<HTML>Hi Garrett,
What I was attempting to convey with my comment was based upon my own belief (factual knowledge?) that from a psychological standpoint the individual has to be the one to desire (choose) to change how they think or what they believe before they will actually incorporate the change into their psyche. Until that personal choice is made, no amount of proof, logic, etc. will *force* the individual into doing so... and even though to others that individual will appear to be *ignoring reality (the facts, the truth)* and will seem stupid, stubborn, etc., even the name calling will do nothing to elicit a positive result. If one accepts the above opinion (fact, as far as I'm concerned) of the psychological dynamics of humans, then one must question whether there would be any point in arguing with a devout Southern (USA) Christian over the accuracy of the Bible, or a scientist over the dangers of faith based conclusions, or a troubled spouse/relative over their troubled psyche resulting from insufficient closure with the deceased. As a further example of my point, I would in no way ever attempt to change the thinking of my strict Catholic aunt... she is happy with her life (worldview)... who am I to tell her that she needs to alter that happiness because it is not based upon what the scientific community calls factual science? And even if in some twisted way I did believe that it was my duty to *save* her from her own misconceptions (ie, that my worldview was the only accurate one, which I know better than to believe), hasn't her birth into humanity given her the right for free choice in what she chooses for final belief... whether I agree with her or not? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to believe that all such people are just misguided fools with thinking capacities insufficient to understand that they are misguided fools? And finally, who am I to determine that their happiness in life (philosophy of life) has to be achieved thru my version of reality? Do I recognize the dangers when a majority of people follow a severely distorted version of reality? Of course. Do I recognize that sincere people are often victimized by insincere frauds, and that those on the *outside* have better perspective for recognizing the fraud and should feel some responsibility for addressing the issue? Of course. But do I want either fundamentalist Muslems or Bible Belt Christians telling me how to live my life because to them I am the one in need of directional help? That is all I meant by the can of worms... but perhaps a nest of wasps would be a better analogy... because best intentions can also result in negative outcomes for those who were intended to be *saved*.
In response to your specific questions, I do not know if any closure has been documented... it was simply mentioned as a posibility by the producers of the show I mentioned, and I sometimes felt like I was viewing a type of *body language* relief by some of the people (let's just leave this one as a personal opinionated observation).
As to the skeptic's true motive, the reasons will be as varied as the skeptics, including your well intentioned motivation... however, to think mankind will ever completely eradicate dishonesty/fraud is an illogically based motivation (imho). I have no trouble with the idea of trying to maintain an equilibrium however.
As to the morality of the trickery for the purpose of making a living... do I need say anything more than the fact that it has always been next to impossible to define morality in any capitalistic terms... the psychic frauds are far from the only tricksters out there!!!
Always enjoyable to communicate with others on such ideas. Thanks for the chance.
Litz</HTML>
