Psychics And The Paranormal

[Dave]

True.I made this thread to be a critical thinking tool(mainly for myself). My questions were for the sole purpose of being discredited.

And I think I have done a fair job in discrediting some of what has been said here and have done my best not to discredit any PERSON. As seen here all some people can do when their core beliefs are questioned they attack the person questioning them. Since those people have gone away I think those of us left have had an intelligent, mature, exchange of ideas.

I really want nothing to do with religion and the supernatural. If we needed all of this supernatural guidance and intervention then why do we exist in a physical realm?

 

Honestly, I see and hear the opinions of fundie and religious faithful on a daily basis. You can't turn around and NOT hear it. I find it refreshing to read the opinions of vocal atheists. The opinions on this site help balance things out, for me.

I'm glad to have helped. Look at those arguments the fundies use. Can you see some of them here?

[dibby]

Vigile I don,t think anyone has a problem with skeptical enquiry, or using rational thought. Skepticism and doubt are essential to stop us believing any old thing.What I personally have a problem with is the agressive, and disrespectful rubbishing of peoples points of view, experiences, or alternative takes on things that some on the thread seem to display. Adhering to one particular point of view and attacking others with an opposing point of view as adherents of "pseudo science" or a "flawed" approach is not genuine, open minded skepticism in my view.

 

Areas, like the paranormal are a real mine field. The subject is controversial. There is much research still ongoing. So it seems that the verdict is still out. Not all scientists share the same point of view. The Institute of Noetic Science, for instance is doing research on the sujects of consciousness, healing and other psi subjects. However, someone with a materialist science world view seems to view such approaches as "pseudo science". Or says that if the result shows a positive effect then the experiment must have been flawed somehow. So how can we get past all this? Interpretation of results can be open to bias either way, because the interpretations will be coloured by the prevailing world view of the interpreters; even statistical analysis can be argued about endlessly.

 

There are other problems too... I mean ghosts don,t seem to be amenable to appearing at will, so how on earth do you scientifically investigate something like this? And if you do go into a haunted house to try and properly investigate will you just be labelled a crank, performing pseudo science?

 

So what would constitute good evidence? How can we get it using the scientific method that wouldn,t be just labelled "cranky" or "flawed" in some way?

[Vigile]

Dibby, I'm afraid my answers will just be more of those along the lines of making accusations of psuedo science. Pushed hard enough I can attempt to back that up, but I've probably ruffled enough feathers here. From what I've studied over the years I just can't make room for the claim that the jury is still out on these issues, because I don't think that it is.

[Dave]

.... Adhering to one particular point of view and attacking others with an opposing point of view as adherents of "pseudo science" or a "flawed" approach is not genuine, open minded skepticism in my view.

I'm not adhering to any point of view - I'm the only one here asking for proof. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then why not call it a duck? If it is pseudo science then what's wrong with being honest and calling it that? If the logic behind it is flawed, then why not be honest and say so? And if you go read all my replies I have attacked no one (except those that attacked me). I attack the topic, not the person. If I disagree with the person that is in no way an personal attack.

Areas, like the paranormal are a real mine field. The subject is controversial. There is much research still ongoing. So it seems that the verdict is still out. Not all scientists share the same point of view.

So? All that means nothing. In most scientific circles the subject is not controversial and the verdict has come it; junk science.

The Institute of Noetic Science, for instance is doing research on the sujects of consciousness, healing and other psi subjects.....

They do not represent, in any way, mainstream science. Just because a bunch of people on the fringe claim something doesn't make it true.

There are other problems too... I mean ghosts don,t seem to be amenable to appearing at will, so how on earth do you scientifically investigate something like this? And if you do go into a haunted house to try and properly investigate will you just be labelled a crank, performing pseudo science?

For good reason too. Ghosts do not exist. For them to exist several laws of physics would have to be rewritten or thrown out. Science is not willing to do that based on a bunch of claims or bashful ghosts.

So what would constitute good evidence? How can we get it using the scientific method that wouldn,t be just labelled "cranky" or "flawed" in some way?

