Originally Posted by impaul99
Tekomino, I have a question for your. If your own senses *proved* to you that psychic phenomena exist, would you accept it even though scientists say it doesn't, or would you check yourself into a mental hospital because you'd think you must be crazy?
This wasn't directed at me, but if we generalize the question to all phenomena that haven't been proven by science, my answer would depend on what we're talking about.
If I had a psychic reading that was unbelievably accurate and couldn't be written off as chance, then yes, I'd accept it no matter what scientists say. And maybe I'd be wrong, but that's OK. I'm open to the possibility of psychic phenomena even though I've never met anyone who claimed to be psychic. Come to think of it, I've never met any of these scientists either. How do we know they exist?
On the other hand, I don't believe that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear (from our vision, yes; from its original location, no). You could show me all the evidence in the world, and I'd keep saying it was a trick. I can't say for sure that I'd never
believe it, but it would take something like jacking out of the Matrix to convince me.
Why the difference? I don't know, one seems believable and one doesn't.