Why do skeptics investigate the Paranormal?

[MadMachine]

I have a good question...

Why do skeptics investigate the Paranormal? If you don't believe in the paranormal, what rewards do you reap out of the field? Are you out to prove there is nothing out there? Me personally, I do not understand why skeptics get involved in the paranormal. It kind of defeats the purpose. I am not out there to fool myself, or any of my clients either. I investigate the paranormal because I'd like to know what there is to look forward to after you pass away. Our energy must go somewhere, and I'd like to know where our spirit goes. I refuse to believe that when we pass away there is just emptiness or nothing. I think even skeptics have to admit there is something out there.

Most skeptics aren't out to disprove the paranormal. In actuality, many would like nothing more than for it to be true, but they aren't desperate enough to fool themselves even mistakingly.

Skepticism is the healthiest approach to any "out there" claim. More believers should be skeptical. Skeptic and Believer are not opposites. Skeptics can become believers in things and still remain skeptics. I trust I've made my point clear enough.

As for our energy having to go somewhere, I believe it goes back to the "whole" or "God." I do not believe that our consciousnesses cheat death, however.

[Pluto-x]

Coldethyl... I'm stating a general comment. Let's not insult one another. That goes for anyone... It's been a great topic, look how many responses we got without the public bashing, insults, and hasn't had any fighting. Up until this point... He had some good points, but that doesn't mean I agreed with his insults towards you.

[Veliska]

I beleive it is really cool that skeptics do research on the paranormal. Hey at least they are interested aye??

[Veliska]

We are all members here, so lets be cool!! Edited September 28, 2007 by veliska27

[coldethyl]

Coldethyl... I'm stating a general comment. Let's not insult one another. That goes for anyone... It's been a great topic, look how many responses we got without the public bashing, insults, and hasn't had any fighting. Up until this point... He had some good points, but that doesn't mean I agreed with his insults towards you.

Thanks for acknowledging them.

I am cool. I'm not fighting at all TBH. He's a fellow Republican. He just has a hot temper.

Go figure.

[Pluto-x]

what would really be cool is, if skeptics ( including non believers ) could join forces with us and help the field... we are stronger in numbers, specially against the scientists who steal our credit and recognition. As I said most of us have a common goal, and together think of what kind of discoveries that can be made together.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Pluto-x

[coldethyl]

^ Agreed.

[Veliska]

what would really be cool is, if skeptics ( including non believers ) could join forces with us and help the field... we are stronger in numbers, specially against the scientists who steal our credit and recognition. As I said most of have a common goal, and together think of what kind of discoveries that can be made together.

I agree Pluto-x. Sometimes it can be hard to find answers to the uknown. That is why it is called the unknown. I welcome skeptics because, maybe, just maybe, they could experiance the paranormal than just trying to find answers. I have skeptic friends, that does not beleive. LOL...boy the stories I can tell! But I won't get into that. ...LOL

As for republicans....the other member said they are hot tempered. Well I don't know about that. LOL. I am neither. I stay away from politics. Not my felid, man. Not my feild....lol

[coldethyl]

As for republicans....the other member said they are hot tempered. Well I don't know about that. LOL. I am neither. I stay away from politics. Not my felid, man. Not my feild....lol

No, not all Republicans, just some.

Edited September 28, 2007 by coldethyl

[goalienan]

Has anyone read the Main Front Page News yet?? Interesting .."Paranormal Community Unveiled"...Explains alot...

Edited September 28, 2007 by goalienan

[coldethyl]

Lol, can you elaborate?

I believe that since we're all made from stardust, we don't die, we just go supernova.

[Syntax]

Most skeptics aren't out to disprove the paranormal. In actuality, many would like nothing more than for it to be true, but they aren't desperate enough to fool themselves even mistakingly.

Skepticism is the healthiest approach to any "out there" claim. More believers should be skeptical. Skeptic and Believer are not opposites. Skeptics can become believers in things and still remain skeptics. I trust I've made my point clear enough.

I don't think this is true.

As discussed earlier, Skepticism is taking up an argument for the negative aspect of any discussion or situation. By your statement it would seem that a Skeptic would totally disagree with paranormal phenomenon and at the same time totally agree.

A skeptic is not someone who sits on the fence, they have made their mind up and have taken up a negative standpoint.

Again, to put it in a religious context......a skeptic is an atheist and not an agnostic.

In this way you can clearly understand why skeptics are so intent on researching the paranormal. The same way a believer uses evidence to support their own claim, a skeptic will use evidence to support their own argument.

Think about it as a school debate. Two different sides with two completely different viewpoints on a single topic. The way the argument is won is not just by using your evidence, but by researching the opponents evidence and finding holes in it. The audience is asked to take on both the positive and negative arguments and make a decision.

Using this analogy, the people you are referring to in your statement are the audience......normally in real life this is the scientific community......with Skeptics and Believers battling it out using researched evidence to sway their belief.

[MadMachine]

As discussed earlier, Skepticism is taking up an argument for the negative aspect of any discussion or situation. By your statement it would seem that a Skeptic would totally disagree with paranormal phenomenon and at the same time totally agree.