What would constitute good evidence is a ghost. See the problem here? They want to be taken seriously but they also want an excuse to not abide by the rules of the scientific method. You cannot have both. Any proof, or even evidence, of anything PSI would work but so far none has been presented that stands up to any kind of honest inquiry. As soon as they can present evidence that can stand up to this, then they'll be taken seriously.

 

When do you stop looking for unicorns?

[truth]

As someone who useto really believe in the paranormal and good and evil spirts, I am on the fence in what I believe if there are ghosts out there or negative energy left over.... I would personally feel much better not to belive any of this stuff because it is really freaky if it does exsit.

 

Can someone help me out in this deconversion process and explain to me exactly what physical laws would have to be broken for ghosts to exsist. I know this is a dumb question, but really would love some answers over here..and no I was never any good at science in school.

 

I work with two coworkers who swear ghosts exsist....and I am trying to convince myself and them rather poorly too that there is no such thing..... Help please..

[Dave]

As someone who useto really believe in the paranormal and good and evil spirts, I am on the fence in what I believe if there are ghosts out there or negative energy left over.... I would personally feel much better not to belive any of this stuff because it is really freaky if it does exsit.

Don't feel bad, for some old beliefs are hard to shed. It takes awhile to get used to new ways of thinking. Don't be hard on yourself.

Can someone help me out in this deconversion process and explain to me exactly what physical laws would have to be broken for ghosts to exsist. I know this is a dumb question, but really would love some answers over here..and no I was never any good at science in school.

They move around, some are said to walk around, but they are not physical so how do they get traction to move? Where do they get their energy? How do they use this energy? What are the byproducts of their energy use? Since there is no "energy" left over when the body dies, where did they get their energy to begin with? If they are energy, how can they communicate since they have no vocal chords to speak with or anything physical to rap on tables with? How can energy do what they claim it does?

 

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, so someone else better informed in that area could give you the exact names of the laws being broken.

I work with two coworkers who swear ghosts exsist....and I am trying to convince myself and them rather poorly too that there is no such thing..... Help please..

Just tell them to produce one for questioning and examination. As I've been doing here, ask for proof.

[SpaceMonk]

OK. I apologise to LosingMyReligion if it seems I'm trying to hijack this thread. I know you didn't set it up for this, but now that I've gotten involved I can't just walk away. We both want to be thorough, so anyway...

 

You have dismissed this case without noticing the details. You assume it is just like every other OBE you've seen dismissed before.

I'm fully aware of such arguments against OBE's, that is why this particular case intrigues me.

This is a women who was blind from birth, yet during her OBE is able to see...

Again, I have not dismissed OBEs. Where have I said they never happen? I've even posted a link to a scientific explanation of NDE's and I can find on on OBEs if you wish. Here is something to read on OBE's. OBE's happen, it is the magical properties people give them that I am dismissing.

Firstly, why are you selectively reading my posts, trying to spin what I said?

I clearly said 'this case', not OBE's in general.

 

I found this: (...snip...)

A blind woman "seeing perfectly" would have had a critical implication.

Secondly, yes, that's my point.

The doco I mentioned was a UK documentary, and so was obviously not included in this 'small sample' in Australia (of course, yes, I saw it in Australia).

 

Which ones? All of the ones I pointed too?

Where?

I'm quite sure they won't stand up to cynical enquiry. Nothing ever does.

Skeptical enquiry is a different matter though, as mentioned in the challenge to skeptics I mentioned, and you ignored, which specifically mentions James Randi's challenge and Csicop.

If they can't stand up to cynical inquiry, then it wouldn't stand up to any but cursory inquiry.

I see.

This must be our philosophical difference.

You seem quite prepared to throw out anything that doesn't have evidence. That sounds fair enough, and, along with common sense, is usually a safe bet.

To me it's like executing someone without a fair trial though.

 

My philosophy is, along with common sense, not to throw anything out until I am sure it has been disproved.

This doesn't mean I 'believe' everything and anything I come across until it is disproved - it just means I withhold judgement.

I wait until there is something to push it one way or the other.

