[Maribellin]

i am confused by this what is the difference between what is being studied here and the "new-age" movement. i think is someone can distinguish these to for me i would be on the path i have been waiting to find. what does new-age teach? i have been reading about so many things in books and the internet lately. i thought ufos and phyics stuff was new age, but both are talked about can someone tell me the difference and if you still are trying to figure it out for yourself can david answer a few questions

[topbonusescod]

you started mumbling in your last sentance there

new age, to me, is a label i don't really stick to anything. its meaning is too troubled by all those opinions out there. but that's just my $0.02

[Ocqljudq]

understanding,

i personally try not to label any of the things i research, read or come to understand. why put a label over your head? just be and try not to categorize it all

one 66

[yQvpyNt3]

what is called new-age is what mainstream scientists and media skeptics call pseudo science. what is pseudo science? things which are portrayed as science but are not scientific at all, most of the time they use scientific jargon etc... now the hard thing is where to make the distinction between science and pseudoscience, it's obvious that a lot of mainstream science is not much more then pseudoscience itself(see how the pharmaceutical industry influences scientific researchetc) and some things they call pseudoscience is in fact some hard science. why is this?

science is a sociological phenomenon, they are human beings with ideologies, beliefs and emotions which makes them not the ultra objective people that a lot of people take them for... so what happens is the following: if a phenomenon is proven to be true it can still be labelled as false or as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists because it goes into their beliefs and ideology. if scientists would only be looking at the facts they wouldn't have ignored the theory of the tectonic plates, meteorites, etc for years before it was accepted... so sometimes they are very quick to put some very controversial topics which shake the foundations of science in the list of impossible nonsense "new age mumbo jumbo like vampires, werewolves, loch ness....".

it is sometimes very hilarious and sad to see how scientists react on phenomena like telepathy when confronted with the evidence.

the whole controversy between mainstream science and it's apparent dogmatism is shown very neatly on the site http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org which makes the distinction between dogmatic skeptics and skeptics and shows how dogmatic science can be...

so i would advise you to do your own research and make up your own mind, there is hard evidence for things like telepathy and other psychic abilities. if you want some good book recommendations email me...

peace,
Unknown