What will skeptics accept as "evidence"?

[Arouet]

[derrida]

yep.. then again
is skeptics the ones that cant handle the truth

[Arouet]

I'm beginning to wonder if Scepcop even knows about any parapsychological studies. I'm pretty sure I've seen him mention Ganzfeld studies in other threads, but maybe, despite this being a "scientific" committee to evaluate pseudo-skeptical criticism of the paranormal, he's not terribly familiar with the scientific literature that actually is trying to prove the existence of the paranormal. He can't seem to come up with any study he finds convincing, let alone say why he finds it convincing.

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

[Jackal]

[Craig Browning]

In the scientific community, yes, that's true. But practitioners and meditation masters from different religions have written much about their experiences and observations of the paranormal. Scientists have very little experience with the paranormal by comparison, so I trust people who dedicated their lives to studying the mind through meditation much more.

I wanted to single this out because it has a great deal of truth built into it, more than is apparent at first glance.

Firstly, I feel that it near impossible for those of the "approved of" scientific mind-set to "properly" research, study, etc. most any aspect of the paranormal but in particular, the spiritually oriented side of such things with an honestly "objective" point of view. By their very nature this sort seems to already have their mind made up on many such things and too, the lack the "connection" to such things that has been proven the backbone behind them... what gives them validity.

In absolutely hundreds of parables and even historic records, we know that "not everyone is qualified to see and experience such things. . ." Not everyone, for an example, obtains that mystical level of "enlightenment" known as "Buddha" or "the Christ" or even "Saint". While there are many deluded souls that think they are "psychic" because they learned how to do Numerology or read the Cards, the greater truth is, very few people actually move beyond the "carnal" levels of awareness-based practice and fewer yet, obtain genuine pneumatic (Mastery) levels in such skill.

I know that "scientists" for the most part, have honest reasons for clinging to the views they have a propensity to hold to. I am likewise aware of the fact that there are "scientists" within the framework of parapsychology and related research arenas who are just as guilty for "protecting" and "proving" psi and doing so with a similar mind-set prejudice. But there is one other factor that few in this debate ever weigh; the fact that some folks are born with a penchant towards the logical, tactile and mechanical and others with a propensity for things more etheric, surreal and fantastic. Not only is this a proven fact within nature but we can go so far as to solicit science's own discoveries when it comes to physiology and body chemistry within this and that individual and how it leads one type of person to be an emphatic believer and another to be a staunch cynic.

Where's the valid answer?

Hard to say... I still believe that those standing on either side of the issue will, in time, come into the center and thus, discover mutual agreement based on known "truths" set within both camps. But hey, that's just a high-minded idea that's been around for about 5,000 years or so...

[Arouet]

[Twain Shakespeare]

Arouet, I loved that last post. If you ever compliment my reasoning, or even just my prose, I will treasure it.

You said, "the evidence must be there. And it must "fit" somehow, even if we don't currently understand the mechanism."
My problem, and the main difference I have perceived between us, is that you are immensely more pragmatic about what is a fit, whereas I find the best models I can make are often about as useful as a map of coal and oil fields would be in a weather report.

This next thought was provoked by Craig's last comment on "the lack of connection to the spiritual" or "carnal focus" (I paraphrase) of some people. I have spoken before of the Hindu and Chinese view that different forms of spirituality are appropriate to different people, or to one person over the course of life. On a more fundamental level...

I may have read this in Mailer or Burroughs or Ginsberg or some other equally discreditable source, but I have read that Bayer tested heroin extensively in house, and found it completely safe and non-addictive.
Extensive studies since then have shown that a particular personality type, the highly focused analytical types, are immune to the lure of Horse.
Peace

[Twain Shakespeare]

By the way, on the subject of what evidence would it take to convince a skeptic, I accept the "paranormal" already, because I have had inexplicable experiences, so I am not a "skeptic" in the Psicop sense, but ...
the fundamental reason for my skepticism was being told by idiots that what I thought was incorrect, and what I experienced didn't happen.
My skepticism has surpassed Hume's. My null hypothesis is that we are chimpanzees deluded by languages so false to the senses that we lie as easily as we believe (Hell of a Freudian typo there. I had thought I was writng "breathe"!)
What would convince me this null is wrong?
Anecdotal evidence would not suffice to change that null, since anecdotal evidence is the strongest evidence for its truth. You all know the kinds of things people believe, and how we come to our beliefs and defend them.
The only thing I can think of off hand I would regard as "scientific evidence" against that null would be something so clear I would also have to regard as indisputably demonstrated fact.
The only hypothetical example I can describe would be if humans successfully communicated intelligently with a non-human mentality, and then continued the discourse. In quantum mechanical terms, I won't believe this humanity is self-aware until I know experientially it has seen itself through other eyes, and been so observed.
There may be other ways I could be convinced. I did once delude myself into believing a diva was YHWH.
As I said, I accept the paranormal already, because I have had inexplicable experiences, so I am not a skeptic in the Psicop sense.
I am already convinced, experientially, that information is awareness, and it is "real". This fits with my experience of human consciousness as I perceive it from other angles no better than a photon can be a wave, but I suppose all is relative in a quantum universe.

[ProfWag]

Great discussion! Glad to see there can still be mature debate and information sharing without name calling and pointing fingers.

[Jackal]

[Arouet]

[Jackal]