I know it's a lot slower than 'guilty until proven innocent', but I think the final results are more reliable.

 

Not everybody who's interested in spirituality or the paranormal is hanging onto the same old bunk that the debunkers have already debunked. Some people are aware of what hads been debunked and are honest enough to move on, yet are still aware of what hasn't.

That's right. I am aware of what has been debunked and I've moved on.

Again you have selectively read what I wrote, ignoring that I added, "yet are still aware of what hasn't."

No, but that's right everything has been explained.

 

All of science is based on "debunking." That's what they do. One scientists does some studies, makes a proposal, publishes his stuff and everyone else tries to tear it apart. If they can't, then it stands until someone does tear it apart. Science does not go around just believing things because another scientist says so. Cold fusion is a good example of that.

Yes, I know. I'm not opposed to science.

 

Still, I don't say I 'believe' in reincarnation. I don't say that about anything. I learned my lesson when I dumped my belief in christianity. I just think there is some intriguing evidence that can't be dismissed so easily.

From my years at college, and many years after that of reading; reincarnation has been dumped. There is no known method for reincarnation to work and there is nothing pointing to anything that might make it work.

Except for all the studies mentioned in the link I gave...

 

OK. Here's where the quotes starting breaking down, so I'm going to try in a new post.

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.

However I didn't see much in there to contradict the information in the episode of the Paracast I mentioned, in which an RV'er gives his personal story and successful examples that can't be dismissed so easily.

- and that Csicop article seemed to revolve around one particular case, which it admits wasn't even proper RV.

All I can say is that I will ALWAYS take the word of a scientist over that of some guy giving personal anecdotes on a tv show.

It's not a TV show. It's an online radio show that you are still able to listen to if you want, at the link I already gave.

...and he's not just 'some guy'. He's a first hand witness and participant, at least worthy of a listen, don't you think?

 

.....Anyway, I'm no expert but as I understand it, seeing without physical eyes would be more of an extra-sensory 'knowing'.

You can hear a good explanation of how a similar phenomenon seems to work in that Paracast episode I recommended on Remote Viewing.

Why do you believe what was said in that "paracast"? Why are you skeptical, cynical, of anything that does not agree with the paracast?

 

Don't answer those questions, just think about them.

Sorry, I've thought about them, and I will answer.

Why do you assume I'm swallowing everything on the Paracast? Actually I think they're more your type of guy's.

I don't agree with everything I hear on that show though, there's all kinds of weirdness going on, but the hosts are pretty honest.

 

I only recommend it because the guy presented good evidence, which I have not seen countered, in fact he explains more of the story than in the Csicop article you linked to, re. further light on why the program was really shut down, what precautions are taken to improve reliability, reasons why it doesn't seem acceptable to regular scientists, etc.

He seems a rational unafraid and open person.

BUT, notice I never said I 'believe' him. I just say that I don't see any reason to throw his testimony away.

You, however, seem prepared to dismiss him without even hearing what he says?

Sorry, but, even though he goes against your Cscientists (and explains himself as to why, capably), I'm OK with giving the guy a fair go.

Again, that comes down to the philosophical difference I see between the two of us.

[Dave]

....

I found this: (...snip...)

A blind woman "seeing perfectly" would have had a critical implication.

Secondly, yes, that's my point.

The doco I mentioned was a UK documentary, and so was obviously not included in this 'small sample' in Australia (of course, yes, I saw it in Australia).

That was a UK documentary about the study done in Australia. And since they found nothing that had critical implications tells me that nothing out of the ordinary happened. More than likely what happened was the story grew at each retelling.

If they can't stand up to cynical inquiry, then it wouldn't stand up to any but cursory inquiry.

I see.

This must be our philosophical difference.

You seem quite prepared to throw out anything that doesn't have evidence. That sounds fair enough, and, along with common sense, is usually a safe bet.

To me it's like executing someone without a fair trial though.

Without any evidence the person would not be executed. Are you trying to say that if there is no evidence we should believe? Or keep believing until evidence is found? As I've asked before; when do we stop looking for unicorns?

