Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Whateverist]

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 made numerous unsupported claims regarding 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.

*my bold*

Fixed that for you.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I think I have already given many explanations as to made numerous unsupported claims regarding 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.

*my bold*

Fixed that for you.

Consider it to be my own personal philosophy/observation then.  I also think the paranormal researchers should do full research into what the skeptics say rather than drawing hasty conclusions.  Therefore, I am not just saying that the skeptics should do full research into the paranormal. One last thing here. I also say something very interesting to add to this in my recent post below.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

 I also think the paranormal researchers should do full research into what the skeptics say

Most of them are not competent to do so.  If they were, they wouldn't be 'para'normal researchers.  They'd be investigating things like the rigor of colloids or flatulence rates among bonobos.

Science requires reasoning.  Paranormal 'research' merely requires persistence and a willingness to lie to yourself.

Boru

[Transcended Dimensions]

 I also think the paranormal researchers should do full research into what the skeptics say

Most of them are not competent to do so.  If they were, they wouldn't be 'para'normal researchers.  They'd be investigating things like the rigor of colloids or flatulence rates among bonobos.

Science requires reasoning.  Paranormal 'research' merely requires persistence and a willingness to lie to yourself.

Boru

Well, I see things this way.  Imagine if there was an all knowing being on this Earth. If you were to meet him and ask him whether the paranormal, soul, god, and afterlife exist or not, then imagine what he would say. I think he might say something that would shock the audience. He might say something such as:

"Human beings have very limited perspectives.  They limit themselves to their teachings and draw hasty, close-minded conclusions.  Buddhists will think their teachings are the truth, Christians will think their teachings are the truth, Hinduists will think their teachings are the truth, and skeptics will also think their teachings are the truth.  But if you have an all knowing perspective, then you will see the real truth as to whether the paranormal, soul, god, and the afterlife is real or not."

From there, this all knowing being would give you the right conclusion as to whether these phenomena exist or not.  He would reveal to you whether the skeptics had it right, whether the paranormal researchers had it right, or it could be the case that we really don't know one way or the other and that people just think they know the truth when they really don't.

[polymath257]

Given that there is a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show actual evidence in a controlled setting for paranormal events, and given that *nobody* has been able to show such under those controlled circumstances, the default position is that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).

So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.

At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Given that there is a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show actual evidence in a controlled setting for paranormal events, and given that *nobody* has been able to show such under those controlled circumstances, the default position is that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).

So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour  of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.

At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.

Now, I have given an example with an all knowing being in my previous post.  Are you sure this all knowing being would say that the paranormal, soul, god, and afterlife is all bullshit?  After all, this is an amazing, all knowing being we are talking about here and, thus, he might actually say something radical and unexpected.  Skeptics would expect him to say that the paranormal is all bullshit while proponents of the paranormal would expect him to say that the paranormal is real.  But what would he really say?

[polymath257]

Given that there is a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show actual evidence in a controlled setting for paranormal events, and given that *nobody* has been able to show such under those controlled circumstances, the default position is that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).

So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour  of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.

At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.

Now, I have given an example with an all knowing being in my previous post.  Are you sure this all knowing being would say that the paranormal, soul, god, and afterlife is all bullshit?  After all, this is an amazing, all knowing being we are talking about here and, thus, he might actually say something radical and unexpected.  Skeptics would expect him to say that the paranormal is all bullshit while proponents of the paranormal would expect him to say that the paranormal is real.  But what would he really say?

First present the all-knowing being. Show why we think that being is all-knowing. Then we can proceed.

Would an all-knowing being think that a perpetual motion machine is possible? Well, given what we know today pretty much everyone would say no. But perhaps we missed something and such machines are possible. Does that mean we need to take the possibility seriously? No.

Your introduction of an unknowable all-knowing being is a red herring. It doesn't add anything to what we already know. It only points to the fact that *all* of our know;edge of the real world is tentative to some degree. That doesn't mean we have to be so open minded our brains fall out.

[Whateverist]

Given that there is a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show actual evidence in a controlled setting for paranormal events, and given that *nobody* has been able to show such under those controlled circumstances, the default position is that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

As others have pointed out, most phenomena labelled as paranormal would e known physical laws. While it is certainly *possible* that such violations occur, it requires an extreme amount of repeatable evidence under controlled circumstances to overturn our understanding (because that's how we arrived at our understanding).

So, it is my viewpoint that many people who believe in paranormal phenomena are biased in favour  of such and also do not look at the evidence, requiring it to be both definitive and done in a controlled setting. They leap to conclusions rather than really look at the strength of the evidence and alternative explanations.

At this point, the tests of paranormal phenomena have been extensive enough that anyone claiming such events is under a burden similar to someone proposing a perpetual motion machine. There are good reasons to not even consider either proposal unless the evidence is absolutely conclusive and it should be enough to convince even determined skeptics under controlled conditions.

Now, I have given an example with an a highly suspect hypothetical involving an all knowing being in my previous post.  Are you sure this all knowing being would say that the paranormal, soul, god, and afterlife is all bullshit?  After all, this is an amazing, all knowing being we are talking about here and, thus, he might actually say something radical and unexpected.  Skeptics would expect him to say that the paranormal is all bullshit while proponents of the paranormal would expect him to say that the paranormal is real.  But what would he really say?

*my bold*

I should be charging you for all these fixes.  

[Transcended Dimensions]

Now, I have given an example with an all knowing being in my previous post.  Are you sure this all knowing being would say that the paranormal, soul, god, and afterlife is all bullshit?  After all, this is an amazing, all knowing being we are talking about here and, thus, he might actually say something radical and unexpected.  Skeptics would expect him to say that the paranormal is all bullshit while proponents of the paranormal would expect him to say that the paranormal is real.  But what would he really say?

First present the all-knowing being. Show why we think that being is all-knowing. Then we can proceed.

Would an all-knowing being think that a perpetual motion machine is possible? Well, given what we know today pretty much everyone would say no. But perhaps we missed something and such machines are possible. Does that mean we need to take the possibility seriously? No.

Your introduction of an unknowable all-knowing being is a red herring. It doesn't add anything to what we already know. It only points to the fact that *all* of our know;edge of the real world is tentative to some degree. That doesn't mean we have to be so open minded our brains fall out.

The all knowing being was just a hypothetical example to make my point.  You are also saying that we are just biological machines and, based upon that perspective, you conclude that there is no life after death and that we are not immortal.  But that is, again, just your skeptical/materialistic position.  I am talking about the all knowing perspective of a hypothetical all knowing being.  This requires you to suspend your skeptical/materialistic perspective and be open minded towards what this hypothetical all knowing being would really say.  He might say that we are souls that leave the body based upon what the researchers say in regards to quantum physics.  Or he might say that the skeptics had it right all along and that, once we die, that is it.  So, in this hypothetical example of an all knowing being, we must suspend all our perspectives.   Christians must suspend their perspective, Buddhists must suspend their perspective, and skeptics must suspend their perspective as well.

[robvalue]

Would you like to define "paranormal" and "soul" for us?

"Suspend perspective" sounds a lot like "lower standard of evidence". No one is stopping people bringing forward evidence of the paranormal, whatever it is.