RE: Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions
April 10, 2018 at 11:31 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2018 at 1:22 am by Transcended Dimensions.)
When, for example, skeptics and proponents of the paranormal argue back and forth, they make intelligent-sounding arguments that make it difficult for me to determine who is telling the truth. If there was some incredibly stupid-sounding argument that was being made, then I could obviously see that argument as being false. But since both the skeptics and the paranormal proponents/researchers are trained and educated people, then they make smart-sounding arguments.
This is the reason why I remain undecided on who is telling the truth. This is the reason why I tell others to keep an open mind all the way through to the end and to not dismiss researchers because these researchers would come up with further smart-sounding arguments that should really make you think twice about rejecting the claims of these researchers. This also applies to any other debate such as people who argue that vaccines are not harmful and those who argue they are harmful. Both sides of the debate appear to be making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is telling the truth.
Actually, I think I have figured it out. I lack the insight necessary to perceive who is making the dumb arguments and who is making the smart-sounding arguments. From my perspective, both the skeptics and the paranormal researchers are making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is speaking dumb lies. The skeptics claim that the paranormal researchers are making the dumb arguments while the researchers claim the skeptics are making the dumb, absurd arguments. But I cannot tell who is since I lack insight.
It would be no different than American Idol singers who perceive their singing as being great. They lack the insight necessary to perceive the horrible flaws in their singing. Another example would be when I write essays. From my perspective, my writing skill is good. But other experienced people would come along and tell me that my writing is terrible. In short, I lack insight and am inexperienced in life. Whether I wish to gain insight and life experience is up to me. But I currently have no interest.
This is the reason why I remain undecided on who is telling the truth. This is the reason why I tell others to keep an open mind all the way through to the end and to not dismiss researchers because these researchers would come up with further smart-sounding arguments that should really make you think twice about rejecting the claims of these researchers. This also applies to any other debate such as people who argue that vaccines are not harmful and those who argue they are harmful. Both sides of the debate appear to be making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is telling the truth.
Actually, I think I have figured it out. I lack the insight necessary to perceive who is making the dumb arguments and who is making the smart-sounding arguments. From my perspective, both the skeptics and the paranormal researchers are making smart-sounding arguments and I cannot tell who is speaking dumb lies. The skeptics claim that the paranormal researchers are making the dumb arguments while the researchers claim the skeptics are making the dumb, absurd arguments. But I cannot tell who is since I lack insight.
It would be no different than American Idol singers who perceive their singing as being great. They lack the insight necessary to perceive the horrible flaws in their singing. Another example would be when I write essays. From my perspective, my writing skill is good. But other experienced people would come along and tell me that my writing is terrible. In short, I lack insight and am inexperienced in life. Whether I wish to gain insight and life experience is up to me. But I currently have no interest.