My philosophy is, along with common sense, not to throw anything out until I am sure it has been disproved.....

I am sure it has been disproved.

Again you have selectively read what I wrote, ignoring that I added.....

I'm sorry, I ignored nothing until now. When the attacks start getting personal, I stop reading. Just because I didn't reply to something, or requote everything ad nauseam doesn't mean I ignored it.

[SpaceMonk]

That was a UK documentary about the study done in Australia. And since they found nothing that had critical implications tells me that nothing out of the ordinary happened. More than likely what happened was the story grew at each retelling.

'More than likely'?

It was not a retelling. It was the woman herself, in person, on the show.

I don't recall it being about an Australian study, rather it was about NDE's in general and the effects they've had on certain peoples lives. I only brought up this one because of it's unique nature (at least to me).

 

Are you trying to say that if there is no evidence we should believe?

No. Did you not read my post?

I was quite clear that I would not say 'I believe', yet neither would I just dismiss it.

 

Or keep believing until evidence is found?

No. I was quite clear that I would not say 'I believe' either way, until evidence is found.

 

As I've asked before; when do we stop looking for unicorns?

No need to keep looking. They've all been raptured.

 

Again you have selectively read what I wrote, ignoring that I added.....

I'm sorry, I ignored nothing until now. When the attacks start getting personal, I stop reading. Just because I didn't reply to something, or requote everything ad nauseam doesn't mean I ignored it.

Sorry, you have ignored plenty.

I told you exactly what you ignored, and made it very plain and obvious.

I was not attacking you, just rebutting what seems like a spin on my words in order to create a false impression of me as one of your standard woo woo's.

[trashy]

I see.

This must be our philosophical difference.

You seem quite prepared to throw out anything that doesn't have evidence. That sounds fair enough, and, along with common sense, is usually a safe bet.

To me it's like executing someone without a fair trial though.

 

My philosophy is, along with common sense, not to throw anything out until I am sure it has been disproved.

This doesn't mean I 'believe' everything and anything I come across until it is disproved - it just means I withhold judgement.

I wait until there is something to push it one way or the other.

I know it's a lot slower than 'guilty until proven innocent', but I think the final results are more reliable.

 

I will respond to this post, instead of your previous reply to me. Although I may have had you confused with another poster, I think your response here illustrates my problem in debating these issues with you.

 

I'm wondering how you ever became an ex-Christian? God can never be technically disproven, and since you never throw anything out until you are sure it has been disproved.......

 

 

Me, I approach life from the opposite viewpoint. Take ghosts, spirits, afterlife, supernatural entities, etc. I believe the preponderance of evidence to date is that any evidence ever brought forward for such has been thoroughly debunked and/or disproven. Bible? It is undoubtedly the single-most prevalent piece of evidence for the supernatural and it has been shown to be so full of holes as to be no more useful for supernatural proof than any other work of fiction. The same can be said for every other piece of evidence ever proffered. The only evidence not debunked or disproven is generally that which is the newest, which has not yet been debunked. Instead of spending my time wondering if proof will surface, I choose to go with the VAST MAJORITY of the current evidence and NOT believe. You, on the other hand, choose to merely acknowledge the 99% and focus on the 1%, or the latest thread of hope offered, and say "See, it might still be possible!" At what point do you give up on it? Ever? It just seems to me to be a very frustrating way to live and reminds me too much of constantly waiting for Jesus to reappear to take me to heaven....

[Dave]

That was a UK documentary about the study done in Australia. And since they found nothing that had critical implications tells me that nothing out of the ordinary happened. More than likely what happened was the story grew at each retelling.

'More than likely'?

It was not a retelling. It was the woman herself, in person, on the show.....

I'm ignoring a bunch more. There is no way I am going to take the word of some unknown people on some radio program over that of the main body of science. It's a nice anecdote but it proves nothing. If this alleged woman was blind, how would she know she "saw perfectly" since she would have no way of knowing what seeing perfectly is? The story is too incredible to have any credibility.

