Paranormal skeptics have only got a faith based position

Skeptical Arguments don't hold water

I regard skepticism as a very important trait,
Me too! I am certainly not gong to believe something because someone told me to.
I believe it is important to test theories and arguments.
I agree. But there are those who call themselves skeptics who do not, and instead, promote a contrary faith based position in a manner that doesn't stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
It's simply a questioning attitude, looking for repeatable evidence as opposed to anecdotal stories.
Interesting. I agree that anecdotal stories are difficult, especially when the anecdotal story is portrayed as hard physical or factual evidence, which by logic and reason it cannot be, but it can be a form of testimony to something, but the question (which remains unanswered) to what? Also, science itself is based on correlations, statistical analysis is based on correlations (E.g., the Pearsons Correlation Coefficient and the like), and some scientific methodologies from the social sciences (such as participant observation) cannot necessarily be repeated. Repeatable evidence is not always something that can be gained in the sciences let alone psychic research. Therefore the claim that repeatable evidence is essential prior to the creation of a working theory of how a phenomena works is factually inaccurate.
However, the argument that if we can't understand something, it could have a basis in psychic phenomena seems bizarre indeed.
Was that REALLY my argument? Certainly not. My argument is that psychic phenomena can't be fully understood as of yet, strange things can happen (or seem to happen), but we can't say how or why they occur. The "phenomena" under investigation in the dialogue between the "skeptical" camp, those who take a political attitude to their skepticism, and those who wish to investigate psychic phenomena gets twisted by faith based positions on both sides, the desire to protect those faith based positions, and a lack of desire to investigate the phenomena on the side of the skeptical camp. The political skeptics attempt to break down the argument of the believer, avoiding or bypassing intelligent investigation into the phenomena at hand, not knowing or choosing not to believe that the believer may have made a mistake in their understanding of a combination of phenomena that can't be properly understood. Thus the skeptic uses dishonest tactics to undermine the position of a person who has misunderstood or misrepresented the phenomena that they have experienced. The phenomena needs further investigation and differing points of view are necessary in a good dialogue, but if the skeptics aren't going to investigate the phenomena, their position becomes null and void as it ceases to be in the spirit of scientific inquiry.
I don't understand how a combustion engine works, but I don't believe there may be a ghost under the bonnet.
This metaphor highlights your misrepresentation of the argument more then it highlights a flaw in the argument at hand. It is a strawman argument, a misrepresentation that, in this case, deliberately or not, is placed to undermine the position that I stated above.
Skeptics don't take positions, they question those who do.
Lets have a look at the dictionary definition shall we?

The first two definitions from Dictionary.com
1.
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.
a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.


So, although you seem to be in agreement with the first definition by your very nature, you seem to have ignored the main thrust of my argument or have misrepresented it either intentionally or through misunderstanding. Thus your point of view cannot stand and is by its nature, a fallacy taking into account the position that I held. If you had taken the 2nd definition, maintaining a doubting attitude, you would have been irrational as the attitude is just an attitude as is not geared to the search for the truth and would have to therefore be dismissed as if it were a form of prejudice of the same intellectual order of racism, sexism and the like and on the grounds that it was not scientific.
Either way, irrationality abounds.

I once had a discussion with a person of strong religious faith, and asked if they could offer any proof that God exists. Their response was to challenge me to prove that God didn't, therefore missing the point completely.

A non sequitur. A logical fallacy, from the Latin for "it does not follow". The statement has no baring on the subject at hand. Presumably an attempt, conscious or not to undermine the position that I have taken here. The religious debate is not one that I was tackling here.




Nick Dutch

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• supernatural
• psychic
• jref
• james
• randi
• educational
• foundation
• skeptic
• paranormal
• poltergeist
• clairvoyance
• magick
• witchcraft
• wicca
• wiccan
• new
• age
• psychometry
• spirit
• guide

[FriendOregon]

Do you have any cool videos of ghosties you could put up?

[nickdutchvideos]

@FriendOregon Not yet :)

[theBartone9119]

Either:

a) Ghosts are immaterial and cannot be seen by the human eye

or

b) Ghosts are composed of physical material, and they can be seen.

Saying that they are immaterial and can be seen makes no sense. It makes more sense to say that ghosts just don't exist actually,

[theBartone9119]

Funny thing..Anyone who thinks they have seen a ghost (a being that is non physical/ material) obviously doesn't know how vision works. When you view something, you are not directly viewing the object you are seeing the light that is bouncing off of that object, however if people are claiming that they are seeing something that is not physical (AKA not composed of any material/ substance ect,) then there would be nothing for the light to bounce off of, viewing the ghost would be impossible.

[shadowman2192]

Booooring!

[JimtheHermit1]

They all say "I haven't seen a shred of evidence." Of course, they don't really look for or examine evidence but, they will all say they did.

[willkenplace52]

AGREE 100% thanks for posting!!

[PlanetEarthAwakens01]

you just broke the bitch down, this is what happens if you barrage people with logic, eventually they just say fuck it i can't be bother to do this anymore. Secretly they know you were right the whole time they just didn't want to let go of something they had an emotional attachment too.

[MrNevertime]

Psychiatry is a stop gap science till neurology reaches a mature enough level. You seem to see psychic phenomenon as early experiments until the physics (if any) of what’s happening are discovered.

Psychiatry relies on subjective data in an attempt to catalogue and map behaviour we see from the brain.

A study of psychic phenomenon would rely on subjective data in an attempt to catalogue and map new physics we only speculate exists and could easily explain by less radical things.

[an0nim0uz]

The "occult community" (for a lack of a better word) needs more people like you, Nick.