When does skepticism become unproductive?

Question

I fully understand that there are skeptics & there are believers. However, is there ever a point where their minds may open to new things? Does there ALWAYS have to be a scientifical answer or proof to a question or an event?

Will there ever be a point that if someone was to see or feel something unexplained, that they won't be told they need to seek a doctor?

How productive is it to attempt to make someone feel unstable?

Answer 1

Skepticism is *never* unproductive (and I rarely use the word never).  How can using critical thinking skills ever be bad for you?  Prejudiced doubt may be, but skepticism (aka critical thinking) is just a way of thinking or approaching an idea.

Everybody uses skepticism and critical thinking every day.  If I offered you immortality in exchange for all of your money would you give it to me?  If you did you wouldn't be thinking very skeptically.  In that respect you're a skeptic too.  It's just that I'm skeptical of some of your beliefs in addition to anyone selling immortality.

I believe there is a natural explanation for every event that occurs in the natural world.  So in that respect seeking a natural explanation for an event would be my first priority.  Only after all natural explanations have been eliminated would I move on to the paranormal possibilities.  As far as I know, and in my experience, a paranormal explanation has never been necessary.

People with legitimate medical problems display symptoms of paranormal events.  The voices heard by those afflicted with schizophrenia have compelled their sufferers to kill people.  Someone seeing bright flashes can have a serious medical condition that needs attention.  To say the lights caused by a brain tumor are just orbs or angels is just plain wrong.

I agree that this is no reason to insult people or to engage in personal attacks.  However, if someone makes a positive asserting that which is demonstrably not true, then I believe he may be taken to task on this erroneous claim.

Answer 2

Wasn't there ever a time that you didn't really believe in paranormal things.. didn't even think about them..Then later you "believed" ..then came that experience when you "knew"..and then so many confirmations of  it that by then you "KNEW"!! Well, most skeptics are still in between the "not thinking about it" stage and the "maybe beginning to believe in it". They don't think it's so "crazy" or "impossible" or "foolish" that they don't even come to this section.Don't you know they're "testing" us?! Did you ever try to tell anyone about your experiences with Jesus? It rarely convinces anyone. These are things that have to be experienced to really believe them. I haven't experience "everything". But, because I've experienced "some " things..I'm a lot more open to the experiences of others. And. since I've experienced Jesus..I don't "cringe" or get upset when anyone else mentions Him. (in the right way).We're not here to convince the skeptics that what we say is real or true. Maybe, if someone in their lives that they HIGHLY respected, honored, believed had a paranormal experience..MAYBE they would believe THEM. But they don't even know us..Why should they believe us? And then again...they'll read Science books written by people they don't know..or History books..and they'll believe THEM. They don't have any more proof of those things than we can prove our experiences. As for the dr. part...THAT'S WHY...you shouldn't be going around town talking about these things with people you aren't POSITIVE you can trust. They know where you live...and the government will help them have you committed. (Hope you never have to have this happen to believe it.) You can talk about just about anything else...except the paranormal and Jesus.Yeah..I know..you feel like you "gotta tell"..you think "people would WANT to know". ..and after all "It's a free country!"..Ya think?!!Just ask your questions on here and learn all  you can and try to keep things to yourself until you can find people you KNOW you can trust.At least now there are lots of paranormal tv shows on now that makes it a little more acceptable to talk about it. Maybe in 10 years it will be a "normal" thing to believe in the paranormal. ..but not yet.

Answer 3

It becomes unproductive when you just give knee jerk answers without research.

You have to do just as much research to disprove it as you do to prove it.

There will never be a scientific answer for everything, even the things they think they have answers to. In a decade or two it will change.

The reason paranormal research is not considered a scientific research is because most researchers do not try to reproduce their data (evps, photos, video) in controlled tests. It can be done, but it's not easy. They record something strange once, and they are good with that.

In the same token, most avid skeptics feel so strong that its all so fake they they don't try to find the answers as to why it's fake. They look at it once and proclaim it fake.

