Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Nay_Sayer]

So, nothing then?...well this was disappointing.

[Pat Mustard]

Just so you know, I can read anything anyone has to say here in regards to why they think the paranormal doesn't exist.  But, for each and every single one of these posts people make, I would always find myself asking the question:

"What are the objections to what these people are saying?"

Thus, nothing anybody says here will convince me because I would have to do full research into these objections and I would have to do much researching in general until I arrive at the final destination.  As a matter of fact, I apply this exact same mindset when determining the truth of any given thing.  But there are exceptions such as the fact that, if you drink poison, that would be lethal for you.  I obviously know not to drink poison.

I call bullshit on your second paragraph. You take as true too many things shown to be false and reject too many things strongly supported by evidence. The substance of what you do and believe is diametrically opposed to what you say you do.

[Transcended Dimensions]

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.

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.)

Just so you know, I can read anything anyone has to say here in regards to why they think the paranormal doesn't exist.  But, for each and every single one of these posts people make, I would always find myself asking the question:

"What are the objections to what these people are saying?"

Thus, nothing anybody says here will convince me because I would have to do full research into these objections and I would have to do much researching in general until I arrive at the final destination.  As a matter of fact, I apply this exact same mindset when determining the truth of any given thing.  But there are exceptions such as the fact that, if you drink poison, that would be lethal for you.  I obviously know not to drink poison.

I call bullshit on your second paragraph.  You take as true too many things shown to be false and reject too many things strongly supported by evidence.  The substance of what you do and believe is diametrically opposed to what you say you do.

Personally, I just think that both the skeptics and the paranormal researchers should not use their shortcut methods.  They should both keep an open mind throughout the whole journey, fully read into each other's objections being said and addressed, and fully study up on each other's fields of study.  As long as they don't, then each side would proclaim victory due to their close-minded conclusions that they think are true.  Take, for example, one side of a debate who has dedicated years of study to their field of study and another side who has done the same in regards to their field of study.  That limits both sides to only their field of study.  In other words, both sides would be very likely to be close-minded.  But if both sides have fully researched into each other's field of study, then that should give each side more insight. 

For example, if the skeptics have fully researched into the paranormal like how the paranormal researchers have done, then it's likely the skeptics would not draw close-minded conclusions based upon their skeptical upbringing and teachings.  The same would apply to the paranormal researchers.  I don't think you should ever draw a conclusion based upon your upbringing and teachings since religious people do this all the time.  If there was some sort of brain that could absorb all the knowledge in the world and draw the right conclusion based upon all that knowledge, then that would be the proper way to draw a conclusion.  But if that brain only had knowledge in regards to one field of study (materialistic science) and only had limited knowledge when it comes to the paranormal, then it would be wrong for that brain to draw a conclusion as to whether the paranormal exists or not. 

Another thing here.  In regards to the peer review, this has also been addressed by the paranormal researchers as well.  You should look into what they have to say about this one as well and not draw any hasty conclusions. Also, in regards to the evidence, there is much debate about that as well.  Therefore, no hasty conclusion should be drawn in regards to evidence.  The member who called BS on my second paragraph would be one of these people drawing a hasty conclusion.  So, it really all goes back to that 2nd paragraph then.  People are trying to steer away from it and call BS on it, but I think it all really comes down to what I said there.  Even the paranormal researchers themselves say things such as that the skeptics are being close-minded and need to look more into their objections which have been addressed and that they need to do much more research into the paranormal rather than drawing hasty conclusions.

I would like to say one last thing here. That is, imagine a quick scan versus a full scan. If you did a quick scan for viruses and spyware, then that scan might report to you a false conclusion which was that your computer is free of spyware and viruses. But if you did the full scan, then your computer would give you the right conclusion whether it be your computer is truly infected or not. From there, imagine a bullshit detector. It scans information on the internet regarding the paranormal as well as the skeptical research. From there, it reports back to you whether what the skeptics say is bullshit or if the paranormal is bullshit. If you did the quick scan, then it might report to you a false conclusion. But if you did the full scan, then you would get the right conclusion. Therefore, when drawing a conclusion as to whether the paranormal exists or not, we should be like researchers doing the full scan rather than using the quick scan.

[vulcanlogician]

Khem is too gnostic for my liking. Granted... he's gnostic about the plausible things, which speaks to his benefit, but he's suspicious about a mind that's open to all possibilities (ie critical of agnosticism). That's too anti-Socratic for my tastes, and I challenge him on it when it pops up.

