Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[I_am_not_mafia]

I get the feeling that perhaps skeptics reject paranormal findings and experiments at first glance. They don't bother to fully read into the things these paranormal researchers have to say which addresses any objections these skeptics have. When you disagree with something whether it be an idea, an experiment, or a certain claim, you should fully look into anything that addresses your objections. Otherwise, you would just be jumping to conclusions. When drawing a certain conclusion, you should do so only after having conducted full research and having read all the objections being addressed. In short, keep an open mind through the whole journey until you finally arrive at the final destination whether that destination be accepting paranormal claims and findings as truth or rejecting them as woo or nonsense.

Because the scientists understand all the fundamental laws of physics that would need to be violated for the paranormal to exist. Start by addressing these laws first and they may take notice.

---

WHAT paranormal findings?!

You know, that tingly feeling at the back of your neck and the shivers that run up your spine when you're spooked.  

I put that down to an allergic reaction to our fabric softener.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think OP is probably correct, to an extent.  We've reached a point where a good deal of what is lumped under 'woo' is indeed rejected out of hand.  But I also think there may be good and sufficient reason for this summary dismissal.

Ever since there have been people there have been claims about paranormal phenomenon: prophetic dreams, dousing, divining, ghosts, faeries, cryptids, life after death, tele-fill-in-the-blank, and so on.  But - without exception - every time these claims have been tested with anything approaching rigor they fail. Dousers, by way of example, find water (or whatever else they're looking for) at rates no better than simple chance. It's the same with mind reading and Bigfeet and alien abductions and homeopathy and the rest of it.  When tens of thousands of instances of thousands of different paranormalities either fail of a test - or even worse, prove to be untestable - I hardly think that skeptics can be faulted for doubt. 

As a hypothetical, suppose I come to you and make the claim, 'A single gram of dryer lint will instantly heal any flesh wound.'  Brave soul that you are, you nick your thumb with a razor blade, apply the lint, and the cut fails to heal.  You try it on the other thumb - same result.  You go to your friends, relatives and business associates and get them to test the claim themselves (did I mention that you're VERY persuasive?).  Dozens of thumbs cut, dozens of lint balls applied and no sign of instantaneous healing.  Then, a couple of years later, some one else comes to you and makes the very same claim. Would you be in the least bit tempted to start the thumb-cutting all over again?

It isn't so much close-mindedness as it is exhaustion.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Still no pictures of my dead nana?  What a disappointment.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think OP is probably correct, to an extent.  We've reached a point where a good deal of what is lumped under 'woo' is indeed rejected out of hand.  But I also think there may be good and sufficient reason for this summary dismissal.

This I think is the most fair response:

My position on the paranormal is this: Although many frauds have been perpetrated in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleged), I would like to know about it. However, I have not attempted to authenticate the data put forward in books such as Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe and Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. (Here, I am making a point about gradations of certainty: Can I say for certain that a century of experimentation proves that telepathy doesn’t exist? No. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the statistical data. Can I say for certain that the Bible and the Koran show every sign of having been written by ignorant mortals? Yes. And this is the only certainty one needs to dismiss the God of Abraham as a creature of fiction.)

While I remain open to evidence of psi phenomena—clairvoyance, telepathy, and so forth—the fact that they haven’t been conclusively demonstrated in the lab is a very strong indication that they do not exist. Researchers who study these things allege that the data are there and that proof of psi can be seen in departures from randomness that occur over thousands of experimental trials. But people who believe in psi aren’t thinking in terms of weak, statistical effects. They believe that a specific person can reliably read minds, heal the sick, and work other miracles. I have yet to see a case in which evidence for such abilities was presented in a credible way. If one person on earth possessed psychic powers to any significant degree, this would be among the easiest facts to authenticate in a lab. Many people have been duped by traditional evasions on this point; it is often said, for instance, that demonstrating such powers on demand would be spiritually uncouth and that even to want such empirical evidence is an unflattering sign of doubt on the part of a student. Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe (John 4:48). A lifetime of foolishness and self-deception awaits anyone who won’t call this bluff.

Source: https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/

[chimp3]

To paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson, it is one thing to believe your dead grandmother is trying to communicate with you through a medium. It is another thing to see her climbing up your leg with a knife in her teeth!

[Whateverist]

It's a well known fact of psychology that people take short cuts in reasoning about the world.  The idea that this or that particular area should be handled without appeal to these shortcuts is as irrational as it is futile.  We tend to rely on consensus and method to weed out reliable claims from unreliable claims, as well as the fact that past performance predicts future behavior.  Are these shortcuts?  Sure.  But do they produce a robust representation of truth and reality?  I would argue that they do.  Your complaint is long on principle and short on practicality.  If we gave every advocate of every belief the type of treatment you here want us to reserve for the paranormal, we'd never have time for anything else.  On top of that, it's possible that the reliability of our conclusions would be harmed instead of helped, as the wisdom of the crowd outperforms individual judgements in the bulk of situations.

So my question for you would be why you feel that treating only claims of the paranormal in this way is in any sense wise?

But the paranormal researchers would even reject to this as well.  They would say that the skeptics are drawing the wrong conclusions through faulty methods and shortcuts.  

Go ahead.  Ask me if I give a rat's ass what paranormal researchers think.

[Minimalist]

While I remain open to evidence of psi phenomena

Hell, I remain open to evidence of "god."  I just never expect to see any.

And certainly not from the second and third-raters we get around here.

[possibletarian]

I get the feeling that perhaps skeptics reject paranormal findings and experiments at first glance.

WHAT paranormal findings?!

You know, like when there's a gust of wind, and your window slams shut at the SAME TIME.. how fucking freaky is that

So stop being sceptical and embrace science and wisdom

[brewer]

I get the feeling that perhaps skeptics reject paranormal findings and experiments at first glance.

WHAT paranormal findings?!

And what methods? Take everything at face value so I don't hurt their feelings?

[Fireball]

My take- there is a general method of speech or writing with conspiracy theorists that signals thought that is out of the ordinary chain of logic that one experiences with responsible people who are connected to reality. Conspiracy theorists will claim that the previous statement is word salad. I encourage them to read it slowly, without moving their lips, and wait for understanding to dawn. :nods:

One can replace the words "conspiracy theorist" with "religious fundamentalist" with complete logical agreement of said statement.