Lately I’ve been pondering about how to approach unexplained cases without the need to explain every detail of a case. Some skeptics will dismiss mysteries as paranormal a priori, while some will go deep down the rabbit hole trying to see what is going on there. It seems to me that the latter approach is condemned to never-ending motion in circles.
From my experience when I debate paranormal proponents about some case, I will get a usual response: “90% of cases are normal, but the other 10% are genuine…” or “I know that case was explained, but this one isn’t or it can’t be so it must be paranormal…”. It is an endless debate… Strategy of taking a case by case down is hard, as every time skeptics explain something proponents will pull a new rabbit out of a hat… And here we go again…
So, I would say that question for this thread would be how many cases of poltergeists, reincarnations, apparitions, bigfoots, UFO’s, EVP’s… skeptics must explain away for paranormal proponents so they can’t say usual BS such as “skeptics are superficial”, “they don’t want to look at the evidence”…? 100 out 100? 10 out of 100? None?
From my experience when I debate paranormal proponents about some case, I will get a usual response: “90% of cases are normal, but the other 10% are genuine…” or “I know that case was explained, but this one isn’t or it can’t be so it must be paranormal…”. It is an endless debate… Strategy of taking a case by case down is hard, as every time skeptics explain something proponents will pull a new rabbit out of a hat… And here we go again…
So, I would say that question for this thread would be how many cases of poltergeists, reincarnations, apparitions, bigfoots, UFO’s, EVP’s… skeptics must explain away for paranormal proponents so they can’t say usual BS such as “skeptics are superficial”, “they don’t want to look at the evidence”…? 100 out 100? 10 out of 100? None?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3imxPsD
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire