I totally agree with your contention about how far skeptics will go to discredit the concept of “psychic ability”. It falls more into the realm of “conceptual politics” and plays out the same as witnessing political candidates destroying each other’s credibility with half-truths and distorted facts. And sure, there are as many people that can B.S, their way into a real job, professing to have experience they do not. But, to me, the major area of interest it not the continuous process of discrediting, but the motives.
Motives: Some genuinely do not believe and view the only definitive proof lies in “established” objective scientific methodologies. New methods of determining if such phenomena exit are suspect. There are some have been “victims” (we see this all the time on TV as victims become activists). Some have a humanist agenda as you put it, while others try to garner a bit of notoriety by going after (as you put it) “soft targets.”
But, there is another faction that is a bit more worrisome to me: the “disproving believers” …they actually believe in psychic phenomena, but are overtly skeptical. Why? Sometime religious belief…actual belief in the phenomena, but faith driven to conclude it is “evil”. People, being influenced by such peer pressure would be more reluctant to pursue information in psychic realms if led to believe all who do so are marginal flakes…or demon possessed. Might even “float a witch” or two as a warning to the rest. The end result: fewer “practioners” as far as they are concerned.
But, there is also the “sole psychic” agenda. This would be a person or persons who wish to diminish the emergence of psychic abilities for personal reasons stemming from being one of a limited number of real practitioners. Under this subset would fall areas frequently explored in science fiction: governmental attempts to control the uncontrollable phenomena. It’s obvious a telepath could be a risk to security….but does that mean such a conspiracy exists? I’ve seen no evidence of it, but then again, I wouldn’t see it either.
The bottom line of this speculation is I am more intrigued by the motives of skeptics than surprised by their tenacity and attempts to debunk. The later is no surprise.
|