[dibby]

Hi Vigile. Don,t worry about ruffling feathers...it does them good to get an airing!

 

And Hi Dave! I apologise for assuming you were a fundy christian. My assumption was wrong.

 

For what its worth I do value the opinions of people who have different points of view. It certainly really does me good....it makes me think much harder about things, and that can only be good.

 

The problem I have is that there is so much anecdotal evidence for paranormal activity.

Don,t think I believe any old thing....coz I don,t. In my own experience I think much of mediumship, psychics foretelling the future, ouija boards (if you blind fold the people they don,t work, as far as I know) is rubbish. I am very skeptical about peoples spirit guides, having access to angels to get parking spaces...it just doesn,t make any sense! I mean an angel can get some psychic a parking spot...but the angels are apparently unable to save a child from being killed by a car!!

There clearly is much nonsense taught. And some people make alot of money from other peoples misfortune.

 

 

 

If anything I think that alot of people in the New Age are not skeptical enough. People ditch superstitious christianity and then go on to superstitious new age things.

 

The thing is I don,t think that people who report something paranormal are always 100% of the time mistaken or lying.

 

And the other problem is that anyone investigating it appears to be marginalised or regarded as fringe or whatever.

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

Let me know if you see a ghost though Dave won,t you? And you can be sure I will let you know as soon as I see a unicorn!

[truth]

OK... so I tommorow I will ask my coworkers to prove to me that ghosts exist and bring me some sort of evidence.

 

HHhhm Dave you bring an interesting point, of how something with no physical body can move something or make a sound with no vocal cords.

 

I went out to the bookstore tonight and got a bunch of books...(which I should really leave around to let my fundy mother find them....and then I wouldn't have to tell I don't believe anymore) any how I got the book The Demon- Haunted World- Science As A Candel In The Darkness- by Carl Sagan... and a few other books as well to keep me busy and thinking.

[HadouKen24]

Eh, I've just had too many experiences that skeptics would say aren't possible to be able to deny that certain things exist. Skeptics can rant all they like, but it won't change the fact that I--and not I alone, but others as well--have experienced things that are not explicable by current scientific theories.

[truth]

Could you elaborate a bit more on what experiences you have experienced to believe that certain things do exist?

 

I would really like more info...

 

I have used the same argument for the belief in god,jesus and the trinity and still have come to this point of disbelief. I too had many religious experiences that at the time validatied my beliefs, and encouraged my spirtitual growth and learning. But those experiences alone cannot determine my values and beliefs and does not mean that I experienced what I thought I experienced either.

 

I am not denying that you had thease experiences, but would like a better explanation of what thease experiences were.

[Dave]

And Hi Dave! I apologise for assuming you were a fundy christian. My assumption was wrong.

No problem. For the record, I was born an Atheist and was just lucky enough to stay that way.

For what its worth I do value the opinions of people who have different points of view. It certainly really does me good....it makes me think much harder about things, and that can only be good.

The mind is a "muscle." You have to exercise it or lose it. It seems that your exercising pretty good.

.....If anything I think that alot of people in the New Age are not skeptical enough. People ditch superstitious christianity and then go on to superstitious new age things.

 

The thing is I don,t think that people who report something paranormal are always 100% of the time mistaken or lying.

People certainly are not skeptical enough. Some of the people talking about the paranormal are not lying since they don't know any better. They actually believe what they are saying. Some are only lying to, or fooling, themselves. Dakota, a poster here, said he was doing such a thing. Also there are many people that are prone to such beliefs. Their personality and way of thinking just soaks it up and they believe and nothing can get them to change.

And the other problem is that anyone investigating it appears to be marginalised or regarded as fringe or whatever.

It is not the person, but the excuses they keep giving. They present no proofs but make lots of claims. To be taken seriously by science they must play by the rules. So far they want to be exempted from the rules. The scientific method may not be the best method of finding out about the natural world and how it works, but it is the best we have for now.

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

Let me know if you see a ghost though Dave won,t you? And you can be sure I will let you know as soon as I see a unicorn!

My ex mother in law haunts me, but she isn't a ghost yet.

