Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina
Reading for skeptics: It's like handing me a book, putting me in the dark and saying, "Here read this if you can." I can still see, but not in the dark, so I won't be able to read the book. Does that mean I can't see or that I can't read? Or are the conditions non-conducive to demonstrating my reading and seeing ability?
I would say that you couldn't see. To see something light needs to be focused by the lens onto the retina, which turns the light patterns into neural signals. Thus sight is impossible without light. In darkensss there is no light, hence sight is impossible. And since the ability to read depends on the ability to see, I would say that you couldn't read either.
So basically you are saying that your ability to perform a 'reading' for someone is contingent on their complete faith in psychic abilities, since skepticism for 'reading' is akin to darkness for sight?
This seems like a very convenient escape clause. If someone is skeptical then it won't work becuase their very doubt prevents it from working. Since some degree of doubt is needed for impartiality, readings don't work on the unbiased and objective. Thus you are limiting your 'reading' power to those who are biased in its favour, i.e. those who ignore contradicting evidence.
I'm not trying to stir controversy, I just want to be clear that that is what you're saying? If so readings are basically unfalsifiable, since if they are incorrect then it was because of the clients doubt, if they are correct then that is evidence for there authenticity.
I find this frustrating, since belief is not something one can fake. I can't pretend to believe something if I haven't seen any evidence for it, yet you say I will only get evidence for it once I believe it. This is a Catch-22.