Stop The Presses
This is the biggest story in the news so I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more coverage. There's a Yogi out in India who hasn't taken food or drink in 70 years. Scientists are baffled, but the holy man claims he was given the power by a goddess.
What I like about this story is, as opposed to the extravagant claims you often get from religious figures, it's eminently testable. In fact, doctors plan to study the guy for six months. That should be long enough to get proper results. Think of the revolutionary implications if we could get rid of what we thought were basic bodily needs.
I hate to prejudge, but it's possible this guy is a fraud. I hope you won't think me a cynical skeptic if after the doctors fail to detect any trickery I still have some doubts.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
4 Comments:
All for want of a simple concept:
1. "I do not take food nor drink."
Oops, verifiable.
2. "I have not taken food nor drink in the past 70 years - and now that I've made my point, I'll be eating and drinking again."
Not (quite as) verifiable.
This guy needs to take a cue from the Alien Abduction people - keep it in the past, and make sure there's only your word to show for it.
Like religion.
It all depends on what "food" and "drink" is.
I'm sure Yogi hasn't rummaged through any picnic baskets (sorry) but we might that water and wild plants might not classify as food and drink for his purposes. Like all religious claims, the words can be used to justify any result
I hope you won't think me a cynical skeptic if after the doctors fail to detect any trickery I still have some doubts.
I'm not sure what you mean by this: are you being sarcastic, or do you have a non-standard definition of "cynical skeptic"?
I have never examined the evidence about UFOs, but I consider the probability that they are extraterrestrial spaceships to be almost zero. And I freely admit that this makes me a "skeptic". Now suppose that a respected group of scientists announced that they were going to make a careful study of all the UFO evidence, and before their study began I announced that "Even if the scientists conclude that UFOs are extraterrestrial, I will continue to believe that they aren't"... well, then, I would be an extreme skeptic.
I feel the same way as you do about this Yogi. Doesn't that make both of us skeptics?
"Cynic" is harder to define. But if I am reading your post correctly, it contains an additional implication of "I wouldn't be surprised if this fraud is able to hoodwink the doctors." That sounds somewhat cynical.
As someone who completely shares your opinion, but doesn't hesitate to describe my own view as "skeptical and moderately cynical", I was curious about your statement!
I added "cynical" so no one thought I was just referring to the basic everyday skepticism (where one demands proof) that should almost go without saying.
As for the general argument, my point is it's common to hear people who believe in one supernatural claim or another that the "skeptics" are simply people who can't be convinced no matter what. They offer all sorts of proof and then ask, as if this is a penetrating question, "just what would it take to convince you?" But, of course, when someone makes an astounding claim (like this Yogi) that they're not sympathetic to, even if (like this Yogi) "proof" is provided, they become as skeptical as I.
Post a Comment
<< Home