Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[robvalue]

I just listened to some Dean Radin on YouTube, and it sounded like a load of batshit nonsense to me. If he's actually got any proper evidence to support anything he's saying, I'd be interested to see it. It sounds like he's trying to avoid doing proper science at all costs, and throwing all sorts of conspiracy stuff out as an excuse for this. He even said, unless I misheard him, that you "run into problems using the scientific method when studying these things". Hmm.

He said he wants to find out if humans have "inherent meaning", which is a contradiction in terms. I don't have a lot of confidence that he's actually studying anything at all, but is rather trying to support his whacky ideas with whatever he can find. Book sales, as a motivation, springs to mind.

If anyone can point me to something substantial he has done, I'll happily take a look.

[possibletarian]

*bold mine*

What full research would you like to do, that has not already been done ?
Can you be specific ?

I don't plan on doing any research since I have no interest.  I am just saying that, in order for me to arrive at the truth as to whether the skeptics are right or the paranormal researchers are right, then that would require me to do full research into both the skeptical field, the paranormal field, as well as all the objections being said and addressed by both sides of the debate.

That is not how you come to good conclusions, if you feel the 'paranormal' has merit, then it's that you should seek to prove, how much more simple can it get?

It's a bit like me saying that in order to come to a true conclusion about invisible immaterial flying pigs, then an investigation into those asking for evidence is a way to go, I've never heard of such nonsense. I would suggest that you do your own investigations, take the long path to your truth and return when you have something worthwhile to debate.

[Whateverist]

Dean Radin? Fuck off.

Dean Radin is a well known paranormal researcher ..

Notoriety does not guarantee the quality of his work or of his mind, things you keep asserting are excellent without making any effort to justify.

.. and he has done plenty of research.

Quantity does not equal quality.

You've given me no reason to give two fucks what this guy has to say.

[polymath257]

All that means is that we should base our ideas on the best available evidence at any point in time. And the best available evidence is that we are biological machines and that paranormal phenomena are not real.

This is NOT just my skeptical position. It is a position taken by looking at the available evidence and seeing where it points. If you want to suggest an alternative position, just present the evidence.

You THINK the evidence points towards us being biological machines.  But just because you think something is true does not make it true.  Also, just because you have dedicated your life to some area of research and have become convinced this area of research speaks the truth does not make it so either.  People fall into this sort of trap all the time.  They are brought up in a certain way and are taught certain things that they think are true.  But said things could be false.  I could say the same thing in regards to the paranormal researchers as well.  Just because they believe certain things does not make them true. 

Therefore, I cannot trust anybody.  I cannot trust humanity and the things they claim are true.  I trust neither the skeptics nor the paranormal researchers.  Thus, I am left in an undecided position where I just don't know the answer one way or the other and nothing anybody says will ever convince me one way or the other.  I would have to take that full, long journey I mentioned earlier.  But, like I said before, I have no interest in researching these sorts of things.  Therefore, I can only hope that the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams awaits me after I die.  These paranormal researchers claim that we are eternal, blissful souls, that they have the evidence for this, and I can only hope this is true.

And that is precisely why we have the scientific method. When one person makes a proposal, another can challenge it. Together they decide on a test to decide the controversy and then *do* the test.

You see, science has a dispute resolution procedure. And, in the end, the observations are what determine truth. It really is that simple.

So, if someone claims to have evidence for a paranormal, ask for a test. More precisely, ask for a test that will *fail* if there is no paranormal. And then do the test.

Yes, I think the evidence points to us being biological machines. ALL the evidence points in that direction. If you have evidence pointing in another direction, please present it and we can determine how good it is compared to the evidence pointing the other way.

Yes, there is such a thing as confirmation bias. That is why we try to show our ideas to be *wrong*. We try to *break* the ideas, repeatedly and with as much force as we can. If they hold up, they are more likely to be true. And that is why they can be trusted: they have been challenged repeatedly and found to be solid.