 

 

OK... so I tommorow I will ask my coworkers to prove to me that ghosts exist and bring me some sort of evidence.

 

HHhhm Dave you bring an interesting point, of how something with no physical body can move something or make a sound with no vocal cords.

 

I went out to the bookstore tonight and got a bunch of books...(which I should really leave around to let my fundy mother find them....and then I wouldn't have to tell I don't believe anymore) any how I got the book The Demon- Haunted World- Science As A Candle In The Darkness- by Carl Sagan... and a few other books as well to keep me busy and thinking.

It sounds like you're well on your way. Thinking is all it takes. That Sagan book is a great one. You'll love it.

 

 

Eh, I've just had too many experiences that skeptics would say aren't possible to be able to deny that certain things exist. Skeptics can rant all they like, but it won't change the fact that I--and not I alone, but others as well--have experienced things that are not explicable by current scientific theories.

No one here will deny that you had any experiences. Why should a skeptic, or science, have to explain everything? What is questioned is not your experience, but the causes of it. Many people believe they can talk to a god because that is what they firmly believe. That doesn't mean that science has to explain anything about their god. Science does not have to explain what you believe you experienced.

[Kurari]

Eh, I've just had too many experiences that skeptics would say aren't possible to be able to deny that certain things exist. Skeptics can rant all they like, but it won't change the fact that I--and not I alone, but others as well--have experienced things that are not explicable by current scientific theories.

 

I watched a very interesting show the other night on Bigfoot. I live in the Pacific Northwest, so the legend is really huge out here. They were talking about the footprint casts at one point, and were saying a fingerprint expert for the police in Texas who has also studied prints of primates asked to do an analasys on the casts. He found interesting similarities between several of them when a bunch of them had been taken at least 700 miles apart. Mostly to do with pressure ridges that all primates have on the foot.

 

I thought that detail was a very interesting detail find for casts found by several different people in several different states (provided that the show was reporting the truth). I'm still not convinced in the legend of Bigfoot, but I'm not that hard of a skeptic.

[trashy]

I watched a very interesting show the other night on Bigfoot. I live in the Pacific Northwest, so the legend is really huge out here. They were talking about the footprint casts at one point, and were saying a fingerprint expert for the police in Texas who has also studied prints of primates asked to do an analasys on the casts. He found interesting similarities between several of them when a bunch of them had been taken at least 700 miles apart. Mostly to do with pressure ridges that all primates have on the foot.

 

I thought that detail was a very interesting detail find for casts found by several different people in several different states (provided that the show was reporting the truth). I'm still not convinced in the legend of Bigfoot, but I'm not that hard of a skeptic.

 

Bigfoot Lives

[SpaceMonk]

 

I'm wondering how you ever became an ex-Christian? God can never be technically disproven, and since you never throw anything out until you are sure it has been disproved.......

 

 

The concept of 'a God' may not be, but the christian god is piss easy.

Practically all other gods of the worlds religions can be written off using similar arguments, based on common sense.

 

I may hang onto the "1%" as you say, not as a 'belief', yet not simply out of hope either.

Just out of honesty to myself and a sense of duty to all possible truth.

 

I'm a full spectrum rebel at heart, so no matter what system of reality I think could be the real deal, I'll always resent its negatives, and be looking for an alternative / ideal (if there is a purpose to life I think that may be something to do with it... ie. never being satisfied. Then again it could be the complete opposite...?) - even with things like reincarnation, etc.

[The Sage Nabooru]

Areas, like the paranormal are a real mine field. The subject is controversial. There is much research still ongoing. So it seems that the verdict is still out. Not all scientists share the same point of view. The Institute of Noetic Science, for instance is doing research on the sujects of consciousness, healing and other psi subjects. However, someone with a materialist science world view seems to view such approaches as "pseudo science". Or says that if the result shows a positive effect then the experiment must have been flawed somehow. So how can we get past all this? Interpretation of results can be open to bias either way, because the interpretations will be coloured by the prevailing world view of the interpreters; even statistical analysis can be argued about endlessly.

