On Sunday 09 August 2009 01:22, Zach Collins (Siege) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Rick Pikul<rwpikul_at_sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 13:30, Zach Collins (Siege) wrote:
> >> If you're looking for any excuse at all
> >> to debunk it, then you'll find one. If you come in demanding absolute
> >> proof under the presumption that it's all bullshit, then no proof you
> >> get will be sufficient.
> >
> > OTOH, those wanting to see things can treat anything unusual or not
> > immediately explained as proof.
> >
> > The standards for evidence I've seen from "sensitives" is, quite frankly,
> > pathetic. It gets even worse once you start removing the "evidence" that
> > is purely based on circular logic.
>
> Standard of evidence. Well. I'll say that Paranormal State is about
> the best evidence (I've seen) that you'll get without direct
> experience.
As I was saying: Pathetic, and mostly circular reasoning.
> The psychics they bring in come in blind, knowing nothing
> about the situation until they've already got their "read".
They claim that, but it was revealed last year, (ironically by a believer),
that their 'phychic' actually knows all the background information
beforehand. Also revealed was active faking of results, such as 'cold spots'
actually caused by a cold can of beer brought in by the PRS team themselves.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Received on Sun Aug 09 2009 - 10:32:47 CDT