Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00487)

----------
> From: danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Steve on "scientific evidence" : But what about the
UNPACKING method?
> Date: Saturday, December 22, 2001 7:22 PM
> >
Daniel wrote:
>I certainly agree that we should have a positive skepticism toward 
> various claims, etc. But I believe we should realize that there is a 
> brand of skepticism, whether one calls it "agressive" or not, that 
> can "explain away" any paranormal experience or for that matter any 
> claim in science.. 
>

Every paranormal event can be 'explained away' by someone who believes that
every paranormal event can be 'explained away.' Likewise a person who
believes that paranormal events can and do occur can 'explain away' the
skeptics explanation. Its like saying to someone, "Be positively
skeptical, but just don't doubt what happened."

The language of the incidents leads me to believe that drugs could have
been involved. Adding the language to the historical context leads me to
believe that drugs probably were involved. I am not being judgemental
here. I am saying if so, so what? I readily admit that there is no
smoking gun and one is free to interpret the language of the incident in a
different manner. If your interpretation is different, I would like to
hear it. But, Daniel it is your interpretation of the event that I would
like to hear -- not your interpretation of my interpretation. If you still
do not understand my interpretation, or Steve's, or Brigette's, so what. 
Why do you need to understand our interpretation (which is pretty clear to
the rest of us) in order to present your own?

Bill