...that the folks at "Absolutely Psychic" were doing their best to screen their readers. Clearly, their vetting system is not infallible, and, by her own account, Ms Stollznow was clever and devious enough to fool them.
I am not sure what Ms Stollznow was trying to prove here, however - unless it was that, if one is underhand and clever enough, one can (at least temporarily) mislead other people - especially if those other people are acting in good faith.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths so-called "sceptics" will go - and the depths to which they will stoop - in their efforts to malign and undermine psychics.
Almost invariably, their attacks are characterised by petty vindictiveness, intolerance and dismissal of other peoples' beliefs and experiences, and an arrogant disregard for any and all viewpoints which do not conform to their own. And whilst claiming to represent the scientific approach, they dismiss out-of-hand the huge body of scientific evidence confirming the reality of psychic abilities.
According to them, any scientist who carries out experiments into psychic abilities and obtains positive results - however well qualified they may be - can be dismissed as either incompetent or dishonest. They then claim, on this basis, that the scientific evidence for psychic abilities can be disregarded.
On the one hand, they demand "exceptional" scientific proof, and on the other hand they make every effort to discredit scientists who become involved in this area of research. Since psychic abilities do not exist, the sceptics' "logic" goes, any scientist who finds positive evidence for them must be either a liar or a fool, and therefore there is no need to take his or her findings seriously.
Obviously, there are bogus psychics, (and there are psychics who just aren't very good). However, the same is true in almost every profession. There are numerous cases on record of bogus doctors, bogus teachers, bogus airline pilots , and so on, using deception to obtain employment in positions of trust. It does not follow from this that all doctors, all teachers and all airline pilots are bogus.
Scepticism is normal and healthy, and should always be encouraged; but scepticism as dogma - that is, the conviction that no psychic entities exist, and, therefore, that anyone who believes in or makes claims for the existence of such entities is either dishonest or deluded, is nothing but scientific fascism. True scepticism is about reserving judgement, whilst keeping an open mind. The brand of fanatical scepticism espoused by Ms Stollznow and the organisation with which she is affiliated, however, is merely concerned with promoting the humanist/materialist cause. It is scientism rather than science. Furthermore, its advocates invariably restrict their "scepticism" to areas of science - and areas of life - that are contentious, controversial, experimental or innovative to begin with: ie, "soft targets". Rarely or ever is this brand of scepticism directed at conventional, established beliefs/professions.
|
