How much investigation should be done before saying “No evidence shows…” or “its never been proven..."

Question

Lets keep it simple by defining only 2 parameters: location, and timeline

What locations need to be investigated before make such a claim?

Only research conducted in your own hometown? State/ Province? Country? Worldwide?

Whose research counts? Universities? Private research institutes? Personal experiences?

Also what timeline is appropriate?

Only research conducted this month? This year? Last 10 years? Last 100 years?

What do you feel is appropriate?

Answer 1

Actually, any amount of research at all can be said to be a basis for these vague and relatively misleading statements. If something has never been tried before, then naturally it can't be proven. If it's never been tried, then no evidence could possibly show a result. Thus, these are considered "weasel words" (words which allow a wide degree of latitude while maintaining an air of authority, such as "sources say" or "it's been said" when talking about something that might be newsworthy).

Thus, to make these claims, absolutely no investigation is required whatsoever, from a purely logical perspective. It is therefore easy to give a "false debunk" claim that something doesn't exist without any conclusive evidence or even attempts at finding the truth of the matter. Investigation is about finding the truth wherever it may lead, not simply in tearing down claims that others make or in supporting them.

The truth is sometimes uncomfortable, and so people often use phrases like this to bolster their claim and tear down someone else's. It has no more validity than simply saying "It's true! I promise!" and expecting that to be a great source of information. Ultimately, it relies on the validity of the speaker, and blatantly disregards the truth.

Answer 2

A person should know what they are talking about. If someone states something to the effect of "there is insufficient evidence to assume that.... " or something of that nature, that person should be familiar with the general state of research concerning the topic. What research?  Any and all research that is documented, verifiable, reproducible, and performed using good scientific controls. It doesn't matter when or where, as long as the above criteria are satisfied. If no such research exists, it is entirely appropriate to say that that "no evidence shows...", etc.

That being said, how do you know someone is familiar enough with the research to take their opinion as having value? That's a subjective decision on your part, but that question is why many people have initials after their names. People go to accredited universities so that their future employers (and colleagues) know they are qualified to talk about their areas of expertise. Here on Yahoo Answers, we don't have any such system. We just have more or less anonymous people reporting their opinions, and we take their experiences and education at face value.

For Yahoo Answers, it's appropriate for anyone to weigh in with their opinion, even if it is wrong. Many opinions are :)  To answer your question, "So therefore how much personal education should a person have before making a claim in the Paranormal section", the answer would have to be zero. Since there is no accredited university degree in paranormal studies, and only one university in the world I know of offers a parapsychological degree, putting an education requirement on offering opinions would effectively stifle anybody making a pro-paranormal claim.

Answer 3

It all depends on what you are trying to prove.

Answer 4

In fields that are outside my area of expertise (i.e. climate change) I must rely on the professional opinions of others.  So I am forced to base my opinion on the opinions of those who know what they're talking about.  In order to do this, I must trust their integrity and motivation.

When something is proposed to exist, ghosts for example, I must consider my personal interpretation of my own experience and the research that has been conducted.  What hypotheses have been proposed?  What data have been collected?  Is there any bias involved?  What conclusions have been drawn?  Are conclusions based on sound scientific protocol?  Are the conclusions contradicted or unsupported by other research?  Are there rational explanations for the apparent phenomenon?  And so on.

If experiments conducted 100 years ago are able to be reproduced today with identical results then I think it's fair to say such research is valid.

This is an interesting question.  I have been asked by believers, "What sort of evidence would convince you X is real?"  I can give a detailed answer to that question and then ask in return, "How much evidence would it take to convince you X isn't real?"  I have yet to receive a satisfying answer to that question.

Answer 5

None.  None at all.  Until some evidence shows or it is proven, those two statements are perfectly legitimate.

Answer 6

How much investigation/education should someone have before claiming they sensed a spirit talking to them, or that crystals send out "vibrations", or that Reiki actually has any healing effect?

Beware that other side of the coin. I think this is a case of "be careful what you ask for".

Edit: How much research should one do before making a paranormal claim?  On Yahoo Answers, there is no such requirement. People are free to claim anything about the paranormal that they want, and they do, all the time. I've heard loads of bizarre claims here. If they want to make their claims in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then that's a different story.