Leading Skeptic Brian Dunning Sentenced to 15 Months Prison for Fraud

You caught the wink right? I read the two comments one right after the other and couldn't help but notice that Iyace was accusing one poster of taking advantage of a terrible situation to take a dig at proponents while at the same time taking advantage of another terrible situation to take a dig at skeptics. But seriously, I'm not sure what joy there is to take from this situation: You've got:
  • a company out millions (the restitution he paid was only a few hundred thousand),
  • any number of legitimate affiliates out the money they rightly should have been paid had Dunning's cookie not trumped their own, and
  • a devastated family (I haven't seen anything to suggest his wife and kids were complicit in what he was doing).
Who took joy out of anything? People grin from irony all the time. It's ironic as shit, is it not? To devote your life to debunking frauds only to be one yourself? I can't help but grin from the pure irony. It would be like finding out the Pope is an atheist; it would be so damn ironic.

However, that is far different than using someone's tragic suicide to take a jab at a group of people totally unrelated to his death.

A skeptic being a fraud is not a tragedy; it's just ironic. No amount of hand-waving will change that.
 
However, that is far different than using someone's tragic suicide to take a jab at a group of people totally unrelated to his death.
You forget that the only one taking advantage of someone's death is "Psychic Nikki to the Stars" . He is the one who made the list, and made it so extensive he can not lose.
It is pure premeditated cynicism. He engages himself to make hay of every potential death/health problem of someone on his list, no matter how tragic.
I do not understand how well-meaning proponents are not publicly decrying this kind of charlatans more.

The critique of "Psychic Nikki to the Stars", by Steve, Malf, or me is in no way meant as disrespectful of the tragedy surrounding Robin williams' death.
You probably are smart enough to know this, so you wanting to spin things this way says a lot about you.
As usual, you do not let an opportunity pass to make an honest concern into an ad hominem

A skeptic being a fraud is not a tragedy
I agree more or less with Rebecca Watson's analysis, but for him and his family, even if it is his own fault, this is still a tragedy. And of course there are victims in this story too.
; it's just ironic. No amount of hand-waving will change that.
Nor will it change the fact you are gloating about this, including the personal tragedy. I leave it to everybody reading to make up their mind up about what that means.
 
You forget that the only one taking advantage of someone's death is "Psychic Nikki to the Stars" . He is the one who made the list, and made it so extensive he can not lose.
It is pure premeditated cynicism. He engages himself to make hay of every potential death/health problem of someone on his list, no matter how tragic.
I do not understand how well-meaning proponents are not publicly decrying this kind of charlatans more.

The critique of "Psychic Nikki to the Stars", by Steve, Malf, or me is in no way meant as disrespectful of the tragedy surrounding Robin williams' death.
You probably are smart enough to know this, so you wanting to spin things this way says a lot about you.
As usual, you do not let an opportunity pass to make an honest concern into an ad hominem

I agree more or less with Rebecca Watson's analysis, but for him and his family, even if it is his own fault, this is still a tragedy. And of course there are victims in this story too.
Nor will it change the fact you are gloating about this, including the personal tragedy. I leave it to everybody reading to make up their mind up about what that means.
No, cut the bullshit. Steve clearly brought up the Robin Williams topic to make a play at psychics. Only such critiques of charlatans was done WAY after the OP. The OP specifically used the death of Robin Williams to make a point about the inaccuracy of charlatans. That's highly insensitive to the entire tragedy any way you try to spin it or handwave.

Laughing at the irony of a public ' fraud debunker ' being a criminal level fraud himself is not gloating. It's finding something ironic. The skeptic community has a large issue with these sort of issues, and you guys need to get a handle on it. Stop the misogyny, stop the criminal fraud, and stop selectively supporting those who engage in it because they're ' on your side '.
 
Interesting: do you have any reason to believe the proportion of criminals are high among skeptics?

I would be surprised if no skeptics were criminals. I would also be surprised if a higher than average number of skeptics were criminals.

How did you determine that there was a particular crime problem among skeptics?
 
Interesting: do you have any reason to believe the proportion of criminals are high among skeptics?

I would be surprised if no skeptics were criminals. I would also be surprised if a higher than average number of skeptics were criminals.

How did you determine that there was a particular crime problem among skeptics?
Doesn't matter, you're comparing apples to oranges. Media skeptics make a living preaching against frauds like media psychics.

We fund it ironic and sickening when anti-gay pastors end up being involved in gay relationships. Why wouldn't we also find it ironic and sickening when a person who preaches against fraud commits it.

I understand you're a lawyer and your job is to defend the lowest scum on earth, but this isn't a court. The guy was a lying sack of immoral shit, and should be regarded as such. The fact that he did it while making money preaching against fraud makes him a hypocrite as well.
 
Doesn't matter, you're comparing apples to oranges. Media skeptics make a living preaching against frauds like media psychics.

We fund it ironic and sickening when anti-gay pastors end up being involved in gay relationships. Why wouldn't we also find it ironic and sickening when a person who preaches against fraud commits it.

