Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

Clearly.

That's my whole point.  Both sides should do full research into one another's fields of study and objections being addressed before jumping to conclusions.  Now, we can use these shortcuts on really dumb people.  For example, if someone claimed that drinking lethal poison would not be lethal for you, then you can give up the argument right then and there with that person because we obviously know for a fact that poison is lethal for you.  We clearly see that, when people drink it, they either die or become severely ill. This observation alone is the shortcut that obviously leads to the conclusion that drinking poison is lethal and that it would, therefore, be a waste of time to consider any more arguments this dumb person would make. 

However, when it comes to smart people who have had a lot of training and education, we should not use these shortcuts.  We should instead conduct full research when arriving at the truth.  If we were to use shortcuts in regards to these smart paranormal researchers, then that would be treating them as no different than that dumb person who thought that drinking poison was not lethal. It's an unfair, close minded, insulting treatment of these paranormal researchers. Likewise, it is also an unfair, close minded, insulting treatment of skeptics for paranormal researchers to use these shortcuts as well.

[robvalue]

13 pages and you still refuse to define what "paranormal" means. If you don't even know what it is, how are we supposed to be open to it?

[Whateverist]

*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 as I keep repeating albeit without providing any support 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.

*my bold*

Finished this for you in the interest of full disclosure.

[robvalue]

If I'm understanding this right, we're not being encouraged to investigate the paranormal, but rather to investigate paranormal investigators?

Are they hiding their evidence somewhere for us to find, or something? Why can't they just share it with everyone?

If we have to do their work for them, they can't have much going on.

[KevinM1]

I’ve yet to see the OP produce anything that would convince me to take paranormal researchers or their research seriously. Vague appeals to authority - especially when that authority hasn’t even been established - is hardly convincing. Smart people do and believe in stupid shit all the time.

So, instead of whining that everyone is a big poopy-head for not taking it seriously, make a cogent argument for it, complete with actual examples of actual research and ‘findings’.

Shit, or get off the pot.

[Transcended Dimensions]

13 pages and you still refuse to define what "paranormal" means. If you don't even know what it is, how are we supposed to be open to it?

I think this one should be clearly obvious.  Skeptics talk about the paranormal all the time.  So, they must already know what it means.

I never said these researchers had actual evidence.  All I said was that they claim they have actual evidence and, since as I keep repeating albeit without providing any support 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.

*my bold*

Finished this for you in the interest of full disclosure.

I could say the same thing in regards to the skeptics.  The paranormal researchers would also ask me to provide support that these skeptics are smart.

If I'm understanding this right, we're not being encouraged to investigate the paranormal, but rather to investigate paranormal investigators?

Are they hiding their evidence somewhere for us to find, or something? Why can't they just share it with everyone?

If we have to do their work for them, they can't have much going on.

The conclusion as to whether the claimed evidence is real or not is hidden.  We have to do full research in order to arrive at the conclusion whether this claimed evidence is real or not.  The same idea applies to the evidence skeptics claim for their position.

I’ve yet to see the OP produce anything that would convince me to take paranormal researchers or their research seriously.  Vague appeals to authority - especially when that authority hasn’t even been established - is hardly convincing.  Smart people do and believe in stupid shit all the time.

So, instead of whining that everyone is a big poopy-head for not taking it seriously, make a cogent argument for it, complete with actual examples of actual research and ‘findings’.

Shit, or get off the pot.

I could also say that the skeptics believe in stupid things as well such as the idea that we are just biological machines and nothing more.  Any arguments skeptics make I can turn around back onto the skeptics.  This is the reason why no argumentation will work.

[Whateverist]

If I'm understanding this right, we're not being encouraged to investigate the paranormal, but rather to investigate paranormal investigators?

Are they hiding their evidence somewhere for us to find, or something? Why can't they just share it with everyone?

If we have to do their work for them, they can't have much going on.

I guess when you grow up under an oppressive religious system you don't try to understand ideas directly.  Instead you just try to develop a knack for picking the smartest guy in the debate.  But appeals to authority are always the weakest.

[haig]

I’ve yet to see the OP produce anything that would convince me to take paranormal researchers or their research seriously.  Vague appeals to authority - especially when that authority hasn’t even been established - is hardly convincing.  Smart people do and believe in stupid shit all the time.

So, instead of whining that everyone is a big poopy-head for not taking it seriously, make a cogent argument for it, complete with actual examples of actual research and ‘findings’.

Shit, or get off the pot.

Well you know, they are good smart people (whoever those people are) and well educated too, don't ya know.

Common now don't be so irrational 

[Transcended Dimensions]

I would like to add one last thing here which I think is important. I think my personality plays a big role in my lack of conviction towards any given claim whether it be the claims of skeptics of this being the one and only life or claims of the paranormal. When, for example, fundamentalist Christians tell me to use a shortcut to arrive at the truth that we are all sinners worthy of hell unless we repent, I tell these Christians that I will not be trapped inside their box. As a result, I do not buy into their shortcut methods. The same idea applies to the skeptics.

I also don't buy into their shortcut methods at arriving at what they think is the truth. Even though I would really want there to be the blissful afterlife of my dreams, I have to also apply this same mindset to paranormal researchers who claim that there is a blissful afterlife for all of us. As you can see here, I do not fit into any one's box. I am outside of the box which means no shortcut method can ever trap me into any one of these boxes (worldviews). Thus, I am put into a position where I think that the only true way to arrive at the truth is not through these shortcut methods, but instead through full research.

[possibletarian]

I would like to add one last thing here which I think is important.  I think my personality plays a big role in my lack of conviction towards any given claim whether it be the claims of skeptics of this being the one and only life or claims of the paranormal.  When, for example, fundamentalist Christians tell me to use a shortcut to arrive at the truth that we are all sinners worthy of hell unless we repent, I tell these Christians that I will not be trapped inside their box.  As a result, I do not buy into their shortcut methods.  The same idea applies to the skeptics.  

I also don't buy into their shortcut methods at arriving at what they think is the truth.  Even though I would really want there to be the blissful afterlife of my dreams, I have to also apply this same mindset to paranormal researchers who claim that there is a blissful afterlife for all of us.  As you can see here, I do not fit into any one's box.  I am outside of the box which means no shortcut method can ever trap me into any one of these boxes (worldviews).  Thus, I am put into a position where I think that the only true way to arrive at the truth is not through these shortcut methods, but instead through full research.

*bold mine*

What full research would you like to do, that has not already been done ?
Can you be specific ?