Anything *not* repeatedly challenged and shown to work is discarded. Justifiably. And that includes claims of the paranormal.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think what you might be ignoring, TD, is that skeptics DO investigate the claims made by paranormalists. It is precisely because these claims are found wanting that they're rejected.

Boru

[robvalue]

I expect most sceptics would be all over the paranormal, if it could be shown there was anything to it. Why wouldn't they be? It would be absolutely fascinating, it might make us rethink everything from the ground up.

We could hardly suppress it if it were true, either. How powerful do the paranormalists think we are?

I got an insight into Radin's methods, when he said he goes around talking to people who have had odd feelings that they instrinctively knew something about someone else. He wants to know if there is truth to it... I think he's already decided there is truth to it, and going by his qualifications, he should have a large number of perfectly normal explanations as to why people experience this.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I just listened to some Dean Radin on YouTube, and it sounded like a load of batshit nonsense to me. If he's actually got any proper evidence to support anything he's saying, I'd be interested to see it. It sounds like he's trying to avoid doing proper science at all costs, and throwing all sorts of conspiracy stuff out as an excuse for this. He even said, unless I misheard him, that you "run into problems using the scientific method when studying these things". Hmm.

He said he wants to find out if humans have "inherent meaning", which is a contradiction in terms. I don't have a lot of confidence that he's actually studying anything at all, but is rather trying to support his whacky ideas with whatever he can find. Book sales, as a motivation, springs to mind.

If anyone can point me to something substantial he has done, I'll happily take a look.

I don't plan on doing any research since I have no interest.  I am just saying that, in order for me to arrive at the truth as to whether the skeptics are right or the paranormal researchers are right, then that would require me to do full research into both the skeptical field, the paranormal field, as well as all the objections being said and addressed by both sides of the debate.

That is not how you come to good conclusions, if you feel the 'paranormal' has merit, then it's that you should seek to prove, how much more simple can it get?

It's a bit like me saying that in order to come to a true conclusion about invisible immaterial flying pigs, then an investigation into those asking for evidence is a way to go, I've never heard of such nonsense.  I would suggest that you do your own investigations, take the long path to your truth and return when you have something worthwhile to debate.

Dean Radin is a well known paranormal researcher ..

Notoriety does not guarantee the quality of his work or of his mind, things you keep asserting are excellent without making any effort to justify.

.. and he has done plenty of research.

Quantity does not equal quality.

You've given me no reason to give two fucks what this guy has to say.

You THINK the evidence points towards us being biological machines.  But just because you think something is true does not make it true.  Also, just because you have dedicated your life to some area of research and have become convinced this area of research speaks the truth does not make it so either.  People fall into this sort of trap all the time.  They are brought up in a certain way and are taught certain things that they think are true.  But said things could be false.  I could say the same thing in regards to the paranormal researchers as well.  Just because they believe certain things does not make them true. 

Therefore, I cannot trust anybody.  I cannot trust humanity and the things they claim are true.  I trust neither the skeptics nor the paranormal researchers.  Thus, I am left in an undecided position where I just don't know the answer one way or the other and nothing anybody says will ever convince me one way or the other.  I would have to take that full, long journey I mentioned earlier.  But, like I said before, I have no interest in researching these sorts of things.  Therefore, I can only hope that the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams awaits me after I die.  These paranormal researchers claim that we are eternal, blissful souls, that they have the evidence for this, and I can only hope this is true.

And that is precisely why we have the scientific method. When one person makes a proposal, another can challenge it. Together they decide on a test to decide the controversy and then *do* the test.

You see, science has a dispute resolution procedure. And, in the end, the observations are what determine truth. It really is that simple.

So, if someone claims to have evidence for a paranormal, ask for a test. More precisely, ask for a test that will *fail* if there is no paranormal. And then do the test.

Yes, I think the evidence points to us being biological machines. ALL the evidence points in that direction. If you have evidence pointing in another direction, please present it and we can determine how good it is compared to the evidence pointing the other way.

