reply to post by definity
LOL at opinion, which part of "Scientific Fact" do you not think is correct?
Opinion and "Scientific fact" are 2 different words/phrase's completely, which defines them as 2 different meanings.
I did not say opinions I said "Fact" which is defined by Dictionary.com as the following:
"something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact"
OK - let me try to clarify this for you. Yes, you are correct that there are facts, and then there are opinions. If you'll refer back to my prior
statement, I acknowledged that not all supposed paranormal experiences are that, and to spell it clearly for you, with that I'm acknowledging that
Ideomotor effect and various other things are absolutely real and definitely valid explanation for at least SOME cases.
Hopefully you're clear on that bit so far.
My problem is when you say things like this:
No not alternative. It's the only explanation. It is all science and psychology. No spirits, No daemons, No souls... End Of.
THAT is assumption, and nothing more than opinion. Providing an explanation to some cases does not automatically extend the same explanation to ALL
cases. That is akin to acknowledging that some ATS users are confirmed as obviously ignorant and overly opinionated, and then inferring that by
extension ALL ATS users are the same.
It's no less an assumption that presumes too much based on limited observance. It might possibly be true, but is *not* fact.
The Fox sisters are the women who invented the the Ouijia board, And after they played their con one of them even admitted it was psychological
fraud. But Con Men/ Mediums carried it one to make money and which by the time it spread it was too big to be denied as a lie. hence why people now
think it is real.
Considering that automatic writing and a whole host of other alleged divinatory practices and tools have been around for likely thousands of years
(ouija just being a variant), this doesn't really do a whole lot for me.
So, to clarify - yes, hacks exist. Yes, there are mundane explanations for at least some claimed instances. No, it is not fact or proven that ALL
claimed instances have mundane explanations, although one can assume that if they choose - but that is a big assumption to make against the great
weight of innumerable anecdotal accounts and testimonies, regardless of how utterly valid it might eventually end up being.
So, thanks, but I don't need any more dictionary definitions or lessons in the obvious - although it is appreciated. I merely hope that you'll
recognize your opinion is simply that, and that others who disagree carry every bit as much weight until they deny that which actually CAN'T be
denied - that some cases are indeed mundane.