I was a complete skeptic until ...

[Mulder]

It is common for people to talk about 'object movement' when what they really mean is, their previous memory of an object position differs from its current position.

[bobdezon]

Unfortunately this is quite a common logical fallacy, and its basis is pure unadulterated conceit and an over estimation of the original posters ability to process information. Just because the orginal poster cannot understand the reason for his/her experience. It does not automatically follow that someone with greater experience or understanding cannot. I usually find comments like this on believer websites, and usually from the "new kid" trying to fit in. We all experience odd things which we cannot explain, that does not mean they were paranormal in origin. The paranormal explanation is a poverty of reasoning.

[Mulder]

Unfortunately this is quite a common logical fallacy, and its basis is pure unadulterated conceit and an over estimation of the original posters ability to process information. Just because the orginal poster cannot understand the reason for his/her experience. It does not automatically follow that someone with greater experience or understanding cannot. I usually find comments like this on believer websites, and usually from the "new kid" trying to fit in. We all experience odd things which we cannot explain, that does not mean they were paranormal in origin. The paranormal explanation is a poverty of reasoning.

As the original poster, I humbly stand corrected ...

[bobdezon]

As the original poster, I humbly stand corrected ...

I wasnt referring to your original post, I was referring to a "hypothetical poster" on a believer forum, making that statement.

[Mulder]

[hyundisonata]

Can someone tell me how there are so many experts on both sides on something that has no proof of existence, take the skeptic and the ufo he will shout from the roof tops it is a balloon or a bird ect but how can he honestly state such a thing if he was not there and never investigated the object at the time of sighting, he can only surmise that he is right and base his statement on the media that supplied the information to him so how can he be so positive his assumption on the subject is correct. Same with the believer a drop of imagination goes a long way but it does not mean he was incorrect and further investigation is warranted by science which is ironic as science itself is built on imagination lol.

[Tony Williams]

Can someone tell me how there are so many experts on both sides on something that has no proof of existence, take the skeptic and the ufo he will shout from the roof tops it is a balloon or a bird ect but how can he honestly state such a thing if he was not there and never investigated the object at the time of sighting, he can only surmise that he is right and base his statement on the media that supplied the information to him so how can he be so positive his assumption on the subject is correct.

A true skeptic will not "shout from the rooftops it is a balloon or a bird etc" unless there is evidence of that. He will instead simply say that it is an unidentified object (as the name UFO indicates). He may also add that whenever there is sufficient evidence to make an identification it always turns out to have a mundane explanation - it's never been an alien spaceship.

Same with the believer a drop of imagination goes a long way but it does not mean he was incorrect and further investigation is warranted by science which is ironic as science itself is built on imagination lol.

Imagination has a part to play, but science isn't built on it: it's built on evidence. That's the difference between the scientific approach and the imaginations of the spaceship-believers: the latter jump to the conclusion that if something can't be immediately identified it must be something weird. Scientists say "prove it".

[highflyertoo]

Unfortunately this is quite a common logical fallacy, and its basis is pure unadulterated conceit and an over estimation of the original posters ability to process information. Just because the orginal poster cannot understand the reason for his/her experience. It does not automatically follow that someone with greater experience or understanding cannot. I usually find comments like this on believer websites, and usually from the "new kid" trying to fit in. We all experience odd things which we cannot explain, that does not mean they were paranormal in origin. The paranormal explanation is a poverty of reasoning.

''we all experience odd things ... poverty of reasoning''-bobdezon .

The representatives of skepticism are still saying that the paranormal does not exist because it's a untrue form of reasoning.LOL

So unless people agree with ''skeptic doctrine'' then one is delusional according to the skeptics who puff themselves up as SMART CAUTIOUS REASONERS.

So bob, show me how you disprove the supernatural ? Show me the formula ? ROFL

[Pebble]

The representatives of skepticism are still saying that the paranormal does not exist because it's a untrue form of reasoning.LOL

Given that paranormal explanations of various forms have been proposed for thousands of years, and as yet there is no confirmatory evidence for any paranormal basis for anything, does it surprise that some are beginning to conclude that the paranormal does not exist?

So unless people agree with ''skeptic doctrine'' then one is delusional according to the skeptics who puff themselves up as SMART CAUTIOUS REASONERS.

Doctrine - belief! Trying to taint skeptics as being a gullible as believers, worth a try I suppose.

So bob, show me how you disprove the supernatural ? Show me the formula ? ROFL

Science rarely disproves anything, but if something is consistently unsupported by evidence, then there is little point in continuing to place faith in such explanations. Continued faith in unsupported beliefs gave us the dark ages, now islam has its own version of this as exemplified by the Taliban. If you want to have a just society then you need to use evidence as a tool. I am not claiming that there are any just societies yet, but the more evidence based decision making is the closer one gets.

[Dubious Dick]

''we all experience odd things ... poverty of reasoning''-bobdezon .

