Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

13 pages and you still refuse to define what "paranormal" means. If you don't even know what it is, how are we supposed to be open to it?

I think this one should be clearly obvious.  Skeptics talk about the paranormal all the time.  So, they must already know what it means.

I never said these researchers had actual evidence.  All I said was that they claim they have actual evidence and, since as I keep repeating albeit without providing any support they are smart researchers who have had a lot of training and education, then we should not dismiss their claims of evidence through the types of shortcuts skeptics use to dismiss their claims.  Rather, we should do full research in order to arrive at the right conclusion as to whether these researchers have real evidence or not.

*my bold*

Finished this for you in the interest of full disclosure.

I could say the same thing in regards to the skeptics.  The paranormal researchers would also ask me to provide support that these skeptics are smart.

If I'm understanding this right, we're not being encouraged to investigate the paranormal, but rather to investigate paranormal investigators?

Are they hiding their evidence somewhere for us to find, or something? Why can't they just share it with everyone?

If we have to do their work for them, they can't have much going on.

The conclusion as to whether the claimed evidence is real or not is hidden.  We have to do full research in order to arrive at the conclusion whether this claimed evidence is real or not.  The same idea applies to the evidence skeptics claim for their position.

I’ve yet to see the OP produce anything that would convince me to take paranormal researchers or their research seriously.  Vague appeals to authority - especially when that authority hasn’t even been established - is hardly convincing.  Smart people do and believe in stupid shit all the time.

So, instead of whining that everyone is a big poopy-head for not taking it seriously, make a cogent argument for it, complete with actual examples of actual research and ‘findings’.

Shit, or get off the pot.

I could also say that the skeptics believe in stupid things as well such as the idea that we are just biological machines and nothing more.  Any arguments skeptics make I can turn around back onto the skeptics.  This is the reason why no argumentation will work.