Conference hydra::dejavu

    Well, in a way skepticism can be a filter.  It can also be an aid.
    I am fairly open minded about the idea that there's a lot more that
    we don't know than we do.  I'm further convinced that the only way
    to investigate such things is with a reasonably open mind.
    
    But as I've said elsewhere in this Conference, "Have an open mind,
    but not so open that your brains fall out."  There are too many
    well-meaning folk who obtain bogus information, too many charlatans
    that prey on the ignorant, and even a few nuts, who add "noise"
    to whatever signals nature (o r whatever you call it) is broadcasting. 
    
    Certain disciplines, such as "mediumship" require belief or they
    won't work, according to the practitioners.  On the other hand,
    have you seen a stage play of _Peter Pan_?  When they say, "Clap
    if you believe in pixies," and you clap, does that _really_ mean
    you believe in Tinkerbelle?
    
    Healthy skepticism is just that -- healthy.  But the reverse of
    that is _unhealthy_ sklepticism, such as the joker who refused to
    look in Galileo's telescope because he didn't want to question his
    (preconceived) beliefs.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re: .0
    
    Though I don't have an answer for you, I have felt similarly, and
    have worked on this issue.  This seems a good enough excuse to
    "talk" about my progress.
    
    I made a little rule for myself: Without buying into belief ahead
    of time, I'd like to see some hard evidence of any or all (I'll
    take all, if offered) of these "psychic" phenomena.  I don't
    necessitate the entire scientific community to accept it as truth,
    but so far my own requirements have kept all phenomena in the realm
    of "otherwise explainable".  But that's just me.  [I was most impressed
    to read Lora Wallis' reply about her relationship with her horse.
    I wish I could observe such a thing happening.]  Note that I am
    only allowing things that I observe while awake and aware.  I would
    very much like to know that all these phenomena are real.
    
    Regarding the first installment of "Out on a Limb": I did *not*
    agree totally with Shirley's lover.  In fact, my perspective would
    be much closer to Shirley's: that of amazement that these things
    happen.  If I yelled out something to the ocean, and was *convinced*
    that no one was listening (assuming here that "David" didn't tell),
    and someone later cited what I yelled, I'd be amazed at *least*
    at the the ability to read minds, if not in the existence of a spirit
    world as is portrayed.
    
    The point isn't to disregard data available to you as long as
    "accepted" scientific theory disregards it; rather I try to look
    at any data available to me and make my own decision.  I go to great
    lengths in trying alternate, though I'll admit complicated,
    explanations simply because "science" doesn't embrace these concepts
    wholeheartedly.  I would like to take the simple way (perhaps therefore
    the more correct way - perhaps not) and accept these things at face
    value.  But if I did, there are some very impressive things in text
    that I would have to consider so strongly that my current self image
    would be reworked entirely.  If I am to do that, I want to make
    sure I'm doing the right thing.
    
    To sum: I try to make my observations critical.  Not cynical.  I
    have enough faith in humanity to believe Shirley MacLaine is not
    doing all this to make a few extra bucks out of the show, with no
    personal belief on her part.  I must accept that she believes these
    things, and that there is a possibility that if I were with her
    during all that time, I'd be just as impresses as she.  Now: how
    much do I put my heart into that possibility?  So far, for me, the
    unexplainable items are mostly those items for which I have too little
    data.  In trying the borders of reliability, I have learned a lot
    about my own limitations and how much I limit others in their
    viewpoints.  Black and white becomes not gray, but a colorful world
    of acceptable thought, represented well in this conference.
    
    Why not try to imagine what you'd do if you had experienced what
    Shirley MacLaine experienced?   What would your beliefs be?  (You
    don't want to look foolish on the home videos you take soon, and
    view later, when all this is proved true beyond any doubt, now do you?)