Yes, there is such a thing as confirmation bias. That is why we try to show our ideas to be *wrong*. We try to *break* the ideas, repeatedly and with as much force as we can. If they hold up, they are more likely to be true. And that is why they can be trusted: they have been challenged repeatedly and found to be solid.

Anything *not* repeatedly challenged and shown to work is discarded. Justifiably. And that includes claims of the paranormal.

I think what you might be ignoring, TD, is that skeptics DO investigate the claims made by paranormalists. It is precisely because these claims are found wanting that they're rejected.

Boru

Personally, I do not think that drawing the conclusion as to whether the paranormal exists or not is a simple task at all.  Determining whether these things really have evidence for them or not is a long journey.  As I said before.  The road to truth can be a long journey and there are no shortcuts.  But I am going to say something new here now.  There is a website where these shortcut methods skeptics use to draw their conclusion that the paranormal is all bullshit have been addressed.  If these shortcut methods truly were the nail in the coffin for these paranormal researchers, then any objections to them should render skeptics looking at these objections and thinking:  "What the hell are these researchers thinking or smoking?" 

It would be no different than denying the most obvious fact of life.  For example, if you argued that you don't need a heart to live and that you can just rip it out and still remain alive, then such an argument can be looked at in such a manner as being insane or crazy.  But I don't think this is the case when these paranormal researchers argue against the shortcut methods skeptics use.  Therefore, this means these shortcut methods are not basic, obvious facts that skeptics make them out to be.  Rather, they are nothing more than close-minded opinions that have been thoroughly addressed by these researchers.  The same can be said in regards to how the paranormal researchers think their shortcut methods for dismissing the skeptics are basic, obvious facts and that the skeptics would have to be crazy to argue against them. 

As you can see here, there is a big difference between arguing against the most basic, obvious facts of life as opposed to having an ongoing debate where each person presents their views to the table and argues them back and forth.  The former would have to be a crazy person.  But the latter would be an ongoing debate between intelligent people who have had a lot of training and education.  The debate between the skeptics and the paranormal researchers would have to be one of those intelligent debates. Therefore, all objections any skeptic has here must not be used as a means of shortcut in dismissing the paranormal research as bull crap.

Rather, it should be used as a means of embarking on the journey of debate and further learning until, eventually, you draw your conclusion at the final destination after looking into everything and having researched into everything regarding skepticism and the paranormal.  One last thing here.  I also realize skeptics make objections to the paranormal research through mentioning the scientific method.  This is an objection these researchers have addressed as well.  Here, I will give you the website where all the objections/shortcuts skeptics come up with have been thoroughly addressed. I am quite sure there are other websites as well that address more objections these skeptics have:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/s..._fallacies

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a super short journey in the absence of any evidence that they exist.  Cool story, though.

[Whateverist]

The troll is simply repeating the same script, quoting but entirely ignoring points made against that same script. I'm done.

[polymath257]

I just listened to some Dean Radin on YouTube, and it sounded like a load of batshit nonsense to me. If he's actually got any proper evidence to support anything he's saying, I'd be interested to see it. It sounds like he's trying to avoid doing proper science at all costs, and throwing all sorts of conspiracy stuff out as an excuse for this. He even said, unless I misheard him, that you "run into problems using the scientific method when studying these things". Hmm.

He said he wants to find out if humans have "inherent meaning", which is a contradiction in terms. I don't have a lot of confidence that he's actually studying anything at all, but is rather trying to support his whacky ideas with whatever he can find. Book sales, as a motivation, springs to mind.

If anyone can point me to something substantial he has done, I'll happily take a look.

That is not how you come to good conclusions, if you feel the 'paranormal' has merit, then it's that you should seek to prove, how much more simple can it get?

It's a bit like me saying that in order to come to a true conclusion about invisible immaterial flying pigs, then an investigation into those asking for evidence is a way to go, I've never heard of such nonsense.  I would suggest that you do your own investigations, take the long path to your truth and return when you have something worthwhile to debate.

Notoriety does not guarantee the quality of his work or of his mind, things you keep asserting are excellent without making any effort to justify.