I'm sorry, but where do you get your definition of "Skeptic"?

Here's an excerpt from Dictionary.com:

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

It's natural to question things. Believers do it all the time! Every one is a skeptic to varying degrees.

A skeptic is not someone who sits on the fence, they have made their mind up and have taken up a negative standpoint.

As is plainly laid out by the dictionary, this is not a factual statement. Skepticism is a means, not an end. A person can be a Skeptic about many things and still hold Beliefs.

[Syntax]

I'm sorry, but where do you get your definition of "Skeptic"?

Here's an excerpt from Dictionary.com:

It's natural to question things. Believers do it all the time! Every one is a skeptic to varying degrees.

As is plainly laid out by the dictionary, this is not a factual statement. Skepticism is a means, not an end. A person can be a Skeptic about many things and still hold Beliefs.

yes but that definition has so many holes in it.

A skeptic questions validity, because they believe it to not be true.

Your definition also supports my argument as well.

A better word to describe what you are referring to is cynicism.

To be honest, the word Skepticism is used incorrectly in sentences and phrases. For instance I hear all the time that e.g. 'Professor BLAH BLAH approaches the topic with a fair amount of Skepticism". This would imply that the professor has doubts about the topic, yet still believes a varying degree of truth to it.

An analogy would be to say e.g. "Professor BLAH BLAH has an evil streak in him sometimes"....however being evil is the absence of good...you can't be evil and good at the same time.

Skepticism is derived from the Greek word 'Skepsis' meaning 'consideration'....but how you interpret 'consideration' varies. You can consider a topic before it is discussed and already have a strong belief on how you want the discussion to go.

Looking back, now that I think about it you are also correct.....because 'consideration' can take on so many forms.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Syntax

[Almeisan]

Etymology: Skeptic \Skep"tic\, noun. [from Greek expression skeptiko`s thoughtful, reflective, from ske`ptesqai to look carefully or about, to view, consider: compare to Latin scepticus, French sceptique. See Scope.]

alas, i haven't seen anyone who labels themselves 'skeptic' , to be thoughtful , reflective, considerate..

and i wish we would stop looking up dictionaries to know how to think.

so i suppose those who call themselves skeptic, those who turn what they can't understand into something they can. we will have to call 'pseudo-skeptics'.

there's no such thing as a 'skeptic' or a 'believer'. i am neither so i wonder what i am , i suppose i will have to look up the dictionary.

maybe i'm a knower.

no cheeky answers please, even though it is a full moon.

[spiridion]

I believe that since we're all made from stardust, we don't die, we just go supernova.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?

(Not a very Republican pov.)

[linv5800]

The point is - they don't ! They don't see the need .. Why investigate something that

does not exist ? This is exactly why they always sound dumb or stupid . No time has been

taken on their end to even bother with investigating .

[spiridion]

I don't think this is true.

As discussed earlier, Skepticism is taking up an argument for the negative aspect of any discussion or situation. By your statement it would seem that a Skeptic would totally disagree with paranormal phenomenon and at the same time totally agree.

A skeptic is not someone who sits on the fence, they have made their mind up and have taken up a negative standpoint.

Again, to put it in a religious context......a skeptic is an atheist and not an agnostic.

I take it you are stating someone else's point of view here, but in case you are not, I see skepticism as a healthy doubt - more of an agnostic using your comparison. An atheist does not believe in any sort of god or religion, whereas a nonbeliever does not believe in any paranormal activity whatsoever. The definition for skepticism was already posted here, but it is described as doubting something, not a complete denial of existence.

[Syntax]

I take it you are stating someone else's point of view here, but in case you are not, I see skepticism as a healthy doubt - more of an agnostic using your comparison. An atheist does not believe in any sort of god or religion, whereas a nonbeliever does not believe in any paranormal activity whatsoever. The definition for skepticism was already posted here, but it is described as doubting something, not a complete denial of existence.

yes but that definition has so many holes in it.

A skeptic questions validity, because they believe it to not be true.

Your definition also supports my argument as well.

A better word to describe what you are referring to is cynicism.

To be honest, the word Skepticism is used incorrectly in sentences and phrases. For instance I hear all the time that e.g. 'Professor BLAH BLAH approaches the topic with a fair amount of Skepticism". This would imply that the professor has doubts about the topic, yet still believes a varying degree of truth to it.

An analogy would be to say e.g. "Professor BLAH BLAH has an evil streak in him sometimes"....however being evil is the absence of good...you can't be evil and good at the same time.

Skepticism is derived from the Greek word 'Skepsis' meaning 'consideration'....but how you interpret 'consideration' varies. You can consider a topic before it is discussed and already have a strong belief on how you want the discussion to go.

Looking back, now that I think about it you are also correct.....because 'consideration' can take on so many forms.

I just truly think that people are confusing the words Skeptic and Skepticism. A Skeptic as a singular is different to a person with Skepticism. I will now humbly agree that my above statement about the example of the Professor is wrong....because you can have varying degrees of Skepticism.

