On Jul 10, 7:01Â pm, "Tim"
q.con> wrote:>
gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62eacb2a-a7d3-4002-ae73-da0d840e5220@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 3:13 am, "Tim" q.con> wrote:
>
>
>>> "Tim"
q.con> wrote in message news:...>
>>>>A very interesting programme started of Aus TV last night, where seven
>>>> psychics are put through their paces, where a membmer of the Aus
>>>> sceptics, and a npwn psychic sit in judgement.
>
>>>> The first one involved a child being hidden in dense bush, whee each
>>>> oner in turn was given 15 minutes to locate.
>
>>>> There was a y shaped track, and the child was hidden so it could not
>>>> be seen from the track. Actual contact had to be made.To make it more
>>>> interesting, a tracking device was screened, showing the location and
>>>> the movement of the subject.
>
>>>> One made it in a couple of minutes, one in about forteen, one was 30
>>>> seconds away, and dead on track, two were also dead ontrack but missed
>>>> by a few minutes, and two were totally off track.
>
>>>> The sceptic was asked about the first one. "Just lucky" was the reply.
>>>> The face of the other judge spoke volumes with her big wide grin.
>
>>>> Should be an interesting series.
>
>>>> My prediction has already started accurately. There is no way on
>>>> "lifes" earth, that the sceptic will admit even slightly, that there
>>>> is any validity to. To a neutral, he looked like a dogmatised
>>>> believer. (Belief of disbelief are two sides of the same coin)
>
>> But don't you then also predict that there is no way a believer will
>> accept
>> the fact that so often these psychics fail. They simply argue that
>> telluric
>> currents were out of phase or some other nonesense.
>
> Of course not. Ask a person who has used a psychic to solve a crime.
> Just because one didnt doesnt mean the other wont, as often
> happens.There are many police authorities that use such people, but
> are reluctant to talk of the subject. Again, perfectly understandable.
>
> Ever heard of writers block? Does that mean th guy is a phoney?
>
> I see many examples of "one way valves", where the sceptic will not
> accept for reasons I mentioned, as in the example of this programme
> (so far).
>
> BOfL
>
> -----
>
> I didn't see the program, but it seems more likely to me that those who
> found the child merely stumbled upon him/her. How could you prove that they
> used psychic sense and not just plain old eye-sight and trial & error.
To do so in this example, (as did the sceptic judge) is to deny the
evidence of your own eyes. People do, naturally, for reasons I pointed
out.
No, but I havent ever come across a dyed in the wool sceptic who would
not claim that, in spite of the hard evidence of the auther.
Sceptisicm is healthy. It is actually a 'bar' against second hand
information. Problem is, one has to lift the bar to gain first hand
knowledge, which is a real threat to a persons comfort zone.
BOfL
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
