Debunking Psychics: Is It Exposure?

I was listening to a podcast a while back featuring the slightly astonishing Randi.
In it the discussed how some magicians opposed exposing psychics, like Uri Geller, because it gave away magicians secrets.

Personally I've demonstrated how spoonbending works and explained stuff like the blindfold trick and psychic surgery.
Will I still get into the Magic Circle?

So thoughts? Opinions?

6th

Tell how a trick is done for whatever reason is exposure. Some people use the secrecy to there advantage, knowing that many wont out them.

Fair point.
Perhaps I should rephrase: Is it justifiable exposure?

6th

It depends on the reasons for exposing the person? Of course saying how an effect "can" be achieved does not mean that is how its being achieved.

I feel it's justified when a person is using obvious sleight of hand/ mentalism to take advantage of peoples beliefs. Uri Gellar, Sylvia Brown, John Edwards and other TV psychics. And especially this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reported_miracles

More often then not most people won't accept the "a magician can do it too" unless you show them. Since many of these effects are well beyond my level (cept spoonbending, I'm awesome at that.) I feel it's necessary to explain how the trick is done.

You're right though, while magicians can replicate all of the effects psychics show it does not mean that's how it's done.
I think Houdini made that fallacy, by offering a sum of money to anyone who could demonstrate an effect he couldn't replicate.

However, when an effect looks or sounds exactly like how a magician would do it and the effect is taking place in a setting that does not exclude trickery(i.e. not in a scientifically controlled one), it's a fairly safe bet it's a magic trick.

Does anyone actually know idoes the Magic Circle counts it as exposure? I've heard they're pretty strict about it.

6th

I'll ask what their stance is on it. I know they actually have a section dedicated to the Paranormal.