But don't forget what Skepticism is......it is someone who takes on the Characteristics of a Skeptic. A pre-defined stance to an argument. In that regard someone who has a degree of Skepticism begins to act like a Skeptic when it comes to certain discussions.

A Skeptic as defined as a person who simply has doubt about a subject is too pedantic, in that case someone can be 99.9% sure that something is true....but that .1% of doubt would class them as a skeptic? It's not possible for a Skeptic to have Skepticism.....because a Skeptic doesn't need to take on the characteristics of a Skeptic...they already are one.

It's also not possible for a believer to have Skepticism as well.....because by having doubt they are no longer a believer.

However it is possible for someone who has not formed an opinion to approach a subject with a degree of Skepticism.

haha there is no malice in my arguments, i'm just pointing out logic that supports an argument for one side as opposed to another.

All this picking apart definitions is getting so pedantic, it's given me a major headache.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Syntax

[JackalnChainz]

No, not all Republicans, just some.

Coldethyl, you are probably right. I do spend most of my time in political forums arguing with people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You, being a Republican, should be able to understand that. I have them trying to comprehend foreign policy when they can't even name the Secretary of State. So, maybe I do tend to view negative posts as being hostile (as they mostly are in the political forums). I will try and be less defensive in the future. I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. As I said, I'm in a war in the other forums I visit. ~Jackal

[coldethyl]

Coldethyl, you are probably right. I do spend most of my time in political forums arguing with people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You, being a Republican, should be able to understand that. I have them trying to comprehend foreign policy when they can't even name the Secretary of State. So, maybe I do tend to view negative posts as being hostile (as they mostly are in the political forums). I will try and be less defensive in the future. I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. As I said, I'm in a war in the other forums I visit. ~Jackal

No problem. My husband is in the military and I have to read so much anti-war mess in threads that have nothing to do with politics that it gets to me sometimes as well. I purposely stay out of certain areas of this board for that reason. It's easy for them to criticize when they don't have a loved one fighting.

Anyway no harm done!

[Barek Halfhand]

No problem. My husband is in the military and I have to read so much anti-war mess in threads that have nothing to do with politics that it gets to me sometimes as well. I purposely stay out of certain areas of this board for that reason. It's easy for them to criticize when they don't have a loved one fighting.

Anyway no harm done!

call it a hunch but I think He'll make it home safe and sound hun ...it's guys like your hubby that make free speech forums like this a global reality (imho) ..who thinks there could have been Iraqi members here prior to Saddams' topple?...plus know-it-all college kids think war protesting is a real retro hippy (phish fan) thing to do, when they (in reality) have a minimal grasp of world politics I have noticed ....b

sorry for the OT

halfhandshuffle:Ramones-Do You Wanna Dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89TPe13QsRM

Edited September 29, 2007 by Barek Halfhand

[spiridion]

I just truly think that people are confusing the words Skeptic and Skepticism. A Skeptic as a singular is different to a person with Skepticism. I will now humbly agree that my above statement about the example of the Professor is wrong....because you can have varying degrees of Skepticism.

But don't forget what Skepticism is......it is someone who takes on the Characteristics of a Skeptic. A pre-defined stance to an argument. In that regard someone who has a degree of Skepticism begins to act like a Skeptic when it comes to certain discussions.

A Skeptic as defined as a person who simply has doubt about a subject is too pedantic, in that case someone can be 99.9% sure that something is true....but that .1% of doubt would class them as a skeptic? It's not possible for a Skeptic to have Skepticism.....because a Skeptic doesn't need to take on the characteristics of a Skeptic...they already are one.

It's also not possible for a believer to have Skepticism as well.....because by having doubt they are no longer a believer.

However it is possible for someone who has not formed an opinion to approach a subject with a degree of Skepticism.

haha there is no malice in my arguments, i'm just pointing out logic that supports an argument for one side as opposed to another.

All this picking apart definitions is getting so pedantic, it's given me a major headache.

I think you are trying to analyze this too much - this is mostly semantics. Regarding this forum and the paranormal, I think that skeptics are people who are not sure that ghosts/paranormal exist, but are curious about it. There are a few who pop on every now and then who are rude and just laugh at posts, but luckily these "hecklers" don't come around so often. The huge majority of skeptics here are quite interested in the "evidence" posted and take it seriously, although we may be doubtful of some of it, we are respectful.

[Pluto-x]

If you ask me, a big part of why investigators are being laughed at is a combination of things... because of hoaxers, and no thanks to Hollywood with over embellishing dramatized t.v. series that have groups just looking to make the almighty dollar bill. I have a huge amount of love for what I do, and a genuine as well as honest investigator who takes this field much more seriously. I agree that its over analized. As I said before, not sure if you guys read it or not but I think that Skeptics & Believers who are investigators should join forces rather than debate against each other. Think of the discoveries that can be made by sharing each others knowledge and know how. We ALL have a common goal and that is why we should be joining forces. Think of the contributions and accomplishments!?

[spiridion]

I think someone mentioned that many investigators are in fact skeptics. I think investigators need to be skeptical to some degree, so as to truly analyze what they see and not immediately call every orb, flash of light, etc. a ghost.