Again I say that James Randi and Derren Brown, etc, are proving how the fraudulent side of things works. But they’re not doing anything to stop it and have made a considerable fortune at the end of it all. To me the people who work to stop the con artists and abuse of the grieving are the ones who deserve the praise. It mostly boils down to mutual respect and accepting that alternative possibilities can exist.

So regarding ’science’ as a label is inaccurate – when theories become demonstrable then these theories could become accepted as ‘common fact’, even by the most hardened sceptic.

I’m not sure what you mean by me being “tricksy” either. I would rather use the term “believer” than “woo merchant” and the word is used correctly and appropriately. One of my problems is that you keep answering my questions with questions but sadly aren’t commenting on some important points I made like your unicorn statement. I’m sensing defensiveness when there’s no need for it. The way you feel about something does play a role in it. If I feel strongly in something then my beliefs automatically go along with that. It was a simple statement of interest from my part. Again this statement……….”But you’re not – you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t ever say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings. Which is craziness.”………..apart from being incorrect could be taken personally. Thankfully I haven’t but I could have all to easily. I want answers just like the next man does but without mutual respect and understanding the answers may stay as elusive as ever.

What would it take to convince Randi? A demonstration. That’s it! It’s not difficult. If I say I can turn water into chickens, all I need to do to make James Randi believe me is turn some water into a chicken, in a situation where everyone can see I’m not faking it. If mediums are real, they just need to ‘prove’ it. Randi has said many times that all it would take to change his mind is a psychic to demonstrate their powers in a controlled setting. Yet, despite the lure of $1million, none have. Curious.

I don’t know what I’m supposedly labelling. Reality? You’re being tricksy with the word ‘believe’. I don’t ‘believe’ Randi as a matter of faith, I ‘believe’ him because he shows the evidence behind what he says. How I feel doesn’t come into it – if there’s good reason to believe something, I will. What does how I feel about something have to do with its being true? I’m sorry people get their feelings hurt when things they believe turn out to be false, but that’s just how it is. If you want to argue about the way Randi does it, that’s an entirely different argument. But you’re not – you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t ever say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings. Which is craziness.

What doesn’t add up? Mediums and psychics are very, very good at exploiting human psychology. Fighting against that is very difficult. What doesn’t make sense, here?

Of course the science argument is used repeatedly by many. It’s become like a get out clause when someone doesn’t understand alternative theories. Again the word “science” has become exhausted. You cannot label everything this way. As for your beliefs having anything to do with it…….why not? You believe that JR is right in what he does. Add to that others telling you it’s wrong how you feel and branding it with a distasteful word like “woo.” I’m sorry but it’s not hard to imagine how that would make anyone feel.

Your comment about the unicorn answers a lot to be honest. “If I think I’m being chased by a unicorn made of spinach, and someone tells me I’m wrong – that’s something they should feel bad about?” If that’s how you feel then JR must feel dreadful because that’s exactly what he does. It works both ways I’m afraid. I’m not saying frauds shouldn’t be exposed but let’s be honest here all from Sylvia Browne to Colin Fry are still enjoying a very lucrative life aren’t they? If JR and the like are doing such an incredible job why are we still bombarded with these charlatans on a daily basis? Something doesn’t add up does it?

Lee Cook asked whether homeopathy was ok if it made people feel better. Randi replied that heroin also makes people feel better. Now, clearly heroin is not a good thing. So feeling better is not, on its own, a virtue: you have to look deeper than that one single benefit. You made this point yourself: “heroin makes people feel better but it also kills and destroys lives” – we have to look at the whole picture, as you did. That’s why the original question is flawed: Randi shows that it could be applied to defend heroin use – something we all agree is unambiguously dangerous – to point out the problem with the question. If you want to discuss homeopathy, saying it makes people feel better is not appropriate, as it wouldn’t be appropriate for a discussion of heroin.

So he’s not comparing everything about homeopathy to everything about heroin. The analogy is specific to whether something that makes you feel better must be ok. Better?

Who’s claiming science has all the answers? Nobody says that. What’s important is science knows how to look for answers.

How I’d feel if my beliefs were branded as nonsense? What does that have to do with anything? If I think I’m being chased by a unicorn made of spinach, and someone tells me I’m wrong – that’s something they should feel bad about? Are you saying Randi should never expose frauds in case he hurts their feelings?