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

Thanks man.

[emjay]

I could never be like Mulder... and the programme's tagline: 'I want to believe' kind of sums up everything I see wrong with it. 'If you believe it, you perceive it' could be a better tagline and that's all the explanation I need for most of this 'paranormal' stuff.

[Whateverist]

Another thing here.  In regards to the peer review, this has also been addressed by the paranormal researchers as well.  You should look into what they have to say about this one as well and not draw any hasty conclusions.

Well, have you looked into it? Rather than admonishing everyone here to go off researching what interests you why don't you just report on your own findings?

Just to be clear, when I say peer reviewed I don't mean by fellow ghost busters and mediums. I mean by scientists working in fields into which the phenomenon in question would fall.

But until you become more forthcoming and less repetitive you're about to go on ignore. If you have anything substantive to say I suggest you get to it. You get just one more shot.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Another thing here.  In regards to the peer review, this has also been addressed by the paranormal researchers as well.  You should look into what they have to say about this one as well and not draw any hasty conclusions.

Well, have you looked into it?  Rather than admonishing everyone here to go off researching what interests you why don't you just report on your own findings?

Just to be clear, when I say peer reviewed I don't mean by fellow ghost busters and mediums.  I mean by scientists working in fields into which the phenomenon in question would fall.

But until you become more forthcoming and less repetitive you're about to go on ignore.  If you have anything substantive to say I suggest you get to it.  You get just one more shot.

I have no interest in doing any research myself into these fields of study because the one area of study I wish to dedicate my life to would be learning how to compose.  Therefore, all I am doing here is just telling others to keep an open mind and to not draw hasty conclusions.  I suspect that so many people in this world draw hasty conclusions based upon their upbringing/teachings and I think this was the wrong method.  They use shortcuts rather than doing full research and I think this was the wrong way of doing it.

[Little lunch]

I find that there seems to be an awfully large amount of people out there who claim to have seen a ghost.
Science points to illusion, delusion, tricks of the mind, etc.
I'm sceptical of the science bit.
We're too polite to say they're all big, fat liars who are too weak to admit they got a fright over nothing and have to make up a story.
Why can't that be our first hypothesis?

[Whateverist]

Well, have you looked into it?  Rather than admonishing everyone here to go off researching what interests you why don't you just report on your own findings?

Just to be clear, when I say peer reviewed I don't mean by fellow ghost busters and mediums.  I mean by scientists working in fields into which the phenomenon in question would fall.

But until you become more forthcoming and less repetitive you're about to go on ignore.  If you have anything substantive to say I suggest you get to it.  You get just one more shot.

I have no interest in doing any research myself into these fields of study because the one area of study I wish to dedicate my life to would be learning how to compose.  Therefore, all I am doing here is just telling others to keep an open mind and to not draw hasty conclusions.  I suspect that so many people in this world draw hasty conclusions based upon their upbringing/teachings and I think this was the wrong method.  They use shortcuts rather than doing full research and I think this was the wrong way of doing it.

But you don't explain why you think research into crackpot ideas deserves kid glove treatment.  Like you, everyone is already pursuing what they are interested in.  No one is compelled to look into every crazy idea someone else comes up with.  And what you call "paranormal" and what the religious call "supernatural" are bereft of even one non-controversial exemplar to justify those categories.  Until that changes I am content to assume they are empty sets and to say so when it comes up in conversation.  The subject holds no inherent interest to me.  If it does for you, you take it on.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I have no interest in doing any research myself into these fields of study because the one area of study I wish to dedicate my life to would be learning how to compose.  Therefore, all I am doing here is just telling others to keep an open mind and to not draw hasty conclusions.  I suspect that so many people in this world draw hasty conclusions based upon their upbringing/teachings and I think this was the wrong method.  They use shortcuts rather than doing full research and I think this was the wrong way of doing it.

But you don't explain why you think research into crackpot ideas deserves kid glove treatment.  Like you, everyone is already pursuing what they are interested in.  No one is compelled to look into every crazy idea someone else comes up with.  And what you call "paranormal" and what the religious call "supernatural" are bereft of even one non-controversial exemplar to justify those categories.  Until that changes I am content to assume they are empty sets and to say so when it comes up in conversation.  The subject holds no inherent interest to me.  If it does for you, you take it on.

I think I have already given many explanations as to why such claims deserve full research.  Especially since these are claims being made by researchers who have had a lot of training, education, and have done experiments where they conclude that there is real evidence for these sorts of things.