Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

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

They are meaningless without credible evidence.

But how you determine whether there really is evidence or not for the paranormal is through taking this long journey.  You need to fully research into everything including the objections that the paranormal researchers address.  Once you've researched into everything, then you can finally determine for sure whether there really is evidence or not.  But, in the meantime, we don't know for sure and there are no shortcuts to determine whether there really is evidence for these things or not.  Skeptics say there is no evidence for the paranormal while the researchers say there is.  This disagreement is only merely the very beginning of the journey.  It is the opening of the door of your own home and going outside, if you will.  From there, you must embark on the full journey to arrive at the final destination.

[Minimalist]

You need to fully research into everything including the objections that the paranormal researchers address.

Incorrect.  The person making the claim has the duty to support it.  Produce your evidence and we will then evaluate it.

For myself, I think you are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins but you have a chance to produce your evidence if you wish.



( P.S.  "I don't know so maybe" is not evidence.)

[possibletarian]

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

They are meaningless without credible evidence.

But how you determine whether there really is evidence or not for the paranormal is through taking this long journey.  You need to fully research into everything including the objections that the paranormal researchers address.  Once you've researched into everything, then you can finally determine for sure whether there really is evidence or not.  But, in the meantime, we don't know for sure and there are no shortcuts to determine whether there really is evidence for these things or not.  Skeptics say there is no evidence for the paranormal while the researchers say there is.  This disagreement is only merely the very beginning of the journey.  It is the opening of the door of your own home and going outside, if you will.  From there, you must embark on the full journey to arrive at the final destination.

You look at it and decide it's creditability, if it's not credible or testable it's rejected.. simple. Otherwise why not accept any crackpot idea?

No long journey or path needed.

[Transcended Dimensions]

You need to fully research into everything including the objections that the paranormal researchers address.

Incorrect.  The person making the claim has the duty to support it.  Produce your evidence and we will then evaluate it.

For myself, I think you are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins but you have a chance to produce your evidence if you wish.



( P.S.  "I don't know so maybe" is not evidence.)

But how you determine whether there really is evidence or not for the paranormal is through taking this long journey.  You need to fully research into everything including the objections that the paranormal researchers address.  Once you've researched into everything, then you can finally determine for sure whether there really is evidence or not.  But, in the meantime, we don't know for sure and there are no shortcuts to determine whether there really is evidence for these things or not.  Skeptics say there is no evidence for the paranormal while the researchers say there is.  This disagreement is only merely the very beginning of the journey.  It is the opening of the door of your own home and going outside, if you will.  From there, you must embark on the full journey to arrive at the final destination.

You look at it and decide it's creditability, if it's not credible or testable it's rejected.. simple. Otherwise why not accept any crackpot idea?

No long journey or path needed.

Personally, I think the whole evaluation process is a long journey since this isn't a debate between smart people and really dumb people.  It is a debate between smart people and smart people.  If it was the former, then, yes, we could draw a conclusion by means of a shortcut.  But if it's the latter, then this requires a long and thorough journey of looking at all the objections and research to draw the right conclusion.  To take the shortcut would be treating these intelligent paranormal researchers as dumb people in denial of simple facts.  That is why we shouldn't take the shortcut.  I realize there was a quote by Sam Harris one member made earlier.  This is an example of one of these shortcuts skeptics pull. 

But I still just don't know whether what he said is the nail in the coffin for these paranormal researchers or not because I realize how smart and trained these paranormal researchers are and, thus, my mind remains open to their points of view.  I don't think this is a matter of keeping my mind so open my brains fall out.  I just think that people who are intelligent and have had a lot of education and training should be given much more open-mindedness than what skeptics let on.  The same can be said in regards to the paranormal researchers needing to keep more of an open mind to the skeptics since there are many highly intelligent and well trained skeptics out there, too.

[Succubus]

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

They are meaningless without credible evidence.

...full journey...

This 'full journey' expression is almost as repetitive as the 'happenstance' one.
Has anyone noticed the remarkably similar and overly verbose posting style of a couple of our new very active members?
I wonder if by chance they could be retaliated?
I think we should be told.

[haig]

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.

I stand by my comment.
To me I will always accept solid evidence for anything. However the starting point for any paranormal claim or religious claim, is nope. I will never give any of these claims the benefit of any doubt. They are delusions and do not deserve one tiny bit of credibility.
Sure there are lots of smart sounding so called experts, with solid evidence based claims, on the internet. I'm sure I could find some sites that provide solid evidence about Sasquatch, or the tooth fairy, or Loch Ness. However just like claims of paranormal, I will not lend them one spec of credibility.
Tip : if it's paranormal, or fairy tale, or religion, call it out as a true skeptic would...... please provide the indisputable evidence of your claim, because I am not buying it !

