Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[chimp3]

What the hell does "paranormal" mean anyway?  Fucking anything not accepted by rational people? Bigfoot, Chupacabra, ETs, psychic surgery, levitation, talking with dead people? These do not seem like things which should be grouped together under one field of study. They are making very different claims which fall under medicine, physics, zoology, neuroscience. "Paranormal" is a cheap, easy way to bypass the scrutinity of valid disciplines.

[Astreja]

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...

There might or might not be something to the paranormal.  I just can't be bothered to spend a lot of time reading up on it, any more than I would spend time following the statistics for a sport I never watch.

If and when mainstream science discovers something useful that can be done with the paranormal, then I'll have another look.

[KevinM1]

Are the paranormal experiments mentioned by the OP actually a bunch of goobers walking around a building at night, with the lights off, while calling out to 'spirits' to communicate with them?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Various tests I've proposed to people claiming superpowers over the years:

1.  Dowsers:  I've buried  a bottle of water somewhere in my garden.  Find it.

2.  Astral projectors:  Tell me the title of the book on my night table.

3. Psychic mediums:  What did my maternal grandfather do for a living and/or how did he die?

4.  Prophecy: Where am I going tomorrow and what is the purpose of my going there?

In every case, no one even agreed to the tests, even though each one was within the scope of what the respondents claimed they could do.  All I ever got were variations of, 'That's not how it works' or 'Your energy is too negative for me to be able to give you the answer.'

Sounds an awful lot like, 'I'm a fraud.'

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

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.

We reject that bullshit because a) it is unevidenced and b) there are literally mountains of evidence that the vast majority of the peddlers of said bullshit know they're lying (and they're not subtle or clever about it either, google Derek Acorah some time).

[brewer]

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...

There might or might not be something to the paranormal.  I just can't be bothered to spend a lot of time reading up on it, any more than I would spend time following the statistics for a sport I never watch.

If and when mainstream science discovers something useful that can be done with the paranormal, then I'll have another look.

Mainstream media did, remember the X Files?

[Edwardo Piet]

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

Wow yeah!

You know like, when the phone rings and it's exactly the person you were just thinking of? Spooky!

Wow, hey, you know all those times when the phone rings and you weren't thinking of anybody? Even spookier!!!

Confirmation bias? Huh? What's that? As a 'paranormal investigator' I have no idea what that is

---

WHAT paranormal findings?!

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

Don't be silly Brewer. The ghosts are too sneaky to be caught via any 'methods'. So screw methods. Just shout and scream in an unhaunted 'haunted house' and shake the camera a bit. That'll get the ghost just fine.

[brewer]

Don't be silly Brewer. The ghosts are too sneaky to be caught via any 'methods'. [edit]

That's why they need to be even more sneaky. Just like with gophers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's a rather well known incident of an 11 year old boy crashing his bicycle and being knocked unconscious. When he came around, he began speaking in fluent German. No one thought much of it at the time, as it happened in downtown Munich.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

By strict definition, one who is "skeptical" does not jump to conclusions. Skepticism is not the conclusion that ghosts do not exist. Rather, it's a default nonacceptance of the conclusion that they do. As the term "skeptic" has become entrenched in our vernacular it has come to mean a person whose default assumption is that ghosts and other psychic phenomena aren't real. By this latter definition, a skeptic certainly does jump to conclusions.

What's important to note here is that "someone who carefully weighs the evidence" has become synonymous with "someone who concludes ghosts don't exist." Coincidence? I think not. After (time and again) of noticing that people who carefully weigh the evidence come to the conclusion that supernatural phenomena have natural explanations, we have simply implemented a shortcut like Jor mentioned and categorized skeptics as people who conclude ghosts don't exist.

It's important to bring up the true meaning of "skeptic" because one also notices that people who accept the phenomena are typically not true skeptics--ie they don't look carefully at the evidence and consider all possibilities. Because the words have ventured a bit from their original meaning, it's worth pointing out that "believers" are characterized as those who jump to the conclusion, who do not look carefully at evidence, who do not consider alternate possibilities.