else it will be looked upon with suspicion. I have some personal knowledge of this particular group you mention, and judging by their yahoo group activity, it just seemed to be a lot of bickering, gossiping, mudslinging and general sophomoric rants. It is a good idea but badly executed.

Answer 8

Set a thief to catch a thief.....? Old Lancashire saying.