Of course some people don't feel anything from crystals.
Some people can't even smell when a cat lives in a house. Some
people are capable of discerning the differences between rare
vintage red wines, and others can't tell if it's lite beer or
regular. I am wondering what varying levels of the physical senses
of smell and taste have to do with detecting a non-physical and
unverifiable energy. You are making an interesting comparison.
I’ll concede that modern science knows more about the receptors for
smell and taste, as well as vision, hearing, and many forms of
touch, than it does about other less understood forms of human
perception. Science has not yet identified physical cellular
receptors for the energy people feel off of crystals. It does not
mean that they don’t exist.
Truly, historically, only recently are we able to say that these
senses (of smell and taste) even come close to being both physical
(assuming that you are meaning that there is physical causation –
actual physical bombardment of particles, not remote detection; AND
not that the sense is “felt” physically – since those who are able
to “feel” crystal energy definitely “feel” it physically) and
verifiable (assuming that you are meaning detectable by some
man-made machinery; not in the way something is “verified” by
numerous credible experiencial witnesses – like in a court of
In fact, if you understood a little more about science, you might
want to watch how you throw around the terms “non-physical” and
"unverifiable energy", as if they negated possibility of existance.
Take “non-physical” for example – that would mean that the thing in
question would not exhibit (as per definition) “having substance or
material existence; perceptible to the senses”. That would negate
huge amounts of the electromagnetic spectrum in wave form that can
only be detected and de-scrambled by man-made devices, a small
example being wave forms detected and de-scrambled by radio and
television. Do you “feel” these wave forms in the air? They are
all around you.
And what about “unverifiable energy”? This one is a little more
tricky, because I love science, and the ability to recreate results
in controlled experiments is a tenet of scientific method. I just
have to point to the past, and remind you that nothing is
scientifically known until it is proven and scrutenized; and
historically all energies were unverifiable until someone created a
device to detect them. Otherwise and until then, those energies
were unverifiable except by antectdotal evidence.
“Life energy” would have to be one of the current “unverifiable
energies” that science struggles to comprehend. Science can only
verify the symptoms (like in the definition: “1 The force of will
which strives to coalesce a dynamic organism from inanimate matter.
2 A force which demonstrates a purposeful intentionality to feed,
process matter into energy, grow, and reproduce.”). What is this
force that can “coalesce a dynamic organism from inanimate matter”?
Science doesn’t know yet – do you? And can you verify it by
anything other than antectdotal evidence?
I compared the abilities to smell and taste to the ability to
perceive energy off of a crystal or crystals because all require
some kind of human perception, and all also present a continuum of
responses. Most people can sort of understand the ability to smell
or to taste, and most people have experienced the continuum of
responses to different smells or tastes in different people (“That
stinks!” “I don’t smell anything.” – “That food is too spicey.” “I
can hardly taste it.” – “I can feel the energy off that crystal.”
“I don’t feel anything.”) This doesn’t prove or disprove the
validity of personal claims, it just indicates that variances exist
even in accepted perceptions.
I personally believe that what I feel off of a crystal is either its
torsion field (I’m pretty sure you need to learn more about physics
before I want to even try to explain this one to you), or that I
feel a reflection and amplification of my own energy field (which I
would assume that you don’t believe exists).
It would definitely be fun to do a clinical double-blind test on the
ability to “feel” the energy associated with any particular crystal
or crystals, but that is hardly what you suggest.
The person and experiment you cite as an example for the “test” you
would like to conduct was a nine year old girl creating an
"experiment" for her fourth grade science fair, whose parents both
have a vested interest in her “proving” the fallacy of Theraputic
Touch. (Both parents are quite active in Anti-Theraputic Touch
organizations. I didn’t even know that there were Anti-Theraputic
Touch organizations – as if voluntary participation in Theraputic
Touch were somehow harmful to the participants and that they needed
to be protected from it?)
I do not ask that you believe that others can “feel” crystals, you
are entitled to believe what you wish. I just ask that you please
learn what real science is, and distinguish it from what it is not.
My experience in these experiments has shown that the 'crystal
energy sensitive' are much better at formulating excuses, for what
may be interfering with their ability to detect the energy
accurately, than they are at actually detecting any energy or the
presence of any crystal (healing stone) in the area.
I would love to read your clinical trials. Can you please post a
link, or tell me how to obtain your notes? I only ask because you
have posted a link to what you consider a “real” experiment, only to
find that it was done by a fourth-grader.