🚀 go-pugleaf

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