> You claim FC advocates are ‘heartless’, how so?

Read the full article, please, before making assumptions. Here’s the entire sentence:

“While it is possible that Houben’s facilitator is willfully perpetrating a heartless con, it is more likely in this case, and in all uses of facilitated communication, that the facilitator’s actions are attributable to the ideomotor effect.”

That was not an insult by calling your loved ones heartless, but the author’s belief that FC results are misinterpreting a widely-known behavior.

>But it’s so sad that you people can’t be bothered to make the effort
>to do the full and proper research – to meet the users themselves and gain
>some first hand experience.

So if you make a claim, it’s up to me to disprove it? That’s not the way science works. It’s up to the claimant to prove their claim, to give others enough information to replicate, to exclude the possibility of misinterpretation or error.

We can’t assume every unprovable claim is the truth, or we’ll get abused. We need a way of measuring and testing claims to find which are justified and which can be dismissed. That’s why we have the scientific method.

>Actually, you are the ‘hearless’ ones, you have no real experience
> or understanding of a person who can’t speak, and condemn what you can’t understand.

How are we acting heartless to those with such a terrible condition? The article says that it’s a tragedy from every perspective. Sad, yes, but the article is the opposite of heartless. The last two paragraphs say it best.

>you’re primary interest is in being a ‘clever skeptic’, but not in genuine learning.

Do you *really* believe that? If so, we should stop talking now and while I thank you for your opinion, we can agree to disagree.

To respond to you using the same tactic, I could say that your primary interest is to insult and belittle anyone who criticizes your belief. But I’d be wrong! You took the time to come here and share your thoughts, but please understand that  (speaking for myself) a skeptic is truly trying to understand the world and is open to new ideas. Skeptics demand a scientific methodology when dealing with any claim – supernatural or not. Those claims presented as fact without even basic testing get highlighted in articles like this. And they should.

So, in the interest of genuine learning: If your son has done any double-blinded testing of his FC ability, I’d love to see the results, if you’re comfortable having them analyzed.

Andy