The representatives of skepticism are still saying that the paranormal does not exist because it's a untrue form of reasoning.LOL

So unless people agree with ''skeptic doctrine'' then one is delusional according to the skeptics who puff themselves up as SMART CAUTIOUS REASONERS.

So bob, show me how you disprove the supernatural ? Show me the formula ? ROFL

Loathe as I am to encourage you to post more, do try to understand this.

Skeptics do not say the supernatural (a better word than paranormal because paranormal means parallel to normal, and supernatural means beyond natural laws as we currently understand them) does not exist. Skeptics doubt the existence of the supernatural because of a lack of any credible evidence to date.

As Pebble explains, the fact that we have heard and seen so many claims for the supernatural down through history that, when properly evaluated are shown to be either frauds or to have perfectly rational explanations, means that we are rightly very suspicious of such claims, and require extraordinary proof. The reason for this is that we are not persuaded to chase after mirages of oases because we know they tend not to quench our thirst for knowledge.

We are not trying to disprove the supernatural. That is not what we set out to do. We do happily examine claims of the supernatural, with a wariness based on experience. If you claim supernatural abilities, or the existence of supernatural phenomena then it is up to you to prove them, not us to disprove them. Unless you understand this really quite simple principle then you are really wasting your time with us.

It is remarkable that you perceive that you are a chosen one to deliver such proof. We have evidence of many people down through history who have made such claims, and yet none to date has proved correct. It is fascinating why you think that you, of all people have been chosen. Do you not think that if the powers you claim you will demonstrate for the good of mankind really existed, then they would have been revealed by your god to many more people a long time ago and saved a lot of people a great deal of suffering?

Some here have suggested that you are simply a troll, winding us up for your own amusement. If that is the case then you may wish to seriously examine this very wasteful use of your time. Perhaps working in a soup kitchen would be more productive and far more helpful to your less fortunate fellow men and women. Certainly something your god would probably approve of a lot more.

Others, including me, feel that you are displaying delusional tendencies and symptoms of potentially serious mental illness. If we are right then there is a real danger that you will deteriorate further into much more damaging and dangerous delusions, or become very seriously depressed if what you believe will happen does not.

If you are at all concerned for your own welfare then please do make a commitment to yourself that if the events you have supposedly foreseen do not materialise then you will visit a Doctor and ask for help. We may be dismissive and insensitive at times, but one thing I have learned here is that most skpetics are actually extraordinarily compassionate people, and I really do not think that anyone here would want to think that you would harm yourself or others because of what are far from uncommon delusions. Many of these delusions are based on a genuine desire for a better World and I am very sympathetic to that, often wishing I could wave a magic wand and make all the horror and uffering disapppear, or that some superhuman would do so.

[Mulder]

Skeptics do not say the supernatural (a better word than paranormal because paranormal means parallel to normal, and supernatural means beyond natural laws as we currently understand them) does not exist.

The prefix para, from the Greek, means "beside, near, from, against, contrary to". It is never taken to mean 'parallel' when used in the word paranormal.

The word 'supernatural' is used mostly by the media and others who have little or no knowledge of the subject. It's use often tells you the sort of level of discussion you can expect from its user.

[Dubious Dick]

..........I lost my right leg (Not really!)

Just thought that if one is a skeptic one cannot really become not a skeptic, but one could become an incomplete skeptic if one lost a limb.

O.K. Mulder, same old problem with definitions. I've seen paranormal referred to as parallel to normal because it is supposedly outside our existing understanding, or cannot be understood within the context of known physical laws. Hope that despite the semantics, the rest of my point to HFT is valid.

[Mulder]

O.K. Mulder, same old problem with definitions. I've seen paranormal referred to as parallel to normal because it is supposedly outside our existing understanding, or cannot be understood within the context of known physical laws.

Having researched the paranormal for decades I've never come across that interpretation. It sounds like the sort of reasoning that someone who uses the word 'supernatural' might come up with.

All sensible researchers understand paranormal as 'beyond normal' ie. apparently defying currently understood scientific laws. I think they came up with the word as a sensible alternative to 'supernatural', which is now most often heard in horror movie trailers!

[Trinoc]

Both "paranormal" and "supernatural" are self-defeating concepts. If any of their claims were ever shown to be real then they would become "normal" or "natural". So, by definition, anything paranormal or supernatural is not real.

[Dubious Dick]

Having researched the paranormal for decades I've never come across that interpretation. It sounds like the sort of reasoning that someone who uses the word 'supernatural' might come up with.

All sensible researchers understand paranormal as 'beyond normal' ie. apparently defying currently understood scientific laws. I think they came up with the word as a sensible alternative to 'supernatural', which is now most often heard in horror movie trailers!

O.K. Understand what you are saying. I cannot reference the parallel normal definition at the moment and won't bother ebcause it is a diversion form the real issue. Perhaps as pere Trinocs point we should un-natural unless proved otherwise or UUPO as an acronym? Then we can have sightings of UUPOs a well as UFOs!