Greylock said:Psychics are bunk-um, hokum, malarkey, you name it. There is no such thing as 'reading' the future. This thread touches upon the religious in a subtle way, and if political threads are verbotten then so should this clap-trap.
dreaded_beast said:While I respect your opinion, I don't think their is any concrete evidence that psychics are "bunk-um, hokum, malarkey, etc."
Umbran said:There is a great deal of concrete evidence that many folks who claim the title "psychic" are, in fact, pulling hoaxes.
dreaded_beast said:But even though there is a substantial amount of people who have been discredited as psychics, that doesn't necessarily mean the psychics are not real. Is there a logic term for this particular line of thinking? I think there is, but it escapes me at the moment.
Umbran said:In general: Basically, as I've said - if a whole mess of psychics have been shown to be fakes, it does not absolutely preclude the existance of real psychics. In a sense, it is impossible to prove a negative like, "psychic powers do not exist".
Greylock said:Too wierd. You read my mind.![]()
No, not with Greylock's mind. That would be Proof Negative.dreaded_beast said:Heh. Proof Positive. :\

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.