Given that everything in existence does vibrate, right down to the atomic level, vibrations are not something limited merely to "the jargon of mediums" they are something found throughout the Universe, and the mediums may have been partially onto something in any case...something real, I mean...but that doesn't mean that everything they thought about it was correct and accurate.


When does something become "a valid scientific phenomenon"??? Well, it becomes that (supposedly) when someone in the science community says that it is. ;-) It's a matter of opinion, in other words, whether something is a "scientifically valid phenomenon" or not. One scientist may feel that it is, while another feels that it isn't. They each have their opinion about it. The one who thinks it IS will generally put plenty of time and effort into proving so, while the one who thinks it isn't will busy himself with something else instead, because he's not interested. ;-)

What we know (or what we think we know) at any given time is a very tiny amount of what we potentially could know about the Universe, and the rest is a matter of opinion.

People's opinions are based on memory, habit, culture, and their own prejudices (for or against various things). That's why I take most people's opinions with a grain of salt, and I rely mainly on one thing: my own direct experience...plus my ability to reason and to draw reasonable conclusions based on probabilities.

What I KNOW is either what I have directly experienced and observed...or what appears irrefutable through the power of reason.

What I suspect or consider "probable" is what seems most probable to me, given available evidence, testimony of many witnesses, etc.

What I recognize immediately is the blind prejudices of people who either believe in something...or disbelieve in something...simply because they want it to be that way....but not on the hasis of any actual evidence or direct experiences of their own. Merely on the hasis of their prejudice.

And that's a very common problem in this world. It is the problem of both the naive believer and the inflexible and cynical skeptic.