ProfWag wrote:Thanks for the reading SoS. I think I have to disagree a bit though and here's why. First, I don't consider myself superior. I began my educational pursuits thinking it would be too much for me, but I overcame that and spent 7 years of my life putting off golf an concentrating on what I needed to do. I don't weigh or rationalize different thoughts to make anything equal, either I see something for what it is, or it isn't so in my mind. I search for the truth and form opinions based on what I find. I have no problem at all changing my opinion on something however, and if something is presented that contradicts what I had previously believed, I am proud, actually, that I can change my opinion and move on. For example, my "religion" is atheist, but I do hold out hope that I'll see a sign from above. I really wish there were an afterlife, but as of now, I don't believe there is.
I really have no tension concerning the paranormal and rationalisism. I don't dwell on either one at all. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the paranormal, except when I log into the forum.
Whatever you say.
My issue with the paranormal, as I've mentioned before, is in fraudulent psychics taking money and altering the thoughts of my friends and loved ones. I want to find a "true" psychic, medium, astrologist, or anything along those lines. My search so far has been futile.
Then I recommend reading Extraordinary Knowing. Did you watch that 10 min vid I gave you? The author, a rationalist, embarks on a quest to find a "true" psychic and try to understand psi as a rationalist. I think that book is right up your alley.
But I've found that most skeptics avoid such books like the plague. My litmus test for pseudo-skepticism is whether a skeptic will read such books. Pseudo-skeptics have an almost allergic, phobic reaction to them. Hell, they won't even watch a 10 min vid unless they know beforehand whether it will support what they want to believe or not.