    I saw an interview this morning with Shirley Maclaine and Kevin
    Ryerson (on of the trance "channelers") on Good Morning America.
    She basically stated that she was skeptical from the beginning
    and still questions things, though she keeps an open mind.  I
    feel that she had these experiences because she was "seeking".
    As we've been told over the centuries "Seek and ye shall find.
    Knock and the door shall be opened."  The teachers that have come
    into my life always say that healthy skepticism is important when
    seeking knowledge of this type, and the "spirit" teachers try to
    leave us with not only answers, but more questions.          
    
    Watching the show last night brought back to me the incredible 
    excitement I felt when I started opening up to these thoughts and
    ideas.  I couldn't even begin to put the feelings into words.  Books
    came to me in the same way they did to Shirley, and new people came
    into my life to guide me to the next door.  I also experienced the
    same resistance from very important people in my life and I never
    felt lonelier.  I wouldn't change one minute of my experiences for
    anything, and will continue to seek whatever lies ahead of me, which
    is "everything".
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  I'm also starting mediumship school on Thursday - I'm nervous
          and excited all at the same time!
          

    Re: .1
    
    "Certain disciplines, such as "mediumship" require belief or they
     won't work, according to the practitioners."
    
    Steve,
    
    I think this is generally true, however, there have been instances
    where individuals have had mediumistic experiences without having
    developed a total belief in the process, or even an understanding
    of what is taking place.  These experiences have then led them on
    to discover more about the process and to develop themselves.  
    Many of the most gifted mediums have questioned and investigated
    their experiences and the process of mediumship all through their
    lives.
    
    On the other hand, I think it would be extremely difficult for a
    totally closed minded person to sit in a development circle and
    have anything happen.
    
    Carole
    

    	"Faith is good, but skepticism is better."
    
    				   Verdi
                                   
    	

Path: muscat!decwrl!ucbvax!mucs.UUCP!arnold
From: [email protected] (Toby Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Mailing list announcement
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 6 Oct 87 16:07:46 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK
Lines: 13
 
    A mailing list has been set up for those interested in a skeptical
approach to the investigation of claims of paranormal phenomena,
pseudoscience, fringe medicine etc.  If you are interested email 
 
       thoward%[email protected] (Toby Howard, Europe) or
       lippard%multics.mit.edu (James Lippard, USA/Canada)
 
[This is a shared account. Please ignore the From: field, and reply to
 the following address. Thanks]
 
Toby Howard      Computer Graphics Unit, Manchester University, UK.
                 janet: [email protected]
                 internet: thoward%[email protected]

    "Tis with our judgements as our watches:  None go alike, yet
  each believes his own." - Alexander Pope

    "You can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold.
     You can fall for pretty strangers, and the promises they hold."
 

    "Frequent and careful questioning is the basic key to wisdom." 

                                            - Peter Abelard

Look before you leap...

He who hesitates, is lost...

If one takes too much time to question, has the opportunity been lost?

      "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus 
   a source of civilized delight." - William Safire 

      "Do I dare disturb the Universe?" - T.S. Eliot  [Yes! - LK]
 

    Re .10 (Larry):
    
    >"Do I dare disturb the Universe?" - T.S. Eliot  [Yes! - LK]
      
    You mean you haven't already? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re:    < Note 286.10 by DICKNS::KLAES "Know Future" >
�                 -< To want to know fully is to be human - Me >-
�
�      "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus 
�   a source of civilized delight." - William Safire 

    
    knowledge is gained in many ways, not all of them bounded by
    the scientific belief system.   
    
    	bruce

RE: .12 (Bruce)
    
    Belief is gained in many ways, not all of them bounded by the
    scientific belief system.
    
    Much of the everyday (and not so everyday) activity by which people
    develop beliefs/knowledge is "science" even if people don't recognize
    it.
    
    Science is just common sense applied consistently.
    
    Whether knowledge can be gained by any method other than science
    is a matter of belief.  (Whether knowledge can be gained by the
    processes of science is a matter of definition).
    
    					Topher