Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

I will just say one last thing here that is on my mind. That is, I do not know when to decide something whether it be looking into the paranormal and skeptical research or looking into anything else. I just remain undecided. I can look into all the research and into all the things the skeptics have to say. But I will never be able to decide since I will always have it in my mind that perhaps it's not time to make that decision and that there is much more to keep an open mind to and look into.

This pretty much sums up your complete misunderstanding of what the skeptical position is.  

Here's how it works.

People claim paranormal phenomena exists. Skeptics are unconvinced that those positing a paranormal phenomena exists, have not met their burden of proof.

The skeptical position is not that the paranormal does not exist, the skeptical position is that the paranormal has not been confirmed to exist.

In which case, I should have said I can't decide as to whether there is real evidence for the paranormal as the paranormal researchers claim or if there is no evidence for these things as skeptics claim.

[KevinM1]

Cool. And how does that involve any of us, again? We're not here to validate your beliefs.

[polymath257]

This pretty much sums up your complete misunderstanding of what the skeptical position is.  

Here's how it works.

People claim paranormal phenomena exists. Skeptics are unconvinced that those positing a paranormal phenomena exists, have not met their burden of proof.

The skeptical position is not that the paranormal does not exist, the skeptical position is that the paranormal has not been confirmed to exist.

In which case, I should have said I can't decide as to whether there is real evidence for the paranormal as the paranormal researchers claim or if there is no evidence for these things as skeptics claim.

And without *looking* at the evidence, you never will decide. You don't have the interest level to actually look into this, so you will never know.

Your choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Somebodies parent's didn't teach him the difference between can't and won't.

Why is it that committed woosters issues always boil down to something so basic?

[Transcended Dimensions]

When, for example, skeptics and proponents of the paranormal argue back and forth, they make intelligent-sounding arguments that make it difficult for me to determine who is telling the truth. If there was some incredibly stupid-sounding argument that was being made, then I could obviously see that argument as being false. But since both the skeptics and the paranormal proponents/researchers are trained and educated people, then they make smart-sounding arguments.

This is the reason why I remain undecided on who is telling the truth. This is the reason why I tell others to keep an open mind all the way through to the end and to not dismiss researchers because these researchers would come up with further smart-sounding arguments that should really make you think twice about rejecting the claims of these researchers.  This also applies to any other debate such as people who argue that vaccines are not harmful and those who argue they are harmful.  Both sides of the debate appear to be making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is telling the truth.

Actually, I think I have figured it out.  I lack the insight necessary to perceive who is making the dumb arguments and who is making the smart-sounding arguments.  From my perspective, both the skeptics and the paranormal researchers are making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is speaking dumb lies.  The skeptics claim that the paranormal researchers are making the dumb arguments while the researchers claim the skeptics are making the dumb, absurd arguments.  But I cannot tell who is since I lack insight.  

It would be no different than American Idol singers who perceive their singing as being great.  They lack the insight necessary to perceive the horrible flaws in their singing.  Another example would be when I write essays.  From my perspective, my writing skill is good.  But other experienced people would come along and tell me that my writing is terrible.  In short, I lack insight and am inexperienced in life.  Whether I wish to gain insight and life experience is up to me.  But I currently have no interest.

[KevinM1]

Science isn't about argumentation.  It's about observation, experimentation, and the resulting data.  So, saying "I don't know who to believe because these people all sound smart to me" shows that you're coming at it from exactly the wrong angle.

And, again, why do you care what we think?  Or if we're as open-minded as you?  You keep presenting it as some sort of tragic character flaw that we should remedy, and you come off as more than a bit preachy because of it.

For me, I live by the old adage "don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out of your head."  Given the utter lack of statistically meaningful positive findngs regarding the existence of the paranormal, I can only conclude that it doesn't exist.  I reserve the right to change my mind in light of new evidence, but until that happens, I'm not going to sweat it.  I'm a practical guy, and have too much real world shit I've gotta worry about.  Obsessing over the slim chance I might be wrong about something that hasn't impacted my life to date isn't something I'm interested in doing.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Science isn't about argumentation.  It's about observation, experimentation, and the resulting data.  So, saying "I don't know who to believe because these people all sound smart to me" shows that you're coming at it from exactly the wrong angle.

And, again, why do you care what we think?  Or if we're as open-minded as you?  You keep presenting it as some sort of tragic character flaw that we should remedy, and you come off as more than a bit preachy because of it.

For me, I live by the old adage "don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out of your head."  Given the utter lack of statistically meaningful positive findngs regarding the existence of the paranormal, I can only conclude that it doesn't exist.  I reserve the right to change my mind in light of new evidence, but until that happens, I'm not going to sweat it.  I'm a practical guy, and have too much real world shit I've gotta worry about.  Obsessing over the slim chance I might be wrong about something that hasn't impacted my life to date isn't something I'm interested in doing.

But here's the thing.  The paranormal researchers would argue against the methods of skeptics who conclude that the paranormal is all bull crap.  They would say that they are properly using the scientific method and that the skeptics/materialists are not.  They would say that there has, in fact, been testable, repeatable evidence for the paranormal and that skeptics refuse to accept the evidence.

[KevinM1]

And? Again, science isn't about argumentation. It's why peer-review exists. It's why confirmation/verification experimentation exists. Science isn't politics or philosophy or faith. Results aren't true or false because someone has a better argument.

You really should take the time and learn how science works. You're freaking out because you lack a rudimentary understanding of it.

[Transcended Dimensions]

And?  Again, science isn't about argumentation.  It's why peer-review exists.  It's why confirmation/verification experimentation exists.  Science isn't politics or philosophy or faith.  Results aren't true or false because someone has a better argument.

You really should take the time and learn how science works.  You're freaking out because you lack a rudimentary understanding of it.

But there is peer reviewed paranormal research.  The researchers would argue that this does count as real evidence while skeptics would say it doesn't.  Therefore, it all comes down to an argument in regards to the peer reviewed research as to whether it is real evidence or not:

http://noetic.org/research/psi-research

[KevinM1]

Have you read those papers?