This topic and approach are so much away from how I see life - I'm pretty much a rationalist, a skeptic. I had a recent conversation with someone close to me a

This topic and approach are so much away from how I see life - I'm pretty much a rationalist, a skeptic. I had a recent conversation with someone close to me about an episode on Goop, in which Julie Beishel, a Ph.D., is brought in the conversation alongside a "medium". I decided I wanted to take a look at one of her papers on the topic, and decided I was gonna read it, no matter what my gut feeling were telling me about it (in essence: a huge dose of skepticism). I think it's an exercise we can all benefit from. Not because you will change your views (I didn't change mine), but because sometimes it's interesting to see what the "other" side thinks or claims. Edit: in particular, this part of the paper (page 11) is where the topic became interesting for me (in the sense that it make me curious to read the results and evaluate how much they could be credible to my eyes): > Modern researchers have examined the ability of mediums to report accurate and specific information about the deceased under controlled laboratory conditions (e.g., Beischel, Boccuzzi, Biuso, & Rock, 2015) as well as the unique psychological characteristics of mediums (e.g., Roxburgh & Roe, 2011; Taylor & Murray, 2012) and their specific experiences of communication with the deceased (e.g., Beischel, Mosher, & Boccuzzi, 2017; Emmons & Emmons, 2003; Rock & Beischel, 2008). [0]: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Julie-Beischel-Beischel/d05ac4e698072f846064a4ca6aba25184537bc8a https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Julie-Beischel-Beische...