What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

[NucleicAcid]

I've noticed this trend (and this is only some skeptics, not the majority by any means), pretty much over the course of the history of psi research and psi skepticism. It just seems like so many skeptics act like...entitled to have psi proven TO THEM personally, or else it doesn't exist. Now, I fully understand credulity, I don't expect them to believe what the psychic or energy worker says, because they haven't looked into the matter themselves. But can't they just sort of...roll their eyes and roll with it, instead of essentially insisting on having the evidence handed to them? Furthermore, it is essentially their own ignorance that they don't know the true matter of things, that psi isn't this open-shut, never been replicated thing...it's got a rich and fascinating history, and a huge body of modern, scientific evidence to support it.

To me, it seems awfully similar to when a creationist goes up, and says that evolution is impossible, because they think the mechanisms needed to make an organism function are far too complicated than what could have occurred by chance and selection pressures, because they've never read up on it.

It's just frustrating, and this is mostly a rant. I already know the answer to my question - it's basically human nature. But it still makes me wanna strangle people at times.

It's obvious that psi does not lend itself to publicity stunts. So what? That's not how science works. You can't have it both ways, you can't have showbiz and solid evidence, because you know even if someone did succeed at some $1Million task, there would be immediate accusations that it was a coincidence or fraud. Look at the case with the Girl With Xray Eyes. She got 4 out of 7 targets (p = .0163), instead of the target 5 out of 7, and they (CSI(COP)) called it a total failure.

Uuugggghhhhhh.

[Nostradamus]

Wasn't the Natasha Demkina test considered to be poorly constructed? It was possible to see some of the issues from an external inspection of the people involved. Wasn't there a claim that she was asking for information from the people being inspected?

The p claim is based on the notion that she had no other information to assign conditions.

Isn't there also a claim that she has never made a mistake?

Didn't the xray eyes girl agree beforehand that the score she received was a miss? So when you say they said it was a miss, hadn't the girl and her mom also agreed that what happened would be a miss?

[Nostradamus]

[NucleicAcid]

[Craig Browning]

[Nostradamus]

At first I thought you discussing the kidney viewing that was done in California a few months ago. That was intersting as well, but did not have the success rate in the x-ray eyes case.

[NucleicAcid]

[Craig Browning]

[NucleicAcid]

[stevetrueblue]

They underfunctioned at school and to cover up their lack of brains they often pose as scientists and TV attorneys (so they think) demanding immediate personal proof of everything you say. But its actually betraying their desire to be spoon fed as they were at school, Theye also hope that they can off balance you with a demand like a courtroom lawyer. And if you do provide an immediate reference they will dismiss it for some shallow reason because they dont really want the proof they just want something to spit back in your face, reflecting their immaturity. (High chair baby days) Even asking to be spoon fed shows how juvenile they really are because of the miracle of google on their desktop which they overlook( no need to ask you) because they lack a key ingredient of intelligence. CURIOSITY. YOU have it but pseudoskeps don't. Thats why YOU are smart dear reader and pseudoskeptics aren't.

[Craig Browning]

[NucleicAcid]

[Nostradamus]

[NucleicAcid]

Naturally, "they" are (pseudo)skeptics, of the variety that like going around like they are James Randi Jr, and feel that they are the end-all knowledge base and will decline to look at a piece of evidence on opinion alone. The frustrating type. Not all skeptics are like this, but many are.

Don't worry, Nos, you're exempt. You do good research.

[Fifer]