What will skeptics accept as "evidence"?

[Scepcop]

PseudoSkeptics are always saying, "There's no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena" no matter how much evidence is shown to them. That's because this statement is a religion to them, not an objective statement. So no matter what evidence you give them, they will always deny it and raise the bar, simply because "there is no evidence" is a fixed belief to them.

So, if you give them stories and experiences, even from credible sources, they will reject it as "anecdotal" and inadmissible as evidence. If you give them scientific studies that show positive results for psi, they will argue that those studies did not have proper controls (since, if they did, they'd only get chance results, so their fixed logic goes). And they will argue that the studies must be replicable. Then when you show them replicated studies (e.g. Ganzfeld), they will raise the bar again and argue it was not replicated enough times (until a debunker disproves it is what they mean), ad infinitum. So no matter how many stories or replicable research studies you cite, it's NEVER enough. There is no clear bar to meet to qualify as "real evidence" to them, because essentially, there is NO EVIDENCE in their mind, thus there is no real criteria to be met. That gives them the license to deny ad infinitum. It's like playing a shady game of three shells with a con artist. You can never win because the conclusion has already been decided from the get go. That's what makes these Pseudoskeptics dishonest and not what they claim at all.

So to the skeptics I ask, what exactly will you accept as evidence? Be specific please.

[Arouet]

Scepcop, you are greatly simplifying the concerns with these studies, it shows that you aren't really familiar with the critiques. Why don't you present a study you find particularly convincing, and we can look at it. I started a thread asking for suggestions and no one presented one.

So present a study, and tell us what you find convincing about it. Then we'll look at it.

[Craig Browning]

While on one level I can consign and support the thought mood being offered by Arouet, I just likewise express my skepticism when it comes to gaining any kind of non-biased, pre-determined "conclusion" offered as the cold heard truth to it all, when the conclusions not only negate the experiential and auspices of "faith" when it comes to most all phenomena, these "rationalist" expressions tend to do so in a manner that can only be best explained as being arrogant, disrespectful of the faith factor and too, the sense of "Agenda" we find expressed by the various Skeptic's Fellowships, the majority embracing a zealot attitude of atheistic evangelism. This is one of my biggest personal reasons for distrusting those that want to test everyone and everything, and the fact that every time someone complies to the parameters as to what they would call "proof" or a minimum, substantial influences to suggest this or that situation is "more" than hype & hoax... the recent UFO thread and corresponding reports being a prime demonstration in which an overwhelming amount of visual record was collected from various locations, by different reporting parties, at different locations, dates, etc. Yet, the naysayers will go out of their way to "prove" all of said footage is faulty or that this or that other consistency exists; frequently mixing and muddling each separate report in ways that take information (perception) out of context and ultimately imply (at minimum) that everyone that believes in the UFO aspect to these stories is 100% off their nogg'n and of course, simply trying to grab some glory by inventing a tall tale. This of course, includes discrediting any individuals that hold some level of military, scientific and even political clout

Skeptics will NEVER be content with anything you hand them, even if they are right there when a given ability or phenomena is happening. There is absolutely no amount of evidence any of us can produce that would create the type of epiphany such closed minds require, and even at that, you must be able to jolt their mind sufficiently, so as to keep it ajar long enough to absorb the "new" perspectives said incident allows them to become aware of... a part of. The door to their own mind's eye must remain askew long enough to challenge their rationality and by their own processes, find that man can not offer a full, complete or adequate answer to it all.

Skepticism is required in and of us; it is the key that opens the doorway of intellect. Sadly, it is likewise a mind-set that bolsters our egos in ways that are not as honest and far more ego driven. This is a manifestation society cannot give full and complete embraced of less we loose our soul -- our humanity through the process.

[Arouet]

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

I find this question too easy to ignore so please allow me to come out of hiding and interject for a moment. I, of course, can't speak for other skeptics. Only myself. However, to answer your question, I will accept ANYTHING as evidence. For example, Dean Radin's Princeton experiments and the Stanford Research Institutes psi experiments of the '70s. I accept Dr. Schwartz dead people and Stan Friedman's UFO evidence as well. For the most part, I feel the evidence they present is an honest attempt at finding the truth. There is, however, a BIG difference between evidence and proof and I think skeptics and "pseudo-skeptics" (as you wish to call me/us) look at the evidence and then decide whether the evidence points towards proof. Proof being the key word between skeptics and "believers" and proof is what alludes us skeptics.

So, to sum up your statement "PseudoSkeptics are always saying, 'There's no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena' no matter how much evidence is shown to them." is NOT what we say. Skeptics say there is no PROOF for any paranormal or psychic phenomena, not that there is no EVIDENCE.

[Craig Browning]

Skeptics say there is no PROOF for any paranormal or psychic phenomena, not that there is no EVIDENCE.

I don't know but in my experience such word play is little other than veneer commitment... something we'd expect any score of politicians to use in a dodge & parry move.

I've no desire, nor the energy a debate of this sort demands... jut got out of the hospital two days ago and even the docs are saying I'll not be back to full clarity and mental processing abilities for another 6+ weeks. On the other hand, I find it quite difficult to ignore the facts given in history of both, recent & distant memory. The biggest constant being that no mater how much evidence gets tabled, the cynical accepts NONE OF IT. IN those instances in which the "hard evidence" seems plausible and readily validated, the "Skeptic" constantly goes out of its way to discredit the source when they cannot demean the data; in short, skeptics have the audacity to find "an out" wherever it might (theoretically) exist and no matter how contrite their explanation may prove itself out... again, an attitude and modes of defense over their "dogma" such as revealed in ProWag's observation, above.

In my mind, an HONEST skeptic has no need to play such semantic based games, let alone those antics in which "they' deliberately demote and demerit members of the scientific community that teach a point of view not considered "kosher" by "establishment" naysayers and self-invented authoritarians.

Call my views what you would, but at least what I share comes "fat free", based on events and circumstances just as much as their are anecdotal representation of a greater personal truth... another one of those annoying things the majority of skeptics seem to negate, striving to set off to the side and "forgotten"... alas, I've not the energy to keep on with this rhetoric; Those compelled to "buy into this stuff" as the result of "faith" superseding those of the Neolithic mind set.

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

As Arouet correctly pointed out, the term "proof," can be a judgemental word as well. However, and Craig I hate to disagree with you, but claiming I am using "word play" to distinguish "evidence" and "proof" is simply not a strong statement to make. There is a HUGE difference between the two words. If Winston had asked "what evidence would have to be presented so we would accept as confident in something's existance, then that would have been more appropriate than the queston he asked.
And Craig, I also wish you a speedy and healthy recovery.

[Arouet]

So scepcop, you're a true skeptic, what scientific parapsychological study would you like us to discuss?

[Arouet]

[derrida]

i think he is done with this one
he will post 10 new topics before answering this

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

Scepcop, you're going to have to change the name of your committee if you don't ever want to discuss actual science!

[ProfWag]