m wrote:
>
[snip]
> I do concur that many or even most people who are interested in or
have
> been involved with 'abduction' experiences are missing a few screws,
so
> to speak. Just as the people who want to get stoned are generally
the
> ones who get stoned, the people who are fascinated by or fearful of
> 'paranormal' phenomena are generally the ones who get tangled up in
it.
> The fascination itself involves a kind of insanity. The mental
> incompetence of many of those who have such experiences does not
> demonstrate that the experience is not 'real' however. This would be
Not many people who know any physics actually give a crap about
demonstrating experiences are -not- 'real'. The mainstream of physical
thought concentrates on teaching bozos some physics -- particularly the
part about data. Science is a lot like poker on the issue -- it's put up
or shut up.
> much like interviewing a few dozen prostitutes, finding out that
they're
> not as mentally competent as most people, and then deciding that
pimps
> don't exist. There is of course other evidence for the existence of
> pimps besides taking the word of prostitutes, but such evidence would
> not be found if the possible existence of pimps was dismissed before
> additional evidence was sought.
Terrible analogy. Hookers and pimps are obviously on the illegal
side of things; but if I were you I wouldn't walk down 42nd St. in
NY assuming they're mentally incompetent.
> Personally, my assumption that pimps exist isn't based on physical
> evidence of their existence which I trust. I assume that they exist
> because I can predict their existence based on what I understand of
> human thinking. Everyone has to look for whatever kind of evidence
that
> they themselves can trust however.
>
> Mark
You assume pretty good. That's the very same way that I assume
we'll get another clown screaming alien abduction next month.
---
Jim