In Response To: Mediums (long) (Fred Askew)
Good points, Fred. Well worth the length.
A couple of comments/questions:
"The vast majority of people in the world accept number 2.
A very, very small minority of people in the world accept number 3."
This is the opposite of what I would think. I'm wondering, is there a source for this? Maybe not in the world as a whole, just in the US? I ask because I would assume it was the other way around, but don't know of any statistics on it.
"Those who accept proposition 2 and those who accept proposition 3 will never agree. There's no point in badgering each other with repeats of the same arguments over and over."
Probably true, although a year ago I would never have thought I would have accepted spirit communication as possible. Never. So, I can't help feel that people CAN, under certain circumstances, change their minds (skeptic to believer OR believer to skeptic).
There are various things that would change me back to a skeptic and I keep looking for them, unsuccessfully so far. I'm not convinced people can't change, but agree with you that its unlikely to happen through discussion.
You say, "But I do think that it would be both interesting and productive for those who accept proposition 2 to spend more time considering how to spot and screen out the fakes."
Yes, this is of much interest and one reason why I am trying (so far unsuccessfully) to find a cold reader who does a "mediumship act". Also why I have been read several times--two of which I felt were NOT genuine and which were educational experiences for me in that regard.
Research isn't just one-sided though. I wonder how many skeptics have gone to reputable, highly recommended mediums (not the "storefront psychic" variety) to help them find ways to "spot and screen out" the fakes first hand? Or see if what was told them was consistent with their expectations of a "medium" who was really nothing more than a mentalist?
If you look at the thread at JREF (the one about why no skeptic other than O'Neill has described the experience of seeing JE), it is simply AMAZING to read the comments. There is a stunning lack of curiosity among most skeptics there about actually seeing what JE does and judging it in person for themselves. They write hundreds of negative comments about him, but have no desire to investigate it first-hand (I'm speaking of those who don't have to travel, could go to the gallery for free, etc.) Some of their excuses would be downright amusing, if they weren't so intellectually lazy (apparently physically lazy, too) and hypocritical.
And the problem may be in defining "a fake". For example, we all know that many parts of a JE reading could be accounted for in ways other than spirit communication. But then there are those "special hits" that can't be. At that point, discussion always seems to dissolve to "hot reading" vs. "no hot reading"--again, unresolvable, and no way to address the "fake reading or not" issue.
Janet
Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS