Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Fireball]

OK, a paranormal chew toy. Have fun folks, I'm done with it.

[possibletarian]

If we dismiss the paranormal claims these researchers make based upon the shortcut methods skeptics use, then that is treating these researchers as though they are dumbfounded and denying the most obvious facts of life.  It's like saying to them:

"It's as simple as this and any paranormal researcher who argues against this would have to be in denial, dumb, and having a sense of wishful thinking."

But these are highly intelligent researchers we are talking here who have had a lot of education and training.  To just dismiss their research based upon shortcut methods would be very close-minded.  Therefore, I think there are no shortcuts and that a long journey to reach the final destination really is necessary.  It's as they always say.  The road to truth can be a long journey.  Furthermore, since these paranormal researchers are highly intelligent and have had a lot of education, then the objections they make to the skeptics are good, intelligent objections.  But the skeptics treat these researchers as though their objections are dumbfounded and a waste of time. 

In other words, these skeptics are being very close-minded here and do not bother to fully look into these objections.  They just stop at a certain point and proclaim victory.  But their claims of victory are founded upon their own close-minded objections which have already been addressed by these researchers.  As you can see here, there are basic facts of life we know and there are no debates about these things such as the fact that we all grow old and die or that an orange is a juicy fruit.  But as for things that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal or the idea that vaccines cause autism, there are no shortcuts to arriving at the truth.  There is so much to keep an open mind to.  Therefore, in order to arrive at the truth in these scenarios, that requires a long journey all the while keeping an open mind to all the research done and all the objections that are being said and addressed.

*bold mine*

Why would what was researchable require a long journey ? wouldn't it simply require evidence ?

[Transcended Dimensions]

If we dismiss the paranormal claims these researchers make based upon the shortcut methods skeptics use, then that is treating these researchers as though they are dumbfounded and denying the most obvious facts of life.  It's like saying to them:

"It's as simple as this and any paranormal researcher who argues against this would have to be in denial, dumb, and having a sense of wishful thinking."

But these are highly intelligent researchers we are talking here who have had a lot of education and training.  To just dismiss their research based upon shortcut methods would be very close-minded.  Therefore, I think there are no shortcuts and that a long journey to reach the final destination really is necessary.  It's as they always say.  The road to truth can be a long journey.  Furthermore, since these paranormal researchers are highly intelligent and have had a lot of education, then the objections they make to the skeptics are good, intelligent objections.  But the skeptics treat these researchers as though their objections are dumbfounded and a waste of time. 

In other words, these skeptics are being very close-minded here and do not bother to fully look into these objections.  They just stop at a certain point and proclaim victory.  But their claims of victory are founded upon their own close-minded objections which have already been addressed by these researchers.  As you can see here, there are basic facts of life we know and there are no debates about these things such as the fact that we all grow old and die or that an orange is a juicy fruit.  But as for things that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal or the idea that vaccines cause autism, there are no shortcuts to arriving at the truth.  There is so much to keep an open mind to.  Therefore, in order to arrive at the truth in these scenarios, that requires a long journey all the while keeping an open mind to all the research done and all the objections that are being said and addressed.

*bold mine*

Why would what was researchable require a long journey ? wouldn't it simply require evidence ?

Skeptics claim they have the evidence and that the paranormal researchers have no evidence.  But the paranormal researchers would claim they have the evidence and that the skeptics have none.  As you can see here, it is a debate regarding the evidence.  Therefore, it requires full research into these fields of study in order to determine whether there really is sufficient evidence for the paranormal or not.

[possibletarian]

*bold mine*

Why would what was researchable require a long journey ? wouldn't it simply require evidence ?

Skeptics claim they have the evidence while claiming that the paranormal researchers have no evidence.  But the paranormal researchers would claim they have the evidence and that the skeptics have none.  As you can see here, it is a debate regarding the evidence.  Therefore, it requires full research into these fields of study in order to determine whether there really is sufficient evidence for the paranormal or not.

Wouldn't evidence alone be sufficient ?

