RE: Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions
April 9, 2018 at 11:43 am
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2018 at 11:45 am by Transcended Dimensions.)
(April 9, 2018 at 11:15 am)Whateverist Wrote: The troll is simply repeating the same script quoting but entirely ignoring points made against that same script. I'm done.
I think I have addressed those quoted posts through what I said. I just personally think that human beings tend to limit themselves to only one particular view through shortcut methods rather than embarking on the full journey of knowledge and truth. Almost every religious believer, philosopher, paranormal believer, and skeptic use these shortcut methods. I think this was the wrong way of doing it and I explain new things in regards to why that is in that post.
(April 9, 2018 at 11:40 am)polymath257 Wrote:(April 9, 2018 at 11:06 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: 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.
I see you have come up with yet another objection/shortcut in that last paragraph of yours. So, what I would ask from there is, are you just being close minded here and drawing a hasty conclusion? Or are there objections to this as well out there that you are just not keeping an open mind to?