Originally posted by 1llum1n471
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Why are they "special"? Again, I believe that "Indigo Children" are wishful thinking. I think 90% of all people claiming to be psychic are good
listeners and very observant, etc., but I think there are strange and sporadically observable events of what some would consider "psychic" powers.
When animals do it (go to the hills before a tsunami) it is just a weird thing animals do, when people do it we assume they're lying.
They are not special but they do claim special/extraordinary powers. If they do have such powers it is best to have them tested not only to prove
that they are not deceiving others but to further science.
I hope that I can put my thoughts into words correctly on this one, so bear with me but a moment...
Animals and some of what we would consider a "primitive" tribe of humans literally sensed the tsunami before it occurred and went for higher ground.
This is not "paranormal", but it is prescient. Animal signs are among "evidence" of natural disasters, but because it is not 100% accurate you
aren't going to run for your life if you see a lack of animals running about.
There are extraordinary things in this world that are not always repeatable in a way that would fit the "test", and yet they exist and have been
observed for countless years.
I don't mind educated skeptics, or even uneducated, questioning, friendly skeptics. My problem is with people like James Randi who use snark like
its a superpower, and honestly have no idea what they are talking about half the time, just standing on the shoulders of real scientific giants and
using their credentials.
You can be skeptical and gentle.
Yes, I agree to a point. There are skeptics and pseudo-skeptics. Randi is Randi. He has a style about him and after looking at his story it is a
bit more understandable why he has become a bit more sarcastic. After devoting so many years to try to prove the paranormal only to run into one
fraud after another you can see that one could become a bit cynical about the entire thing. However, Randi still has kept an open mind, very
important don't you think?
I do not feel he has an open mind, no. I think this is where you would have to prove it to me by extraordinary measures. You are not dismissive. He
is dismissive. In these short posts I can measure what a difference your respective characters.
I would also object to the claim that Randi is standing on the shoulders of real scientific giants. Randi was a conjurer and that is where he
learned or developed many techniques thereby giving him intimate knowledge of what some of these hucksters try to pull.
If they are indeed,
I witnessed a three year old girl tell my best friend something about her mother who had passed on. She knew not my friend, or the girl's mother
prior to this "encounter". Yet, she knew the person's name, knew where an item was located in her house (that we verified after the fact), and a
few other things she absolutely could not have known. My friend was keen to know more but it was a one shot deal and even the girl could not remember
having said it.
Was the child a "huckster"? No. She couldn't have known any of it, least of all this very uncommon first name or where the lost item was when
even we did not know it.
Could we get her to repeat it? No. My friend was desperate for more information, having lost this person who meant so much to her but the child went
back to acting like a regular three year old.
I witnessed this firsthand. Now, I don't expect you to believe it. You were not there. I just know what I saw and it was one of the few times I
couldn't call a "read".
I have this other friend who thinks she's psychic, but she's just very good with reading people. She's not a huckster, either, but for a different
reason. She believes
she's psychic. She's not trying to hurt anyone.
There is a longstanding tradition of magicians exposing frauds. Remember Houdini?
If they are, indeed, frauds. There have been several people who have claimed that they were treated unfairly by Randi. As I know none of these
people personally, I can't say for sure if this is the case. I just know that there are two sides to each story and having seen Randi talk about
"double blind studies" when he first started asking for them I knew he had not one clue about what that actually was. He has since been educated,
that is obvious, but some of the items he suggested for double blind was unnecessary because it would not have been called for in another study.
However, I can see you are passionate about Randi, and enjoy reading his work and I think that is fabu (not being facetious). You seem very square
and I wish you the best.