Psychic vs Science


I recently received a comment that there is no “scientifically acceptable” evidence for psychics.

Which begs the question of what, precisely, IS “acceptable scientific evidence” for personal growth, inspiration, creativity, ¬†relaxation, entertainment, the expressing of emotion and spirituality?

What kind of person asks for scientific “proof” of an individual’s personal emotions?

Is there scientifically acceptable “proof” of love or compassion?

Consider, if you will, art.




What is the scientific proof of art? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it isn’t scientifically quantified. Yet, art is a valued part of humanity.

Art, science, intuition, logic, emotion, humor, spirituality…all are part of the human experience. Science is how we understand the world in which we live. Tarot helps to understand ourselves. Science is the universe knowing itself. Tarot and intuition is the scientist knowing himself.

As I’ve said before, those who object to “psychics” on the basis of “science” have most likely fallen prey to the ridiculous, nonsensical urban mythology surrounding psychic work, and the fallacy of “accurate psychic predictions”. They say there is no scientific proof of psychics, because they are trying to prove something that doesn’t exist. A good psychic (from the Greek, meaning ¬†‘soul worker’) doesn’t claim those kinds of predictions.

In my opinion, approach everyone claiming to make “100% accurate predictions” with all skepticism and science you can muster. But, at the same time, take care not to make false equivalence and blanket pronouncements about all whom you place under the blanket label of “psychic”. Take care that your skepticism does not come from a place of stereotypes and bigotry.