That was my original phrasing, but I changed it because "what I think I know" doesn't reflect peoples' state of knowledge. It's more important to ask this question of things you know for absolute sure, rather than the things you're already questioning.
Last night I had a dream about time travel with the Wellsian time traveller.
Obviously you're a nega-psychic.
Am I allowed to ask how you attempted to kill him?
I spent years in a spiritualist church, and after the first two years I came to the conclusion that at least some of the mediums were genuine, and the most likely explanation for what they did was they were doing what they said, and getting messages from the spirits of the departed.
Sceptics know how easy it is to be fooled, and to inadvertently fool yourself. Many of us were believers in some kind of paranormal phenomena, until we acquired critical thinking skills and learned the standard of evidence required to avoid believing things that aren't true. So no, a few subjective experiences that we didn't have the necessary information to fully account for would not convince us.
Steeping oneself credulously in something does not make one a better observer of it. Worse, in fact. The fact that some or many of the self-proclaimed mediums are obvious, proven frauds, and the existence of known means for producing the illusion of mediumship, mean that is a reasonable default conclusion that must be overcome with evidence.
Wouldn't, say, one of these spiritualist church hommies have stood up and proven to science that their beliefs are true, sometime since, oh, humankind existed? For the betterment of us all?
Another question I would add is when exactly this happened. I believe Scorpion is now in his 70's; if this happened anytime within, say, the last thirty years or so, it wouldn't take any familiarity with Scorpion personally to guess that someone in their 40's or older probably had a dead grandmother, and then to tell him something that wasn't informative at all and also required no personal knowledge of Scorpion ("she says she's been through to you many times" doesn't even really require his belief). And if they guessed wrong, then it's "oh, sorry, it was someone else's grandmother, sometimes they get confused" or maybe "sorry, not your grandmother, your great grandmother." There's always an out to make a miss into a hit.
The medium came directly to me with a personal message, and opened it by saying she had my grandmother, who had been through to me many times before.
I had this particular message in a church in north London in the 1970s. But I had many messages from my grandmother in other churches where she gave me comforting advice. I also had a message from my grandfather who said he died in a hospital in a cot with the sides up and he did not like it. This was true and the medium said my grandfather was telling me this to give me evidence that he had survived death.
Then how is it a "personal message?" I can literally say that to anyone who has a dead grandmother.
I can also give you comforting advice in the name of your dead grandmother.
Seems like a pretty on-the-nose claim for someone to make who wants to convince you they're a medium.
Did they use your grandmother's name, or just say 'your grandmother'?
This has all been gone over in other threads. More than once. Suffice to say there are ways in which the information which so impressed Scorpion could have been obtained, but he refuses to consider them. My overall impression was of a well meaning but morally dubious attempt to give some peace to a troubled young man.
The medium just said it was my grandmother without her name. But I had a number of messages from her from different mediums over the years I attended spiritualist churches. She knew what was going on in my life and gave me good advice. In the case of a message from my brother that died as a baby the medium did give me his name which was Lawrence. My mother, who had never told me about him and had never been to the church, confirmed this when I asked her.
Accounts of personal experiences, such as the psychographies attributed to mediums like Chico Xavier, can serve as evidence for those who believe in mediumship. Although these accounts may not be enough to convince radical skeptics, they are valid within the context of human experience.
Ask skeptics whether they apply the same rigorous standards to all areas of knowledge, or whether there is a tendency to dismiss only evidence that challenges their beliefs. This can help expose potential biases in their approach
cei-spiritistcouncil.com