[Transcended Dimensions]

Skeptics claim they have the evidence while claiming that the paranormal researchers have no evidence.  But the paranormal researchers would claim they have the evidence and that the skeptics have none.  As you can see here, it is a debate regarding the evidence.  Therefore, it requires full research into these fields of study in order to determine whether there really is sufficient evidence for the paranormal or not.

Wouldn't evidence alone be sufficient ?

But how would you know if there is evidence for sure or not unless you fully research into these things and arrive at the final conclusion?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah.  Show me my nanas ghost pictures or gtfo.

[possibletarian]

Wouldn't evidence alone be sufficient ?

But how would you know if there is evidence for sure or not unless you fully research into these things and arrive at the final conclusion?

So tell me, you say very intelligent people have been studying this, are they not 'fully researching' it ?

If you are going to suggest that we have to fully research the research, then where or when does the buck stop,. Either say you don't know or provide some kind of credible evidence.

There is probably a very good reason that these are considered crackpot idea's, that being the lack of any reasonable evidence to consider. If you want people to dedicate time, money and effort into this you will have to provide credible reasons.

[robvalue]

I've not heard a scientific definition of what "paranormal" is. It seems to amount to the unexplained. And if that's all it is, there's no problem. I don't expect everything that happens to be explainable. But instead, such reports almost always seem to have an explanation tagged along with them as to precisely what happened, how, and why.

I don't know what consequence any of it is supposed to be. If it only occurs within anecdotal confines and videos/photos, it can't be properly investigated, and it's clearly not having much practical impact.

Personally, I'm always open to evidence of anything. My reaction depends on the strength of the evidence.

[Whateverist]

Yep.  (Fixed that for you.)  I'm more cautious/tentative/mealymouthed .. what's the word I'm looking for?  Viva la difference!

---

It almost seems that the paranormal is a necessary category from your perspective.  Why?

If we dismiss the paranormal claims these researchers make based upon the shortcut methods skeptics use, then that is treating these researchers as though they are dumbfounded and denying the most obvious facts of life.  It's like saying to them:

"It's as simple as this and any paranormal researcher who argues against this would have to be in denial, dumb, and having a sense of wishful thinking."

But why in the world do you think anyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt for something alleged to be para- or super- normal/natural? There is not one exemplar you can point to of any such thing. Until there is, why waste you time?

But these are highly intelligent researchers we are talking here who have had a lot of education and training.  To just dismiss their research based upon shortcut methods would be very close-minded.  Therefore, I think there are no shortcuts and that a long journey to reach the final destination really is necessary.  It's as they always say.  The road to truth can be a long journey.  Furthermore, since these paranormal researchers are highly intelligent and have had a lot of education, then the objections they make to the skeptics are good, intelligent objections.  But the skeptics treat these researchers as though their objections are dumbfounded and a waste of time.

You sure do have a lot of good to say about the capacity of these researchers. Sounds an awful lot like Trump blowing his own horn about his good brain. If they're so smart, let them earn the respect of other scientists in their fields, when it gets peer reviewed. If it doesn't pass muster to get reviewed, that's good enough for me, and your personal recommendation means zip. 

In other words, these skeptics are being very close-minded here and do not bother to fully look into these objections.  They just stop at a certain point and proclaim victory.  But their claims of victory are founded upon their own close-minded objections which have already been addressed by these researchers.  As you can see here, there are basic facts of life we know and there are no debates about these things such as the fact that we all grow old and die or that an orange is a juicy fruit.  But as for things that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal or the idea that vaccines cause autism, there are no shortcuts to arriving at the truth.  There is so much to keep an open mind to.  Therefore, in order to arrive at the truth in these scenarios, that requires a long journey all the while keeping an open mind to all the research done and all the objections that are being said and addressed.

You go right ahead. Me, I dismiss talk of conspiracy for the reliable warning it has always been. (I think you're a nut.)

[haig]

Read a few James Randi books, plow through a couple of years of Skeptical Inquirer, and you will see the stong science an evidence against specific paranormal events.