I understand you're a lawyer and your job is to defend the lowest scum on earth, but this isn't a court. The guy was a lying sack of immoral shit, and should be regarded as such. The fact that he did it while making money preaching against fraud makes him a hypocrite as well.

I represented accident victims. I was the first in this thread to call him scum. And of course he's a hypocrite. And of course it was ironic. I poked some fun at you for making a similar comment to Steve that you did yourself.
 
Last edited:
I represented accident victims. I was the first in this thread to call him scum. And of course he's a hypocrite. And of course it was ironic. I poked some fun at you for making a similar comment to Steve that you did yourself.
It's not even close to similar. I'm not taking advantage of a tragedy that has absolutely NO relation to the event. Brian being a skeptic absolutely does have a relation to this case, and why the comment was made in the first place. We're talking about a man who did some shady shit and stole some money, not someone who hung themselves with their wrists slit. If you can't spot the very clear differences, then I'm not sure what to say.
 
It's not even close to similar. I'm not taking advantage of a tragedy that has absolutely NO relation to the event. Brian being a skeptic absolutely does have a relation to this case, and why the comment was made in the first place. We're talking about a man who did some shady shit and stole some money, not someone who hung themselves with their wrists slit. If you can't spot the very clear differences, then I'm not sure what to say.
Ok
 
I haven't followed this guy Dunnning, but without knowing about his case what about this radical idea; we consider the points the guy is making, instead of the guy himself? Let's say he's guilty of fraud, I'd be against that, but would ask what it had to do with any other point he's making about any other subject. I guess a lot of the ancient greek philosophers would be what we'd now consider gay pedophiles, right?
And I'd also say I'm not into that, but would consider the points they're making about actual topics. In the above messages I don't see any point from him at all on any subject.
 
I haven't followed this guy Dunnning, but without knowing about his case what about this radical idea; we consider the points the guy is making, instead of the guy himself? Let's say he's guilty of fraud, I'd be against that, but would ask what it had to do with any other point he's making about any other subject. I guess a lot of the ancient greek philosophers would be what we'd now consider gay pedophiles, right?
And I'd also say I'm not into that, but would consider the points they're making about actual topics. In the above messages I don't see any point from him at all on any subject.

One can do both can't one? Condemn hypocrisy and consider the points they are making. The same ought to apply to people like Eben Alexander too if accusations from his opponents hold water.
 
Last edited:
I'd be surprised if Dunning had anything to say that wasn't challenged by Clifton's Empirical Case against Materialism (board thread here)

I like how the paper makes its argument without even bringing in parapsychology.

Of course, if materialism is false, what is true seems very open*, which IMO is a good case for secularism since competing faith-based claims would otherwise have to be reconciled. But that sort of argument, IMO, has always been the better case for humanism than pinning the hopes of secular humanism on a metaphysical paradigm.

*From Mind & Cosmos:

"Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything. If we take this problem seriously, and follow out its implications, it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture."
-Mind & Cosmos
 
I haven't followed this guy Dunnning, but without knowing about his case what about this radical idea; we consider the points the guy is making, instead of the guy himself? Let's say he's guilty of fraud, I'd be against that, but would ask what it had to do with any other point he's making about any other subject. I guess a lot of the ancient greek philosophers would be what we'd now consider gay pedophiles, right?
And I'd also say I'm not into that, but would consider the points they're making about actual topics. In the above messages I don't see any point from him at all on any subject.

Dunnings arguments certainly have to speak for themselves. That said, while few of us escape hyprosisy completely, his hypocrisy is particularly egregious here and his crime particularly serious. Reason enough not to support his projects anymore, such as listening to his podcast.
 
What! Is it true? Are atheist scum-bags resorting to fraud in the pursuit of "truth"? I thought the whole purpose of atheism was to destroy hope and happiness because there wasn't evidence to support it. I had no idea that these atheist bags of viral human garbage were not motivated by truth, but by the desire to ruin other people's lives. I wish we could strip some of them of their American citizenship and kick their ass out of the country, but that's not my call.
 
I think Ghost is being honest about the psychological impact materialist evangelism has had on him personally.

I don't think this makes him a moral backbone - anymore than a skeptic's life story of their suffering under religion does* - but it does suggest the skeptical enterprise may not be as universally beneficial or liberating as they claim.

*"No one deserves to be subjected to the appalling instruments of cruelty. Nevertheless, even at the cost of misanthropy, one cannot afford to pretend that victimhood improves anyone in any way. If we do not remember that anyone can be a victim, and if we allow hatred for torture, or pity for pain, to blind us, we will unwittingly aid the torturers of tomorrow by overrating the victims of today. One may be too easily tempted to think of all victims as equally innocent because there cannot, by definition, be a voluntary victim. That may have the consequence of promoting an endless exchange of cruelties between alternating tormentors and victims."


-Judith N. Shklar
 
Back
Top