Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

I would actually be presenting the argument both ways here.  I can use that argument in favor of the skeptics but, at the same time, turn it around in favor of the paranormal researchers.  This presents the argument both ways for both the paranormal researchers and the skeptics to keep an open mind and not limit themselves to their particular views.

What argument, though?  You certainly speak word salad nicely enough, but you haven't provided anything of value.

What actual argument does the paranormal researcher have that could possibly persuade me in any way to consider his position?  If you've done the research, I'm assuming you have since you are advocating for them so badly, then you should be capable of providing the most amazing arguments that will automatically make me a believer in the paranormal.

As for actual arguments that can persuade you, it would be no different than coming up with arguments in an attempt to persuade paranormal proponents into being convinced of the claims of skeptics.  It's just not going to work since each side of the debate limits themselves to their particular views.  So, there is nothing I can do here. It's just a futile attempt.

Lastly, I was referring to the argument you just made (2 of them).  Here, I will give you an example.  Your 1st argument was:

"You simply have to understand and come to terms with the fact that a myth is a myth, that a fictional supernatural claim is just that.  

Just because someone believes something to be true and "claims" to have evidence does not make it true on their part. They are simply making unsubstantiated claims.  They can claim this, claim that, claim evidence, but in the end they have not claimed anything relational to reality.

It really is that simple."

I can turn that around by saying:

You simply have to understand and come to terms with the fact that a myth is a myth, that a fictional materialistic claim is just that.  

Just because someone believes something to be true and "claims" to have evidence does not make it true on their part. They are simply making unsubstantiated claims.  They can claim this, claim that, claim evidence, but in the end they have not claimed anything relational to reality.

It really is that simple.

Your 2nd argument was:

"No, you can't turn it around.  Reality is reality.  Claiming something beyond reality with no empirical evidence is folly of the worst intellectual kind.  Supernatural claims are not realistically based.  They simply aren't."

I can turn that around by saying:

"No, you can't turn it around.  Reality is reality.  Claiming something beyond reality with no empirical evidence is folly of the worst intellectual kind.  Materialistic claims are not realistically based.  They simply aren't."

As you can see here, I am presenting the arguments both ways.