Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[emjay]

I'm not hating on X-Files, I love X-Files... I'm just saying I couldn't be like Mulder... I'm more like Scully I'm loving the new series, and holding out for a nice slimy, gooey episode like Tooms/Squeeze or the one about the mutant fluke worm Those are my favourite sorts of I’m 

The reboots have had some fine episodes for sure!  Unforunately, they’ve also had some devastatingly bad ones (read: all the episodes written by Chris Carter 😡).  So bad in fact, that I think they’ve damaged the show’s legacy.  Too bad GA said she’s done for good this time, not that I blame her after that finale...

Oh, that's a pity if they're not going to do any more; I've liked all of them so far but I haven't seen the whole series yet (and I missed the first one). Everyone's a lot older and saggier... which initially I thought would go down about as well as Arnie in Terminator 3 or whatever... but it turned out I got used to it just fine (but never really did with grandpa Terminator ). I liked that they kept the same music and intro... so to me it doesn't feel any different really to the old ones. Being American I'm guessing it's further ahead for you... as always ... since you're talking about the finale and I don't think that's been aired yet here (maybe... I don't know... I'm not watching them as they come on but on catchup, every now and again, so I'm still behind on wherever it's up to). I'll probably understand what you mean when I see the finale, if it's really that bad, but I hope I don't think so.

[Succubus]

Nope, all this paranormal belief crap tracks back to religion, afterlife stuff. I'm just guessing, but if you believe in paranormal stuff, you are likely to belief in religion.

A good guess but it doesn't necessarily follow. It's possible to be an atheist and still have a head full of mad dogs shite. David Icke?

Like religion, the paranormal is a figment of our imagination.

Or the result of faulty reasoning?

A true skeptic would never give any credibility to the belief in the paranormal.

Absolutely and unequivocally no!
This is exactly what the detractors latch on to, as evidenced in the OP. The motto of the Royal Society is: Nullius in verba. "Take nobody's word for it!"
It's a one size fit's all statement but it just works bitches.

---

Wouldn't evidence alone be sufficient ?

But how would you know if there is evidence for sure or not unless you fully research into these things and arrive at the final conclusion?

And yet your own group
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group is shutting down after some twenty-eight years of searching for proof of the paranormal

Found nothing.

[JackRussell]

I don't even believe in para-gliding. Too old.

[Angrboda]

Puts me in mind of the jackass who starved to death between two identical haystacks.

Grow a pair and take a position.

Boru

There are things we know as basic, obvious facts.  I wouldn't be the one to starve to death because I know basic, survival things.  But then there are things which have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal research or vaccines causing autism.  These are the sorts of things I would have to remain undecided on since it requires me to do full research and I just have no interest in researching into all the studies and objections being addressed.  So, I can trust humanity when they say certain things such as that I need to eat certain things to remain alive or I need to do this or that to keep myself alive and well.  But I cannot trust humanity when they claim that the paranormal is bullshit or not or that vaccines cause autism or not.  In essence, the only truth I know is the most basic things.  I do not know whether there is more to life than feeling positive emotions or if positive emotions really are the only source of good value in our lives as hedonists claim.  Neither do I know anything else.

So in other words, you do employ a shortcut or heuristic in determining what to accept and what to reject. The only difference between you and me is that you're a hypocrite about what you do, and I am not. Is processed food dangerous to your health? That's undecided. Are you going to stop eating now? You want to special plead on the subject of paranormal research, yet represent yourself as simply being fair minded. That's not being fair minded, it's just being a knee jerk partisan. I explained the reasons why the habits we have now result in a practical and robust epistemic community. Your response was that it didn't please some partisan whiners. That isn't a criticism of the points I made. It's not a rational justification for treating this or that subject with more than normal scrutiny than others. You're irrational, partisan, and full of shit.

[Transcended Dimensions]

---

But how would you know if there is evidence for sure or not unless you fully research into these things and arrive at the final conclusion?

And yet your own group
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group is shutting down after some twenty-eight years of searching for proof of the paranormal

Found nothing.

But that is just one article though.  There is so much more out there than that to keep an open mind to.  An example would be with Dean Radin and his research into the paranormal.  See, this is what I am talking about here.  Skeptics use their shortcut methods in jumping to conclusions when there is already so much out there to keep an open mind to and there are already so much objections these skeptics have that have been addressed.

[JackRussell]

Uhm, scientists are not necessarily skeptics; the method when correctly applied is.

It is the method, not the people.

The method has never demonstrated non-natural methods.

I will had for honesty 'so-far'.

But given the amount of work done, one would have thought an inkling would have shown of super-nature.

If you want to see something, that is often the methodological problem, and it has tripped up real scientists as well.

[Succubus]

Puts me in mind of the jackass who starved to death between two identical haystacks.

Grow a pair and take a position.

Boru

...But then there are things which have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal research or vaccines causing autism...

Troll it is then.

[Transcended Dimensions]

There are things we know as basic, obvious facts.  I wouldn't be the one to starve to death because I know basic, survival things.  But then there are things which have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal research or vaccines causing autism.  These are the sorts of things I would have to remain undecided on since it requires me to do full research and I just have no interest in researching into all the studies and objections being addressed.  So, I can trust humanity when they say certain things such as that I need to eat certain things to remain alive or I need to do this or that to keep myself alive and well.  But I cannot trust humanity when they claim that the paranormal is bullshit or not or that vaccines cause autism or not.  In essence, the only truth I know is the most basic things.  I do not know whether there is more to life than feeling positive emotions or if positive emotions really are the only source of good value in our lives as hedonists claim.  Neither do I know anything else.

So in other words, you do employ a shortcut or heuristic in determining what to accept and what to reject.  The only difference between you and me is that you're a hypocrite about what you do, and I am not.  Is processed food dangerous to your health?  That's undecided.  Are you going to stop eating now?   You want to special plead on the subject of paranormal research, yet represent yourself as simply being fair minded.  That's not being fair minded, it's just being a knee jerk partisan.  I explained the reasons why the habits we have now result in a practical and robust epistemic community.  Your response was that it didn't please some partisan whiners.  That isn't a criticism of the points I made.  It's not a rational justification for treating this or that subject with more than normal scrutiny than others.  You're irrational, partisan, and full of shit.

I would still eat processed food anyway despite not knowing if it is harmful to me in the long run on some level or not.  Therefore, I still make choices in life even despite not knowing the truth of many things. Another example would be that I don't take vaccines despite not knowing if they are really harmful or not. Also, any argument you make against the existence of the paranormal can be made against the skeptics.

[Succubus]

I don't even believe in para-gliding. Too old.

Fuck that. You want me in the sky then you better show me the wings and I mean proper wings made of cast iron or whatever it is they use now. And engines, loads of engines.

Eta, and a set of wheels would increase my confidence enormously.

[possibletarian]

You keep calling it 'a journey' and use words like path and truth.

They are meaningless without credible evidence.