[Transcended Dimensions]

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.

I stand by my comment.
To me I will always accept solid evidence for anything. However the starting point for any paranormal claim or religious claim, is nope. I will never give any of these claims the benefit of any doubt. They are delusions and do not deserve one tiny bit of credibility.
Sure there are lots of smart sounding so called experts, with solid evidence based claims, on the internet. I'm sure I could find some sites that provide solid evidence about Sasquatch, or the tooth fairy, or Loch Ness. However just like claims of paranormal, I will not lend them one spec of credibility.
Tip : if it's paranormal, or fairy tale, or religion, call it out as a true skeptic would...... please provide the indisputable evidence of your claim, because I am not buying it !

I did talk more about this in my previous post.  As long as there are claims out there being made by smart sounding researchers who have experiments and claimed evidence for them, then such researchers should be given a full open mind simply because these are researchers who are well trained and educated.  It doesn't matter what claim it is whether it be Bigfoot, the afterlife, fairies, or anything else.  No shortcuts should be made in these scenarios and a full research would be necessary to draw the right conclusion.

[possibletarian]

I stand by my comment.
To me I will always accept solid evidence for anything. However the starting point for any paranormal claim or religious claim, is nope. I will never give any of these claims the benefit of any doubt. They are delusions and do not deserve one tiny bit of credibility.
Sure there are lots of smart sounding so called experts, with solid evidence based claims, on the internet. I'm sure I could find some sites that provide solid evidence about Sasquatch, or the tooth fairy, or Loch Ness. However just like claims of paranormal, I will not lend them one spec of credibility.
Tip : if it's paranormal, or fairy tale, or religion, call it out as a true skeptic would...... please provide the indisputable evidence of your claim, because I am not buying it !

I did talk more about this in my previous post.  As long as there are claims out there being made by smart sounding researchers who have experiments and claimed evidence for them, then such researchers should be given a full open mind simply because these are researchers who are well trained and educated.  It doesn't matter what claim it is whether it be Bigfoot, the afterlife, fairies, or anything else.  No shortcuts should be made in these scenarios and a full research would be necessary to draw the right conclusion.

*Bold Mine*

They have already had ample opportunity, and failed.
You keep making the claim that intelligent, smart (sounding) researchers have presented evidence, thing is no one seriously thinks their evidence qualifies as evidence, smart intelligent people should have no problem knowing what kind of evidence they need to present.

I get by 'the right conclusion' you mean 'agree with what i think'. If you have any evidence then present it simple as.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I did talk more about this in my previous post.  As long as there are claims out there being made by smart sounding researchers who have experiments and claimed evidence for them, then such researchers should be given a full open mind simply because these are researchers who are well trained and educated.  It doesn't matter what claim it is whether it be Bigfoot, the afterlife, fairies, or anything else.  No shortcuts should be made in these scenarios and a full research would be necessary to draw the right conclusion.

*Bold Mine*

They have already had ample opportunity, and failed.
You keep making the claim that intelligent, smart (sounding) researchers have presented evidence, thing is no one seriously thinks their evidence qualifies as evidence, smart intelligent people should have no problem knowing what kind of evidence they need to present.

I get by 'the right conclusion' you mean 'agree with what i think'. If you have any evidence then present it simple as.

I never said these researchers had actual evidence.  All I said was that they claim they have actual evidence and, since they are smart researchers who have had a lot of training and education, then we should not dismiss their claims of evidence through the types of shortcuts skeptics use to dismiss their claims.  Rather, we should do full research in order to arrive at the right conclusion as to whether these researchers have real evidence or not.

[haig]

*Bold Mine*

They have already had ample opportunity, and failed.
You keep making the claim that intelligent, smart (sounding) researchers have presented evidence, thing is no one seriously thinks their evidence qualifies as evidence, smart intelligent people should have no problem knowing what kind of evidence they need to present.

I get by 'the right conclusion' you mean 'agree with what i think'. If you have any evidence then present it simple as.

I never said these researchers had actual evidence.  All I said was that they claim they have actual evidence and, since they are smart researchers who have had a lot of training and education, then we should not dismiss their claims of evidence through the types of shortcuts skeptics use to dismiss their claims.  Rather, we should do full research in order to arrive at the right conclusion as to whether these researchers have real evidence or not.

Please provide details. Have you vetted what they say about their education? Have you investigated their claims?

Skeptics dismiss their claims without evidence because we already know paranormal claims are crapola. We don't need to investigate, the evidence will always be falsified. When investigations are done, the evidence has always been found to be falsified. Why would any other paranormal event be different?