Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

The troll is simply repeating the same script quoting but entirely ignoring points made against that same script.  I'm done.

I think I have addressed those quoted posts through what I said.  I just personally think that human beings tend to limit themselves to only one particular view through shortcut methods rather than embarking on the full journey of knowledge and truth.  Almost every religious believer, philosopher, paranormal believer, and skeptic use these shortcut methods.  I think this was the wrong way of doing it and I explain new things in regards to why that is in that post.

---

Personally, I do not think that drawing the conclusion as to whether the paranormal exists or not is a simple task at all.  Determining whether these things really have evidence for them or not is a long journey.  As I said before.  The road to truth can be a long journey and there are no shortcuts.  But I am going to say something new here now.  There is a website where these shortcut methods skeptics use to draw their conclusion that the paranormal is all bullshit have been addressed.  If these shortcut methods truly were the nail in the coffin for these paranormal researchers, then any objections to them should render skeptics looking at these objections and thinking:  "What the hell are these researchers thinking or smoking?" 

It would be no different than denying the most obvious fact of life.  For example, if you argued that you don't need a heart to live and that you can just rip it out and still remain alive, then such an argument can be looked at in such a manner as being insane or crazy.  But I don't think this is the case when these paranormal researchers argue against the shortcut methods skeptics use.  Therefore, this means these shortcut methods are not basic, obvious facts that skeptics make them out to be.  Rather, they are nothing more than close-minded opinions that have been thoroughly addressed by these researchers.  The same can be said in regards to how the paranormal researchers think their shortcut methods for dismissing the skeptics are basic, obvious facts and that the skeptics would have to be crazy to argue against them. 

As you can see here, there is a big difference between arguing against the most basic, obvious facts of life as opposed to having an ongoing debate where each person presents their views to the table and argues them back and forth.  The former would have to be a crazy person.  But the latter would be an ongoing debate between intelligent people who have had a lot of training and education.  The debate between the skeptics and the paranormal researchers would have to be one of those intelligent debates. Therefore, all objections any skeptic has here must not be used as a means of shortcut in dismissing the paranormal research as bull crap.

Rather, it should be used as a means of embarking on the journey of debate and further learning until, eventually, you draw your conclusion at the final destination after looking into everything and having researched into everything regarding skepticism and the paranormal.  One last thing here.  I also realize skeptics make objections to the paranormal research through mentioning the scientific method.  This is an objection these researchers have addressed as well.  Here, I will give you the website where all the objections/shortcuts skeptics come up with have been thoroughly addressed.  I am quite sure there are other websites as well that address more objections these skeptics have:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/s..._fallacies

Most of this is simply complaining that the same standards used in every other area of science are used with paranormal research. Yes, the evidence has to be strong enough to convince skeptics. Yes, extraordinary claims (those that contradict well-established scientific principles--not simply 'strongly held beliefs') require extraordinary evidence.

Again, the fact is that *every* time paranormal phenomena are tested in a properly controlled environment, they fail to show up. There is a million dollar reward for anyone who can set up an experiment that tests these ideas in a controlled setting and actually manages to show them. Many have attempted to do so. None have succeeded. Many frauds have been exposed. That is sufficient evidence for me at this point.

I see you have come up with yet another objection/shortcut in that last paragraph of yours.  So, what I would ask from there is, are you just being close minded here and drawing a hasty conclusion?  Or are there objections to this as well out there that you are just not keeping an open mind to?

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you need to open your own mind to the possibility that paranormal claims are..categorically, bunk. How bout you write us a novel of a post about that, next?

[GrandizerII]

And yet, OP, you have "no god" right under your username.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Perhaps you need to open your own mind to the possibility that paranormal claims are..categorically, bunk.  How bout you write us a novel of a post about that, next?

I am open to that possibility as well as I said before.  You also mentioned that there was no evidence for these phenomena.  Well, I think it is a long journey to determine whether the claims of evidence these researchers put forth are claims of real evidence or not.  I don't think any shortcut method should be used either in determining whether there is real evidence or not.  I mean, skeptics would claim that the scientific method determines that there is no evidence for their claims and that this is all that is needed.  But perhaps there is something more that these skeptics do not realize.  There are those objections these researchers address and I think it's best to keep an open mind to these things the researchers say given that they are not crazy or insane people in denial of the most obvious facts of life.

