The Good Place

Chris - who you would probably include in your pejorative term "believers" is often sceptical.

Chris would never get a pejorative from me.

Maybe it's just worth saying - I don't think of myself as either a believer/proponent or a sceptic.

I think that there is experimental evidence that provides what a lawyer would call a prima facie case for the reality of psi. On the face of it, it proves the existence of psi, and no adequate alternative explanation has been offered. I don't think the possibility of fraud is an adequate explanation, unless there is definite evidence to point to fraud.

On the other hand, fraud is very difficult to rule out, so it's difficult to go further and say the reality of psi has been proved. But I hope the technology is now with us - and will be accepted by parapsychologists - to make fraud extremely unlikely in many psi experiments, and also effectively to rule out other questionable research practices such as selective reporting and post hoc hypotheses.

More succinctly, I wish we had more actual skeptics and fewer idealogues (scientific materialists or otherwise for that matter, but my focus was on the former in this thread).

Amen to that.

Correct Kam and thanks for the clarification.

More succinctly, I wish we had more actual skeptics and fewer idealogues (scientific materialists or otherwise for that matter, but my focus was on the former in this thread).

There were. How do you divorce idealogues, scientific materialists or otherwise that's highly constraining and unreasonable. The otherwise part gives you oddles of lattitude to be dismissive. And you know that's not how people work. So point out anyone anywhere that meets your stipulations.

Well put, stephenw. I'm guessing that even "normal" people were able to follow you.

ARE YOU SAYING I"M NOT NORMAL????

maybe I'm paraNORMAL    

Correct Kam and thanks for the clarification.

More succinctly, I wish we had more actual skeptics and fewer idealogues (scientific materialists or otherwise for that matter, but my focus was on the former in this thread).

That's a good/important point.

Are you putting the skeptics who joined this forum in the category of "scientific materialist ideologies"? Personally, I don't subscribe to a materialist ideology. At most, I recognize that methodological naturalism has been useful. I suspect that the skeptics who joined this forum were probably about as un-ideologue as you could find and still include someone with a scientific and skeptical bent. And unfortunately, it's looking like that opportunity was squandered.

What would a skeptic who wasn't an ideologue look like to you? 

Linda

There were. How do you divorce idealogues scientific materialists or otherwise that's highly constraining and unreasonable. The otherwise part gives you oddles of lattitude. And you know that's not how people work. So point out anyone anywhere that meets your stipulations.

What would a skeptic who wasn't an ideologue look like to you?

Sort of interesting where the two places this question/point comes from.

Its aspirational perhaps, but I'm not convinced of that.  Maybe its more attitudinal.  I've seen people with strong biases and convictions manage it.  The Harris Peterson discussions were just one example.

An idealogue, for example, would never use a faith-based appeal in a debate.  Whether that appeal be to God or to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp.  Different leafs from the same tree.

Sort of interesting where the two places this question/point comes from.

Its aspirational perhaps, but I'm not convinced of that.  Maybe its more attitudinal.  I've seen people with strong biases and convictions manage it.  The Harris Peterson discussions were just one example.

An idealogue, for example, would never use a faith-based appeal in a debate.  Whether that appeal be to God or to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp.  Different leafs from the same tree.

Science has a very good track record so far. Even parapsychologists rely upon it to discover things currently beyond our grasp.

Sort of interesting where the two places this question/point comes from.

Its aspirational perhaps, but I'm not convinced of that.  Maybe its more attitudinal.  I've seen people with strong biases and convictions manage it.  The Harris Peterson discussions were just one example.

An idealogue, for example, would never use a faith-based appeal in a debate.  Whether that appeal be to God or to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp.  Different leafs from the same tree.

Do you mean "A non-ideologue" in the sentence above?

The people Steve001 listed earlier seem to fit the bill with respect to eschewing faith-based appeals, and attempting to take a non-biased approach. I have several times gone over the evidence-based approaches which specifically address the effects of bias and the results of their removal, based on research. Yet there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of meaningful engagement here with the "actual skeptics" or the subject matter.

Linda

Science has a very good track record so far. Even parapsychologists rely upon it to discover things currently beyond our grasp.

The process does but will the conclusions reached by scientists in years to come match the conclusions they have now?  I very much doubt it!

The process does but will the conclusions reached by scientists in years to come match the conclusions they have now?  I very much doubt it!

I have no idea what you mean.