 

That is the problem with the majority of views on just about everything that could be put forward as "supernatural" or "metaphysical".

 

An organization like PSICOP, for example, goes into every "investigation" already knowing the answer that they have decided upon before even reviewing the subject. They already know that every bit of "research" they do into the subject will "disprove" it because that is precisely what they are looking for. Any "evidence" by any other entity that perhaps goes against the preconceived conclusion will be either dumped as "junk science" or even be accused of being made-up and direct lies.

 

People who swear by the power of Sylvia Browne will seek out evidence that goes along with their line of thinking; people who think she's full of bunk will seek out evidence showing otherwise.

 

Anybody who sets out from the onset to "prove" or "disprove" anything invariably fails in achieving any real scientific progress, because the "research" will always go along the lines of what the "researcher" already thinks is so.

 

A believer in psychic clairvoyance, then, brings up "research" showing their point of view to be correct, and the "researchers" involved being truly honest and unbiased people. It might be a little uncanny that every time such-and-such a ghosthunter enters any building they find spirits inside, no matter how mundane, but that's what they want to believe. Meanwhile the deep skeptic believes that any "research" done by a skeptical organization or group determined to disprove all supernatural claims as being totally complete and inpartial in nature.

 

I prefer to take a middle road. I don't consider all cures miraculous, or all "haunts" as genuine, or all gurus as spiritual genii. But I don't consider them impossible, either. I would say that if you provide me with pretty good evidence I'd have an open mind to the possibility that it's real. I think it's probably a mistake to assume that everyone who claims to have a paranormal experience is lying - but it would also be a mistake to assume that they're all telling the truth. I guess my philosophy is to take each case and judge it individually. Perhaps I seek out answers in the same way everyone else does - but I suppose in that case there's really not much else to do in such a field.

[dibby]

I echo what you have said Sage. I,m not much on all or nothing thinking either.

[LosingMyReligion]

Space Monk, don't worry about hijacking my thread. I am actually thrilled that it garnered this many responses...lol.

 

Since I opened it I've been studying alot of things, and there is an answer for everything that I formerly believed in.

[Dave]

An organization like PSICOP, for example, goes into every "investigation" already knowing the answer that they have decided upon before even reviewing the subject. They already know that every bit of "research" they do into the subject will "disprove" it because that is precisely what they are looking for. Any "evidence" by any other entity that perhaps goes against the preconceived conclusion will be either dumped as "junk science" or even be accused of being made-up and direct lies.

That is so not true, it's funny. If what CSICOP was investigating was done right, and followed all the rules, they would have no choice but to accept the finding. If there were no lies, they couldn't find any. If there was no junk science, they couldn't fine any.

People who swear by the power of Sylvia Browne will seek out evidence that goes along with their line of thinking; people who think she's full of bunk will seek out evidence showing otherwise.

If there was no bunk there, none could be found. The problem is that she puts out lots of bunk so it's quite easy to find, all one has to do is open their mind.

[Lorena Rodriguez]

I prefer to take a middle road. I don't consider all cures miraculous, or all "haunts" as genuine, or all gurus as spiritual genii. But I don't consider them impossible, either. I would say that if you provide me with pretty good evidence I'd have an open mind to the possibility that it's real. I think it's probably a mistake to assume that everyone who claims to have a paranormal experience is lying - but it would also be a mistake to assume that they're all telling the truth. I guess my philosophy is to take each case and judge it individually. Perhaps I seek out answers in the same way everyone else does - but I suppose in that case there's really not much else to do in such a field.

 

I only believe what I can experience. I figure that if the psychics "can" tell me the future, why can't I read my own future? If it were true that it happens, then I should be able to learn about myself, at least.

 

On the other hand, I really don't care to know the future, so, why bother with it?

 

I do not believe in anything that I have to pay money for. But if it is free I can experiment with it.

For example, I like meditation and visualization because I have found them helpful and I can practice on my own. In essence, I do not trust anything labeled paranormal unless it is so normal that I don't need outside help to experiment with it and to arrive at my very own conclusions.