Why do you seriously consider psi?

Sure, it does the proponents a service by making us question more thoroughly but I can't imagine anything less fulfilling than to take up residency in a forum where almost everyone disagreed with me.

Perhaps it's a form of hero-worship?

I imagine that most proponents would say, as I do, that it is the sheer weight of evidence, not any particular experience (either personal or related by someone else) that is compelling.

I agree with that. I don't think that it is one or a few experiences which turn out to be compelling, but rather the weight of many people having these experiences. Some people know what these experiences feel like first hand, and some don't, and I was curious about whether that made a difference. I suspect that it doesn't, from the results.

As I mentioned earlier, my perception is that everyone who mentions personal experiences also finds the scientific research compelling - that is, I didn't need to make a separate option for "compelling personal experience without finding the scientific research compelling". I can't edit the poll, but I would be interested if anybody does have that viewpoint.  

Linda

As I mentioned earlier, my perception is that everyone who mentions personal experiences also finds the scientific research compelling - that is, I didn't need to make a separate option for "compelling personal experience without finding the scientific research compelling". I can't edit the poll, but I would be interested if anybody does have that viewpoint.  

J. E. Kennedy has expressed precisely that viewpoint:
https://jeksite.org/psi/conclusions.htm

[Ninshub]

I'm the one that moved the poll, not because it's Linda's thread, but just because it's clearly about psi and not "other stuff". If this is a major problem, it can be reconsidered.

I'm the one that moved the poll, not because it's Linda's thread, but just because it's clearly about psi and not "other stuff". If this is a major problem, it can be reconsidered.

Well, it's also not about Skeptic v. Proponent, so it shouldn't be here, either. I don't see why it can't be left in a neutral section, but it doesn't seem to have caused a problem.

Linda

Well, it's also not about Skeptic v. Proponent, so it shouldn't be here, either. I don't see why it can't be left in a neutral section, but it doesn't seem to have caused a problem.

Linda

Seems to be a kind of forced segregation. You've created some hard feelings. Forgive and forget doesn't seem to be a strong suit among this community.

I don't think there's much difference between "believe" and "fact" anyways. For example, our brain lights up the same way whether we are asked, "do you believe in capital punishment?" or "is Ottawa the capital of Canada?" (unless, of course, this is another one of those irreproducible psychology/fMRI experiments ).

Linda

Well I think there is a difference between entertaining an idea of something that "might" be true and believing something as part of the worldview created by, I guess the ego. How do we really tease out what we believe at rock bottom? Do you think that facing death either through illness or near sudden death brings out a person's true ideas about how they "really" think about the nature of reality? I think a lot of people give ideas lip service but when the rubber meets the road, things may be different.

I haven't voted because I neither believe in psi nor disbelieve its existence.  I'm here because I find the scientific materialist worldview wholly unsatisfying and yet I am naturally drawn to logic and science.  So, I'm looking around.

I don't think there's much difference between "believe" and "fact" anyways. For example, our brain lights up the same way whether we are asked, "do you believe in capital punishment?" or "is Ottawa the capital of Canada?" (unless, of course, this is another one of those irreproducible psychology/fMRI experiments ).

Linda

Or... maybe there's a flaw in the idea that we can comprehend the difference between "belief" and "fact" on the basis of changes in blood flow?

Cheers