(April 9, 2018 at 3:51 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote:(April 8, 2018 at 11:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: 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.
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.
But the paranormal researchers would reject that claim skeptics make. The researchers say that there really is testable, repeatable evidence and that these skeptics are just close minded. They say these skeptics don't bother to fully research to discover that there really is actual evidence for these phenomena. Therefore, any argument you come up with against the paranormal researchers and their findings won't work because any argument a skeptic would make I can make against the skeptics just like I have done in this very post.
(April 9, 2018 at 3:43 am)SaStrike Wrote: You're either too lazy or not applying your mind properly. Research has been done into paranormal/supernatural, if you're not even interested then why jump to conclusions? You take these shortcuts yourself.
How can you claim to not be interested in doing the research then claim people took shortcuts? You really try your best to be special. You'e just ignorant. I would say you're actually trapped in a box intellectually. All your forum posts and threads prove so.
If the skeptics really have done full research, then I have no way of knowing if the conclusion they have drawn was correct. I mean, you can do full research into something, but still draw the wrong conclusion. I, myself, would have to do full research to draw my own conclusion. But, like I said, I have no interest in this research. I can only hope that the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams exists for me after I die without actually knowing one way or the other whether the afterlife and paranormal are real phenomena or not.
But your thread is about skeptics jumping to conclusions. Not about how you're too dumb to comprehend the available research, or lazy to actually do any research about the example you gave.
So I conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.