Quantity does not equal quality.

You've given me no reason to give two fucks what this guy has to say.

And that is precisely why we have the scientific method. When one person makes a proposal, another can challenge it. Together they decide on a test to decide the controversy and then *do* the test.

You see, science has a dispute resolution procedure. And, in the end, the observations are what determine truth. It really is that simple.

So, if someone claims to have evidence for a paranormal, ask for a test. More precisely, ask for a test that will *fail* if there is no paranormal. And then do the test.

Yes, I think the evidence points to us being biological machines. ALL the evidence points in that direction. If you have evidence pointing in another direction, please present it and we can determine how good it is compared to the evidence pointing the other way.

Yes, there is such a thing as confirmation bias. That is why we try to show our ideas to be *wrong*. We try to *break* the ideas, repeatedly and with as much force as we can. If they hold up, they are more likely to be true. And that is why they can be trusted: they have been challenged repeatedly and found to be solid.

Anything *not* repeatedly challenged and shown to work is discarded. Justifiably. And that includes claims of the paranormal.

I think what you might be ignoring, TD, is that skeptics DO investigate the claims made by paranormalists. It is precisely because these claims are found wanting that they're rejected.

Boru

Personally, I do not think that drawing the conclusion as to whether the paranormal exists or not is a simple task at all.  Determining whether these things really have evidence for them or not is a long journey.  As I said before.  The road to truth can be a long journey and there are no shortcuts.  But I am going to say something new here now.  There is a website where these shortcut methods skeptics use to draw their conclusion that the paranormal is all bullshit have been addressed.  If these shortcut methods truly were the nail in the coffin for these paranormal researchers, then any objections to them should render skeptics looking at these objections and thinking:  "What the hell are these researchers thinking or smoking?" 

It would be no different than denying the most obvious fact of life.  For example, if you argued that you don't need a heart to live and that you can just rip it out and still remain alive, then such an argument can be looked at in such a manner as being insane or crazy.  But I don't think this is the case when these paranormal researchers argue against the shortcut methods skeptics use.  Therefore, this means these shortcut methods are not basic, obvious facts that skeptics make them out to be.  Rather, they are nothing more than close-minded opinions that have been thoroughly addressed by these researchers.  The same can be said in regards to how the paranormal researchers think their shortcut methods for dismissing the skeptics are basic, obvious facts and that the skeptics would have to be crazy to argue against them. 

As you can see here, there is a big difference between arguing against the most basic, obvious facts of life as opposed to having an ongoing debate where each person presents their views to the table and argues them back and forth.  The former would have to be a crazy person.  But the latter would be an ongoing debate between intelligent people who have had a lot of training and education.  The debate between the skeptics and the paranormal researchers would have to be one of those intelligent debates. Therefore, all objections any skeptic has here must not be used as a means of shortcut in dismissing the paranormal research as bull crap.

Rather, it should be used as a means of embarking on the journey of debate and further learning until, eventually, you draw your conclusion at the final destination after looking into everything and having researched into everything regarding skepticism and the paranormal.  One last thing here.  I also realize skeptics make objections to the paranormal research through mentioning the scientific method.  This is an objection these researchers have addressed as well.  Here, I will give you the website where all the objections/shortcuts skeptics come up with have been thoroughly addressed.  I am quite sure there are other websites as well that address more objections these skeptics have:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/s..._fallacies

Most of this is simply complaining that the same standards used in every other area of science are used with paranormal research. Yes, the evidence has to be strong enough to convince skeptics. Yes, extraordinary claims (those that contradict well-established scientific principles--not simply 'strongly held beliefs') require extraordinary evidence.

Again, the fact is that *every* time paranormal phenomena are tested in a properly controlled environment, they fail to show up. There is a million dollar reward for anyone who can set up an experiment that tests these ideas in a controlled setting and actually manages to show them. Many have attempted to do so. None have succeeded. Many frauds have been exposed. That is sufficient evidence for me at this point.