Research is not black and white ... there is a lot of gray in there. It's the people in the gray that get the most work done because they look at both sides.

Answer 4

Being skeptical does NOT mean you have a closed mind.  It DOES mean that you don't leave your mind so open that people throw garbage in it.  

Yes, everything we have ever observed to happen has had a scientific explanation.  EVERYTHING.  If you have proof for a claim of the paranormal, I'd be the first to ask to see it.  But I'm not going to accept you on your word, especially since most of this stuff you're talking about has never happened before and I've met quite a few deluded people.  Science is skeptical of everything, including science.

How productive is it for people with genuine problems to seek help rather than be encouraged in their delusions, hallucinations, or mental illnesses?

EDIT:  Jack, if I told you that I owned the Brooklyn Bridge and I'd sell it to you for $100, wouldn't it be a good thing to be skeptical of my claim?  Maybe ask me for proof of ownership?  Or do you think that's just foolish, of course I'm telling the truth, I couldn't possibly be crazy?

I'm sorry you don't respect my intellect.  Since I've spent the last 10 years studying science and working as a scientist, I can assure you that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to actually testing claims of the paranormal.  But if you'd like to provide some evidence to the contrary, please do so.  I'll even help you win the Nobel Prize for proving physics wrong - because pretty much every claim of the paranormal would require physics to be wrong.

EDIT:  My grandfather sees dead relatives all the time.  Are they there?  Nope, he's hallucinating.  He knows this because my grandmother and the nurses can't see them.  And it's a sign his meds are screwed up and need to be adjusted.  I'm certainly not claiming everyone who believes in the paranormal is mentally ill - but you can't say it doesn't happen.  I've seen it all too often.  But most people are just fooled by a convincing demonstration.

Answer 5

>Science is not always about being precise and mesuring. Science can also be blindly stumbling into an answer. Finding an answer to something you were not looking for is not being precise. PSI, not every invention, not every discovery was set about in lab conditions where you could toy with it over and over. And because someone can invent it, does not mean it benefits anyone. I personally do not sit here and try to convince you or anyone else there are ghosts, but at the same time, telling someone they are mental or need help everytime they say they see something does not help in one bit what so ever. The smartest people are the people who keep an open and objective mind when it comes to anything. Because answers change. Evidence changes. Theories evolve. Many of the greatest minds in history have been accused of being mental and unstable. And Eri, I consider that 90% of what kids are taight in colleges by so called professors is garbage in your terms. The more time one spends in school, the more "garbage" you absorb. Global warming is one example of absorbing garbage, Yet a large part of the population has been convinced of this lie with false science and skewed math. It is an example of reverse skepticism. I dont belive for one minute a 1 degree temp change over 100 years signifies a huge change in the planet. Thats 1/100th of a degree each year for 100 years?  NASA numbers by the way. The moral, lots of people dont believe in paranormal happenings because thier science does not back it. I and a lot of people have seen through the mania of global warming to look at the science behind it and see it is flawed. So science and math dont prove everything and are only as good as the politics and people using it. There is nothing worse than a scientist with a political agenda.

Answer 6

When it becomes a dogmatic belief and one starts spouting religious phrases like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Science is about precision and measurement (and experiments and evaluation) not personal beliefs.

For example in the social sciences and medicine the standard has long been p<.05  meaning less than a 5% chance that results are due to chance.

However, no skeptic has ever defined in measurable terms (for all or even one test of psychic abilities) what measurement would constitute "extraordinary evidence" and saying "if it's extraordinary enough I will believe it" is not science.

I think (and I could be wrong) that most believers are open to normal explanations of seemingly psychic events as I am. However, the normal explanation has to fit the circumstances. For example sleep paralysis does not explain alien abduction experiences witnessed by two people while driving a car. True there may be an explanation besides aliens but then one should find it not dismiss it with a blanket "alien abductions are all do to sleep paraylsis".

