Science worships skepticism, unless skepticism is applied to science, its hypotheses, procedures, or methods. What we need are more skeptics who are not afraid to judge the claims of science with the same fine discrimination used to examine other alternate disciplines and fields of endeavor. Like The New York Times, science publishes “all the news that’s fit to print,” meaning all of the news that fits into the officially-accepted view of reality. That news is already invisibly censored, and yet we’re supposed to live our lives in accordance with that official definition of experience.

As her psychic abilities began to rapidly grow, following her initiation of the Seth material late in 1963, Jane couldn’t help but become more and more concerned about consciously enlarging her “scope of identity.” It became obvious to us later, of course, that even her first doubts and questions about things psychic made it inevitable that she would confront such a basic issue. As was characteristic of us, also, we worked by ourselves for a long time as we attempted to learn more about what we were doing. But naive creatures that we were, when we did begin to reach out we were quite unprepared for the skepticism we would meet from the learned “establishment.” In large part, that rejection was to continue. Very understandable, then, that Jane, both for herself and for Seth, would write so eloquently about the disparity between her psychic abilities and “the currently scientifically-oriented blend of rationalism,” as Seth describes that quality earlier in this Session Six for The Magical Approach.

He is highly skeptical of AA, when he tries to consider him as an individual person, but is perfectly content to think of him as a force. [...] For this led him to skepticism. [...]

Ruburt was strongly committed to the sessions on the one hand, and highly skeptical on the other. [...]

Periods of belief would be followed by periods of skepticism, and the wavering nature makes it most difficult for me to give him the very assurance that he needs. [...]

I have no objection, except that we must not deal with the gullible or skeptical. The gullible can do us more harm than the skeptical.

We must not deal with the overly gullible or skeptical. [...]

[...] I can to some extent deal with the skeptic. [...]

[...]

(Then we had a discussion about some articles I’ve just read in the latest issue of Free Inquiry, a magazine whose writers express a deep skepticism about anything having to do with the paranormal.

[...] I want you to realize where skepticism and disbelief can lead when an individual carries them to the ultimate. [...]

What Ruburt believes to be his intellectual skepticism is the voice of the overly conscientious self in quite limited Catholic terms.

This means of course that deeply felt hope must be sardonically examined, that deeply buried faith must be stated with parried thrusts, and to that extent the paper speaks for a concentrated portion of your population so that our Jim Poett, who is a poet at heart, must appear in the slightly worn cloak of the skeptic. [...]

(As we talked Jane herself made the intuitive connection that her “intellectual skepticism” about her psychic gifts is really a fear, an emotional masquerade that prevents her from being really objective in considering her abilities. [...]

(I was amused during the visit to learn that “two little old ladies, one who’s interested in your stuff and one who’s a skeptic,” waited in the car in the driveway while Michaellen and I talked under the porch light. [...]

[...] His kindly inner skepticism is the same as that that is within many of the magazine’s readers. [...]

[...] Sometimes we’ll discover that the “knowledge” of us held by the skeptic(s) in question is so far removed from our actual beliefs and activities that it would take us a very long time to establish any real understanding among all involved — if it would be possible to begin with, that is. [...]

Yes … And in the face of such skepticism or misunderstanding, Jane and I may at times find ourselves wondering why psychic attributes even exist in nature, in those terms, if they’re denied any application within that framework. [...]

[...] The presentation of information seemed to be very straight-forward, though I’m sure that it will be attacked by the skeptics in a variety of ways. [...]

[...] However, I doubt if the author, a professional philosopher, had any idea of backing up Seth; pardon my skepticism. [...]

[...] I find it enjoyable and somewhat amusing, but I always respect the workings of honest skepticism and intellectual critical analysis. [...]

[...] I was very skeptical. [...]

[...] People who call themselves skeptics, who seem to have a very rigid focus only within what they call physical reality. [...]

[...] They will come from the inside and not from skepticism. [...]

[...] Someone has produced over fifty notebooks of fascinating material, and even at my most skeptical moments I have to accept the reality of the sessions and the material. [...]

[...] He would not have to deal with so-called skeptics on the one hand, nor would he allow himself to be set up as an occult priestess on the other. [...]