Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[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.