hyper-scepticism
Dont you mean ignorance?
DB74
My wife I love her but?
by skyking 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
diamondblue1974
-
LittleToe
Gary:You have a point. Maybe I need to re-analyse my use of the term. I would define it as "ignorance disguised under a cloak of scepticism"...
-
Abaddon
Ross
Oh, I didn't take it personally, you know I regard these discussions as mostly humourous fun. I was just playing with words.
I'm quite content with the concept and practice of healthy scepticim. What I object to is hyper-scepticism, where something is discounted without even considering it.
Mmmm.... I use the word in the defintion of 'the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt'. I don't see that as excluding consideration, and I know what you mean about there being a tendancy in some (inc. me at times) to EXCLUDE consideration. I think this comes from the duck paradigm; if no event of the supernatural has ever been proved it is not suprising that one assumes a supernatural event cannot be proved... it is very unlikely we will see the first proof of mediumship on this board... so when such claims are piled high and sold cheap, they get tarred with the same brush. Sloppy, yes. But as this sloppy approach doesn't result in people actually going and proving the paranormal to confound the skeptics, sloppy works quite well as a first approximation.
Maybe the best approach is 'sorry, all previous claimants of this power were unable to prove it so were either experiencing something we cannot measure directly or indirectly (i.e. even if means and method are unknown we cannot even measure the claimed effect), lying, mentally ill or mistaken'. But that doesn't really sweeten the pill, does it?
For example, what's so objectionable about the following statement?
Nothing, but there's nothing wrong with being more interested in probable than possibles.
-
LovesDubs
People tend to discredit things they cant fully explain and put neatly into a box and being psychic or having premonitions or even there being spirits at all, fall into that category.
Before I was a JW, I read a lot of books about reincarnation. I thought why not? Why not be open to the possibility that there are forces we just cant understand?
I personally have always been able to "read" people in that I could tell even by what people write or by their intonation or by their body english or their aura...their moods, their thinking, their hurt...or if they were mad at me for something or were upset. Just always had that. People would sit next to me for no reason and start telling me their life stories like there was a sign on me somewhere that I would listen to them. And I always did. (Unfortunately I always knew ahead of time when I was going to get fired from a job too!)
Along with that was the ability to say something that might help them out, like exactly what they needed...and I never knew where that knowledge came from. Like your wife, its just inherently there.
Its a gift and a curse. But its part of who she is and your support and love and unconditional acceptance is exactly what she needs.
Loves
-
skyking
What I object to is hyper-scepticism, where something is discounted without even considering it.
It's actually belief on another scale. Belief that nothing can exist outwith their own personal experience and that of the few folks they consider wortth reading. Since their experience is incredibly limited (and self-limiting for the foregoing reaasons) I think it's worth prodding them once in a while
Very well said. Little Toe.
All a person has to do is look at our government and just about every other governments in the world, they use remote viewers. The US has had great success with them. You'll say the US abandoned their remote view project. This is not true, Bush slipped up in 2002 in speech he made, when he mentioned what the US remote viewers had to say about Iraq. This slip of the tongue made world News regarding the secret remote viewing project the are in operation.
So I am sure the Governments of the world believe in the ability of people like my wife.
-
Abaddon
Please provide the URL for your claim about Bush.
I already have found several websites repeating the claim, but the text they quote contain no references to remote viewing.
-
LittleToe
Gyles:
Oh, I didn't take it personally, you know I regard these discussions as mostly humourous fun. I was just playing with words.
I know. Same here
As for the supplied quotation, I don't find anything wrong with it either, though a hyper-sceptic (as I would dub them) might
-
skyking
My old link to the above mentioned article about Bushes slip I does not work anylonger but the I can prove it is said that Saddam was found by REMOTE VIEWER
Heres is a quot
Well, I know that that soldier walked over to that rock because he got information from a 'remote viewer' from the United States."Geller, who says he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency during the Cold War, said his information came from a high-level source involved in U.S. paranormal programmes.
-
zagor
You know this thread started off as a story about one remarkable lady and should have really stayed there. Jesus, why do we have to drag everything through mud on this site? This is something that really escapes me, I could have chosen to draw hard scientific line and probably could have done better than most people here (forgive my humility) but chose not to. Sometimes we have to preserve human dignity above everything else and every scientific theory ...
-
Abaddon
As per my PM skyking, this link is Uri Geller saying something.
I would not say that Uri Geller saying something is equivalent to proof of active remote viewing by the USA government, or any other. You might feel this is proof enough for you but it is just unsupported testimony by a professional illusionist who pretends (possibly even believes) he has special powers.
If he has special powers so does David Blaine; but the 'special powers' invovled in (for example) putting your hand through glass can be purchased online and are based around a stage illusion performed for the first time in the 19th Century; you just need access to a good-sized budget and expert glassfitters and carpenters. I've seen a Japanese guy do the same trick with a fish tank.
Thus I don't find the evidence credible, nor does it support your original claim; you said Bush refered to remote viewing with a slip of his tongue.
But thanks for providing the link.