Comment on new Consumer Protection Regulations

Clairvoyants, palmists and astrologers are up in arms about new regulations that recently came into force.  The Consumer Protection Regulations, which will be enforced by the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards, tighten controls on disreputable trading practices and legislate against businesses making claims without providing supporting evidence. Clairvoyants and other mystics are concerned that the regulations will also affect them, by asking them to provide evidence for the claims and predictions they make during readings.

On the surface, the new regulations seem like a victory for rationalists and the evidence-based approach, with mystics having to give a disclaimer that there is no evidence they can predict the future and readings are ‘for entertainment purposes only’. The reality though, is that what scientific evidence really means, and why it is important, stands only to be diminished by this legislation.

The legislation is very broad; it encompasses everything from door to door salesmen to clairvoyants and mystics, from aggressive, unfair commercial practices to regulating products that claim to have curative capacities. What evidence means in each case is quite different—proving that a sale lasted for three and not five days is a different ball game to demonstrating the efficacy of medical treatments. If a product needs to provide evidence that it will cure insomnia, there will have to be peer reviewed papers, double-blind studies, consideration of the placebo effect and repeated studies showing similar results. This will require expert assessment and careful appraisal of all evidence. Proving the length of time a sale existed requires none of these things.  Treating all sales practices as if they need equivalent evidence devalues the true meaning of ‘scientifically-proven’.

For the thousands of astrologers, psychics, palmists and other mystics across the country potentially affected by these regulations there are other concerns. Unlike dodgy salesmen, these people are rarely vilified by the public—those who don’t believe in their abilities simply don’t visit them. For those that do, it is not scientific evidence that matters, but faith or entertainment. So is an evidence-based approach really useful in these cases?

The promotion of an evidence-based approach should be used to equip people with the tools they need to evaluate claims and make decisions for themselves. Endowing people with the ability to weigh up evidence and form an opinion creates a society equipped for healthy scepticism, whilst legislation, even such a broad one as this, is limited to the particular cases it covers.

It is for individuals to decide if, despite the lack of scientific basis for crystal balls or tarot cards, they choose to place their faith in them.

    Last updated: July 02 2008