Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Transcended Dimensions]

Have you read those papers?

No.  All I am saying is that even peer reviewed research, whether it be skeptical research or paranormal research, has debates as to whether it counts as real evidence or not.  So, I think it all comes down to having a debate and looking into all the arguments.

[KevinM1]

That's idiotic.  You present that group as an example, but then don't even read a single paper to assess the veracity of what they're putting forth?  And we're the ones taking shortcuts?  Give me a break.

Also, does this sound like science to you?

Noetic sciences explore the "inner cosmos" of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and how it relates to the "outer cosmos" of the physical world.

That's from that group's mission statement. No legitimate scientific research organization would ever write that.  For one, it presupposes what they claim to be searching for (souls and spirits).  Second, it makes an unwarranted distinction between the mind and the rest of the physical world, as though the two are somehow separate.  

This is the classic sign of BS woo.  Intelligent design is based on this exact model.  Assume that the conclusion you want exists and is correct, and cherry pick evidence to support it.  ID has people with Ph.D's, too, and plenty of papers written by them.  Doesn't mean much.

Seriously, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

[Transcended Dimensions]

That's idiotic.  You present that group as an example, but then don't even read a single paper to assess the veracity of what they're putting forth?  And we're the ones taking shortcuts?  Give me a break.

Also, does this sound like science to you?

Noetic sciences explore the "inner cosmos" of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and how it relates to the "outer cosmos" of the physical world.

That's from that group's mission statement. No legitimate scientific research organization would ever write that.  For one, it presupposes what they claim to be searching for (souls and spirits).  Second, it makes an unwarranted distinction between the mind and the rest of the physical world, as though the two are somehow separate.  

This is the classic sign of BS woo.  Intelligent design is based on this exact model.  Assume that the conclusion you want exists and is correct, and cherry pick evidence to support it.  ID has people with Ph.D's, too, and plenty of papers written by them.  Doesn't mean much.

Seriously, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

I said I had no interest in doing this research.  That's the reason why I did not bother reading the papers.  However, I do have an interest in this discussion because I am more than curious as to why skeptics call the researchers dumb, woo believers.  You have given me one of those reasons right there in your post.  Again, I do not buy into your argument.  I already realize what the likes of Dean Radin would have to say against your argument.  The argument he would make would sound like one of those smart-sounding arguments that I can't determine whether is a dumb argument as skeptics say or really is a smart argument. 

That all goes back to what I said earlier.  I cannot tell who is telling the truth in a debate because both sides of the debate appear to be making smart-sounding arguments.  If I wish to further educate myself to truly discover who is making the dumb arguments, then I am free to do so.  In the meantime, I have no interest in educating myself and am only keeping an open mind here.  After all, when I look at Dean Radin, he doesn't appear like a dumb, crazy, mentally disfigured person.  He appears as an intelligent researcher and this is all the more reason why I keep an open mind to his claims.  Both the skeptics and these paranormal researchers appear like highly intelligent people and that is why I keep an open mind to both of them.  At the same time, I cannot trust either of them though.

[LostLocke]

...I think it all comes down to having a debate and looking into all the arguments.

I said I had no interest in doing this research.  That's the reason why I did not bother reading the papers....I have no interest in educating myself...

You basically contradicted yourself there.
If you want to look into all the arguments, you're going to have to do some research and learning.
If you don't want to research and learn, then there's nothing to look in to. You have to take everything at face value.

[KevinM1]

And, for the nth time, science isn't a debate. It's not how it works. That you think that's the way to go merely highlights your utter ignorance, which is the source of your confusion. And when I say that you need to learn how science works, and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, I'm not saying it to just be insulting. I truly mean it. Because no adult (presumably without a learning disability) should be so lacking in those areas. You're ripe for exploitation by any shyster peddling woo for a dollar.

[robvalue]

He's just a troll. He started a thread on TTA where he's spouting out the same stuff as if nothing has been said here at all. My best guess is he's trying to get a rise out of sceptics as some sort of weird way to validate his beliefs, instead of actually doing some work. He basically admitted to being a troll there by overplaying his hand somewhat.

[polymath257]

Flat Earthers sound like they are intelligent and can counter all the arguments of round Earthers. So I guess both views are equally valid if I don't want to research any further than appearances.

[Transcended Dimensions]

And, for the nth time, science isn't a debate.  It's not how it works.  That you think that's the way to go merely highlights your utter ignorance, which is the source of your confusion.  And when I say that you need to learn how science works, and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, I'm not saying it to just be insulting.  I truly mean it.  Because no adult (presumably without a learning disability) should be so lacking in those areas.  You're ripe for exploitation by any shyster peddling woo for a dollar.

If it were that simple, then why would Dean Radin argue and debate against skeptics?  Is it because he is really stupid?  I don't think so.

---

He's just a troll. He started a thread on TTA where he's spouting out the same stuff as if nothing has been said here at all. My best guess is he's trying to get a rise out of sceptics as some sort of weird way to validate his beliefs, instead of actually doing some work. He basically admitted to being a troll there by overplaying his hand somewhat.

I am not trying to be a troll.   I am just spouting my personal views which may come across as trolling since many people won't like my views.

[KevinM1]

And, for the nth time, science isn't a debate.  It's not how it works.  That you think that's the way to go merely highlights your utter ignorance, which is the source of your confusion.  And when I say that you need to learn how science works, and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, I'm not saying it to just be insulting.  I truly mean it.  Because no adult (presumably without a learning disability) should be so lacking in those areas.  You're ripe for exploitation by any shyster peddling woo for a dollar.

If it were that simple, then why would Dean Radin argue and debate against skeptics?  Is it because he is really stupid?  I don't think so.

Yes. Yes, he is. Just like WLC and Ken Ham, who also engage in debates.

It's spectacle to make people who want to believe think that their beliefs are on equal footing as actual reality. It lends an air of legitimacy to an idea that has none. It also plays into the psychological ideas of folksy/intuitive knowledge being superior to other forms. Religions use that particular tool to great effect, especially when it's paired with 'persecution'. It leads to people seeing and attaching themselves to false conspiracies. That the establishment doesn't want you to know about x. The modern Republican party runs on that kind of manipulation.

So, yes, you're a rube. Or a troll.

[Transcended Dimensions]

If it were that simple, then why would Dean Radin argue and debate against skeptics?  Is it because he is really stupid?  I don't think so.

Yes.  Yes, he is.  Just like WLC and Ken Ham, who also engage in debates.

It's spectacle to make people who want to believe think that their beliefs are on equal footing as actual reality.  It lends an air of legitimacy to an idea that has none.  It also plays into the psychological ideas of folksy/intuitive knowledge being superior to other forms.  Religions use that particular tool to great effect, especially when it's paired with 'persecution'.  It leads to people seeing and attaching themselves to false conspiracies.  That the establishment doesn't want you to know about x.  The modern Republican party runs on that kind of manipulation.

So, yes, you're a rube.  Or a troll.

But, at the same time, why would skeptics even bother debating Dean if having a debate was stupid and crazy in the first place?  There are many highly intelligent skeptics who debate Dean.  As a matter of fact, there are skeptics who publish books that thoroughly address Dean's peer reviewed research.  Why would they even bother doing that if having a debate was just some pointless, stupid waste of time against some dumb, crazy person?