Should "clairvoyants", "psychics", etc. need a license?

[Omeganian]

I have a strong suspicion there already is an agency giving out licenses to psychics. But the psychics don't know where it is.

[Patrick Degan]

In New Orleans, tarot readers and palmists are required to have an entertainer's license before setting up a table around or near Jackson Square or on any of the streets of the city.

[Gil Hamilton]

In New Orleans, tarot readers and palmists are required to have an entertainer's license before setting up a table around or near Jackson Square or on any of the streets of the city.

Heh, I visited Jackson square with a friend when we were at a conference in New Orleans. I'm not surprised they need an entertanment license, because the palm readers and card floppers who were doing the best business were the most entertaining, from their fake carbbean accents on down.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Meh, I'm inclined to not make it the duty of the state for you to believe in and listen to hocus pocus if you want to, though when this comes to the sale and distribution for profit of knowingly dangerous advice or products, then I believe there is a problem. Typically, this is just a nuisance.

[Sarevok]

A simple solution would be requiring astrologers, faith healers and such to carry a disclaimer like cigarette companies put on their products. Something like "our products/services have not been proven to work scientifically and use them at your own discretion".

[Patrick Degan]

A simple solution would be requiring astrologers, faith healers and such to carry a disclaimer like cigarette companies put on their products. Something like "our products/services have not been proven to work scientifically and use them at your own discretion".

Won't happen —imagine the lawsuits being touched off by those demanding the same commercial warnings to be issued by the churches.

[Shroom Man 777]

A simple solution would be requiring astrologers, faith healers and such to carry a disclaimer like cigarette companies put on their products. Something like "our products/services have not been proven to work scientifically and use them at your own discretion".

Sounds less like cigarette commercials and more like labels on those health supplements and other vitamin medicine things that have FDA labels that go on about how they've not yet been clinically proven.

[Vendetta]

The sort of labels that give the list of things that treatment has been "traditionally used for". Although most psychics would have to list "Traditionally used for extracting money out of punters", as that's the traditional role of the crystal ball gazer at a carnival.

[General Zod]

A simple solution would be requiring astrologers, faith healers and such to carry a disclaimer like cigarette companies put on their products. Something like "our products/services have not been proven to work scientifically and use them at your own discretion".

How would you enforce it without creating an extra drain on the government's budget? I say just hold them liable for fraud if they overstep their bounds as providing an entertainment service.

[Broomstick]

Such people are already liable for fraud - so what difference would licensing them make?

[Lagmonster]

A simple solution would be requiring astrologers, faith healers and such to carry a disclaimer like cigarette companies put on their products. Something like "our products/services have not been proven to work scientifically and use them at your own discretion".

Won't happen —imagine the lawsuits being touched off by those demanding the same commercial warnings to be issued by the churches.

I think most religions keep their 'facts' well inside the margins of science; cold reading (which makes up the majority of fortune telling), on the other hand, lends itself quite easily to testing because it makes claims about the physical universe. Of course, many astrology and fortune-telling services already have 'for entertainment purposes only' in fine print somewhere - I remember an old psychic hotline television ad from the late 80s that had that written distinctly at the bottom of the screen while the lady droned on about predicting wealth, love and power.

[PeZook]

Such people are already liable for fraud - so what difference would licensing them make?

Researching the topic, I have run into claims that the British require psychics of all kinds who want to take money for their "services" to have a clearly displayed sign saying that it's all "for entertainment only", under the threat of a 5000 pound fine.

I have not been able to corroborate this claim.

As an aside, there is a report of the Polish Central Police Command from the year 2001, which concluded that out of 440 analyzed cases where a clairvoyant was used, 432 their "visions" were completely false or totally useless. So they have a whooping 98,81% failure rate, worse than random people. Heh.

Sorry Stuart, if the police were covering their informants, they wouldn't have released a thoroughly crushing report like that

[Modax]

I'm inclined to think that the simple act of the government creating a requirement for licenses for psychics and clairvoyants, even though it intends to withhold said licenses, would immediately be picked up by the media and spun in 10 different directions. The intent is irrelevant; the meme of "government licenses for psychics" is enough to give them a false claim to legitimacy. People predisposed to be superstitious might get some garbled version of the story by word of mouth or otherwise, and think "well, if the government is worried about unlicensed psychics running around, they must have evidence that their powers are real" or something. The number of stupid people who could be confused by such an action is almost certainly larger than the number who currently fall for these scams.

Forged licenses would be a huge problem. Because they would be something totally new, most people wouldn't have any idea what a legit license is supposed to look like. Or psychics could just illegally claim to be licensed without any sort of proof.

[Einzige]

I disagree. If Americans are consistent in their dislike of government, the act of licensing mediums will actually delegitimize them in their sight, particularly in the view of superstitious conservatives who are more apt to believe in such things.