by
tylluanpenry
@ Monday, 28. Jan, 2008 - 09:29:31
Firstly apologies if I don't appear to have commented on your blogs lately - I'm plagued with a poor internet connection here, and sometimes spend ages just sending and re-sending comments when my connection breaks. I do try and visit everyone virtually every day, it's just that commenting can sometimes be very hit and miss.
Secondly, I came across an interesting article in today's online Daily Mail : headed 'Could there be proof to the theory that we're ALL psychic' you can find it at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510762&in_page_id=1770
Basically the headline says it all, that there is a growing body of evidence (I hesitate to use the word 'proof' since that makes some people hit the ceiling) that about 85% of the population are, or could become psychic. Fascinating stuff.
But what makes it most interesting for me was the comment from Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, a sceptic.
To quote the article, he says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do."
*Here we pause a moment for Tylluan to stop gnashing what remain of her teeth. The standards of any other area of science? Just what does he mean? That he wants more proof because it's something he doesn't want to believe in?
"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me. But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
And with people like him around, they're not going to exactly looking for it, either!