Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[robvalue]

If you won't define paranormal, I'll define it for you: "Unexplained phenomena which people jump to hasty conclusions about based on common fictional stories."

If you have a better definition, please go ahead.

---

*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.

Bold mine.

This is exactly what I'm trying to clear up. Right about what? Sceptics generally say there is no testable, repeatable evidence for "the paranormal", and unless investigators are hiding it away somewhere, they are right. This isn't jumping to conclusions.

I'm not for a moment saying strange things we don't understand aren't going on. They almost certainly are. The difference between a sceptic and one of these other guys is that the sceptic looks to understand using rigorous methods and not to jump to conclusions. It's possible to criticise someone's methods without saying everything they are trying to study is necessarily non-existent.