Coyote,
Sometimes the results of research are massaged in one way or another by the conscious or unconscious mind set of the researcher. There's an answer to that: transparency (public exposure of methods and results) and peer review.
Maybe remote viewing works. I doubt it. But I admit that I don't *know* whether it does or does not. That's why I used the word "doubt" instead of the words "am absolutely certain."
I have a free remote viewing program on my iPod. One of these days I am going to go through it, just out of curiosity, and see what happens.
hartreefoch,
Shortly after I made that South Park reference, I found the recent episode online that criticizes Richard Dawkins. I thought that was pretty funny. What irony.
The people here don't scare me. They tend to be very loving and forgiving. I don't think they're going to blow up any buildings because the building's Feng Shui was consistently messing with the chi flow through their energy centers. They are more likely to visualize whirled peas or world peace, and there's nothing wrong with that, I think.
I get frustrated because I think I am right, and, damnit, they just won't come around to the proper point of view.
I think that perhaps due to nature and nurture different people tend to think differently from one another. One person may be more rational, while another is more fanciful. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. And, after all, this is the current state of our evolution. What you're seeing has been selected FOR rather than against.
I think that it's very important, however, for a fanciful person to be able to demonstrate critical, empirical thinking.
Jeanne,
I honestly think some people think that way. You've made it clear to me that you're not one of them.