---

And yet, OP, you have "no god" right under your username.

I should have said "undecided" then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cool story, again..bro...but however long that journey may seem to be to you...perhaps others have already taken it?  I'm still waiting for that ghost photography...and it;a not as though I'm entirely unaware of the failure of past attempts at paranormal research.

Your "open minded" this or that..honestly, seems more like a defense mechanism for the proposition than anything resembling open mindedness.

[Succubus]

<much gibberish snipped> Therefore, all objections any skeptic has here must not be used as a means of shortcut in dismissing the paranormal research as bull crap.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/s..._fallacies

From your link:

There are practical uses of the paranormal phenomena, as well as practical consequences of paranormal research in society. Energy healing, mediumship, induced after-death communication, past life regression, remote viewing, dowsing, psychic detectives, and the use of psychics in the commercial sector are all examples of this.

There are professionals who practice energy healing and mediumship both of which have been validated by scientific experiments. In some hospitals nurses are allowed to practice therapeutic touch because research has demonstrated its effectiveness.

What did I tell you about linking to bullshit websites?

All the woo in the world is promoted in that link there is absolutely no lunacy missing and some I've never herd of.

Induced after death communication (IADC)

What the actual fuck???

[Transcended Dimensions]

Cool story, again..bro...but however long that journey may seem to be to you...perhaps others have already taken it?  I'm still waiting for that ghost photography...and it;a not as though I'm entirely unaware of the failure of past attempts at paranormal research.

Your "open minded" this or that..honestly, seems more like a defense mechanism for the proposition than anything resembling open mindedness.

If other people have already taken that long journey of full research, then I have no way of knowing if the conclusion they have drawn is correct or not.  You can do full research into something, but still draw the wrong conclusion.  I, myself, would have to do full research in order to draw my own conclusion.  But, as I said before, I have no interest in doing this research.  Lastly, as for my open mindedness, I am also open minded towards the idea that the shortcuts these skeptics take really are the right way to draw their conclusion.  But I am not exactly sure if that is the case.  For now, I am just arguing against the idea that they are using the right method.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cool story, again..bro...but however long that journey may seem to be to you...perhaps others have already taken it?  I'm still waiting for that ghost photography...and it;a not as though I'm entirely unaware of the failure of past attempts at paranormal research.

Your "open minded" this or that..honestly, seems more like a defense mechanism for the proposition than anything resembling open mindedness.

If other people have already taken that long journey of full research, then I have no way of knowing if the conclusion they have drawn is correct or not.  You can do full research into something, but still draw the wrong conclusion.  I, myself, would have to do full research in order to draw my own conclusion.  But, as I said before, I have no interest in doing this research. 

Then you're defensively lazy, not open minded.  Full stop.

Lastly, as for my open mindedness, I am also open minded towards the idea that the shortcuts these skeptics take really are the right way to draw their conclusion.  But I am not exactly sure if that is the case.  For now, I am just arguing against the idea that they are using the right method.

Sounds to me like you can't be sure of anything, wandering through life in a fugue state about whether or not there are pictures of my dead nana's ghost.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Lastly, as for my open mindedness, I am also open minded towards the idea that the shortcuts these skeptics take really are the right way to draw their conclusion.  But I am not exactly sure if that is the case.  For now, I am just arguing against the idea that they are using the right method.

Sounds to me like you can't be sure of anything, wandering through life in a fugue state about whether or not there are pictures of my dead nana's ghost.

This would be correct.  The only things I can be sure of are basic facts of life such as that I need a heart to live and that, if I were to rip my heart out, I would die.  But, as for things that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal research or the idea that vaccines are harmful, I have to remain undecided on these things.

[Whateverist]

The troll is simply repeating the same script quoting but entirely ignoring points made against that same script.  I'm done.

I think I have addressed those quoted posts through what I said.  I just personally think that human beings tend to limit themselves to only one particular view through shortcut methods rather than embarking on the full journey of knowledge and truth.  Almost every religious believer, philosopher, paranormal believer, and skeptic use these shortcut methods.  I think this was the wrong way of doing it and I explain new things in regards to why that is in that post.

Then you are mistaken. Perhaps your reading comprehension is poor but I just smell a troll with a game plan. Now you just bore me.