From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:51:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.145729.12726@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070qg5d@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel) writes:
}In article <1992Apr8.170554.7595@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM}, kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes...

}     You are correct in saying some questions cannot be disproven.  In fact,
}I don't have to tell you it is categorically impossible to so.  If I tell you
}I am Jesus Christ, it will be categorically impossible for you to prove that
}I'm not, but the only evidence in favor of me being Christ is that I will have
}told you so.  Weak evidence indeed.  The only real evidence for PSI is that 
}some people have said it exists.  Again, weak evidence indeed.  There has 
}never been much in the way of good, reputable laboratory proof.  I can't prove 
}that PSI doesn't exist, but the evidence that it does is extremely weak, and
}it is on the basis of that evidence that skeptics make their decision.

Real evidence for PSI is more than just heresay. The PEAR studies are a
recent case which hasn't been debunked. Maybe it will be, maybe it
won't be debunked, but as of now it stands on its own.
 
}}This is why I have never
}}understood the atheistic viewpoint. There is no way an atheist could
}}have reached his viewpoint based on any real knowledge. The atheist's
}}viewpoint is based on a lack of knowledge (If I can't see it, it
}}doesn't exist). The only really correct viewpoint in this case is
}}agnostic (I don't know).
   
}    Does it really make sense to say "I can't see it, or any real evidence of 
}it, but I still think it exists"?  That is the non-atheistic point-of-view.


No, if no evidence exists, it only makes sense to say "I don't know"!
It doesn't make sense for skeptics to say, "PSI is bunk.", or for
zealots to say, "PSI exists.", if there is no evidence. The real
debate is, and will be, whether there is good evidence or not.

}It makes no sense.  If you ask me to accept things on faith without any real
}evidence, then why shouldn't you believe me when I tell you that I have the
}ability to make myself grow to 145 ft. tall by clicking my heels together?  
}Aren't you going to ask me to prove it?  If you want me to believe in PSI, God
}and all other related stuff, I want you to prove it.  Faith isn't good enough
}because that would mean I should believe EVERYTHING I ever hear, because after
}all if I don't ask for proof I have no way to differentiate between fantasy
}and reality.

It also doesn't make sense to reject things on faith, because that's
what skeptics do when they reject PSI. It is more correct to say
"I don't know".

My personal belief in PSI is based on personal experience only. I really
don't know if I will ever understand what really happened to me during
my experiences, but as of now I lean towards accepting PSI because I
haven't heard any other explanations that fit my experiences.
 
The complaint I have with many skeptics deals with the ease at which
many of them reject ideas which cannot be disproven. We are not just
talking about outlandish ideas like insta-matic 145 ft. man, we are
talking about ideas which some scientific backing. In these cases, at
least, skeptics should be able to say, "I don't know".