| >These are scientifically unsubstantiated claims but to claim that they are impossible is to go beyond the scope of the current science. Proving things impossible is beyond the scope of _any_ science, that's just how epistemology works. >How can you know that mind control is impossible? I can't. I also can't know with absolute certainty that climate change is real, that the earth isn't flat, that vaccines work and don't cause autism or that bill gates isn't a satanist using covid pandemic to implant people with mind control microchips. I have seen absolutely no evidence for any of it and all the believers seem to be absolute lunatics, so the chance of it being true are low enough that I'm pretty comfortable with acting like I know it for certain. >If you were truly capable of it, would you advertise it? Well, I'd say writing about your experience with your abilities in a book certainly counts as a form of advertisement! I also don't really see what there'd be to worry about if it's true that these powers could simply be learned. >But all that aside, it's not really about believing or not believing in whatever the claims are.
>Whether or not you become a pyromancer is actually not important, most of these disciplines actually discourage these things even though they believe in them. Sure, they might see it like that, but I don't think it makes sense for anyone else to view it this way. If someone is either lying or deluding themselves, I think that's pretty important information to consider! If someone is, say, an anti-vaxxer that doesn't mean everything they're saying is false, but it certainly makes it seem pretty reasonable to dismiss what they're saying until they've provide some actual evidence. Similarly, why shouldn't I be skeptic of people who are claiming supernatural powers while not being able to offer any evidence? Especially because they're not making it clear where knowledge ends and religion begins, possibly because they themselves don't know. |