introduction / disclaimer :
paranormal | science
We do take into account stories, experience, etc. of people who have made claims about these types of things. However, though they may be very interesting, they do not automatically make what the person has said to be able to be accepted as a real occurance. Yet, they do suggest that something has happened or is happening that is not known (or is at least not commonly known) as to the hows, whys, etc. of explaining that thing.
We do not consider ourselves to be cynics nor psuedoskeptics. By these terms, we refer to a person who is unwilling to believe in the data and will always stick to the 'fact' that there are no such paranormal things "because you're wrong" or "because there is no such thing as . . ." that is fallacious in and of itself, not to mention this kind of reasoning is almost precisely one of the tactics "True Believers" will use, but to the opposite. It's funny, the believers will often have an experience or encounter, at least to them, that is closer to being hard evidence than many so called skeptics will have as evidence to suggest that a claim is false.
We consider ourselves to be "open-minded" to the possibility of many of these things. We are willing to change our minds about things if there is convincing enough evidence to suggest otherwise. We in no way, are debunkers.
Most importanty, our opinions and biases will not, to the best of our abilities, reflect the material presented or the presentation of the material. We will not cater to the skeptical (seemingly cynical) attitude and critize or devalue any experiences that people may have. Nor will we automatically assume that something is false, wrong or erroneous without exploring the many opinions and theories behind those ideas. We will not, on the other hand, automatically make any statements of truth and fact of the existence of something.
Even if we do make a statement in which we think the evidence suggets the "reality" of something, we will attempt to present ideas which pertain to critically analyzing the many aspects / characteristics.
Science is at the heart of skepticism. To be a skeptic takes critical analysis of data and information which is based on science and its appoach of the scientific method.
Many skeptics will claim they are:
". . . Defending science and reason against a raising tide of the irrationality; protecting an uninformed public who are mislead and robbed of their health and hard earned money by unscrupulous charlatans and flimflam artists; Applying the scientific method to "debunk'' claims of pseudo-science and the paranormal; And, turning the cold eye of reason on primitive superstitions and nonsense." - James "The Amazing" Randi
This statement, or one very similar, is one that many skpectics would probably agree with.
Here is an interesting and informative (and somewhat long) article discussing various aspects of 'the myths of skepticism'.
Myths of Skepticism
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html
What do you think about the above statement?
Do you think any (all) of the paranormal things (phenomena):
That are to be believed or experienced, if a person believes or experiences something paranormal, should be considered irrational?
are experienced only by the uninformed public? (who, exactly, is the uninformed public, anyway?)
Are (all) exploited by unscrupulous charlatans and flimflam artists who mislead and rob of their health and hard earned money the uninformed public?
Need to be debunked?
Need the scientific method to debunk the claims of pseudoscience and the paranormal?
Can be fully explained by science and the application of the scientific method?
Are the same as pseudoscience?
Are only an expression of primitive supersitions and nonsense (with reasons other than what's necessarily implied motivating the claim)?