I feel that the reverse, skeptics being open to events being unexplained, is not true of most skeptics.

No there does not always have to be a scientific answer (science is the quest for answers not an all knowing body of knowledge). Certainly there does not have to be proof (or even evidence) for an experience to be real and effect a persons life (this is an aspect of the paranormal that I study). If one hopes to convince another of something then evidence is nice but my friends and family don't ask for evidence of my experiences. For instance dreams can have an impact on you and they are real but there is no way you can provide evidence to me of your dream. This does not mean that I don't accept it as a real experience.

Another area I am working on. I have even here advised posters of possible medical conditions but only as a way to eliminate normal explanations (if they wish to). I have a great interest in educating mental health therapist in being able to tell the difference between a normal psychic experience and a psychotic one. There are distinct differences.

That said some people have posted (the what should be done question) where people suggested a doctor out of genuine concern for a persons health and not as way to be insulting as it is too often given on this board.

It is not productive as many questions (baiting ones) and answers are not on this board. I am thankful that most answers still do try to actually answer a question and often from many different points of views.

Psi

Answer 7

Personal skepticism, I believe, is always worth the price of admission.  One reason for that is the fact we simply cannot trust the skepticism of others.

Others will alway be skeptical [of us, not of themselves], but it is meaningless.  

Our believing they're fools won't make them fools, [which I do tend to believe they are] but whatever they might believe certainly doesn't mean their pronouncements are true.  Humans have a lot more opinions than they have anything underneath to back them up.

Nobody can 'make' a person feel unstable unless the person allows it to be so, gives 'permission' to the world around him to provide self-definition.

How we feel about ourselves is our own choice, and we're invulnerable except within the contexts of the permission we give to the world outside us to provide us with definition.

Eri:  The problem is that I don't hold your intellect, your body of knowledge, your judgement, your integrity in high regard.  You've shown in every answer I've ever seen you post that you aren't the sort of person I'd look to for guidance.  Let's not meet this way and make all these nice folks uncomfortable.  I'll happily ignore you and will be pleased if you'll reciprocate.

Answer 8

I see some very good answers here (and some not so much), but let me add by answering your question with the fact that to be skeptical is to be open-minded. There is nothing closed-minded about needing evidence to justify a claim. The closed-mindedness comes into play when one religiously adheres to only one belief so that no evidence to the contrary is even considered. A skeptic and a scientist will not (or should not) do that, but both a cynic or a devout believer would.

To address your other questions

* Does there always have to be a scientific answer?  No. Sometimes it's beyond our capacity to investigate and form hypotheses. If it wasn't beyond our capacity, then sure there would always be a scientific answer, but we're only human. The corollary to this is that this doesn't mean it's necessarily paranormal or supernatural, either, just because we can't currently explain it.

* Seeing a doctor is always a good thing. I do every year, at least, and usually more than that. If someone presents a story where the likeihood that they may be having medical issues is considerable, then I think the responsible thing to do is to recommend a check-up. This should NOT be suggested in an insulting way.

* It's not productive to make someone feel unstable or bad about themselves. That should never be the intention, although I'm sure it happens regardless. People can sometimes be very protective about their beliefs and become defensive when they are challenged.

Answer 9

Skepticism is good. Keeping an open mind is also good. A skeptic is different from a non believer. Some people refuse to accept things beyond their understanding no matter what. A skeptic requires evidence but is not totally closed off to the possibility of other worldly things.

Answer 10

I give no credence and ignore anyone on here that has never had an experience. Of course the question is why are they here. Who cares what a person thinks that never leaves their computer room to go out in the real world to see the mysteries out there.

I guess it is safe in their basement.

Answer 11

skepticism is never unproductive, it forces people to examine thier claims critically before jumping to unreasonable conclusions.

The skeptics have open minds, its actually the other way around. The believers are not willing to accept evidence that does not support thier personal belief. Look at what the believers did when Darwin figured out the process of evolution. They are still hounding him over that one, even with all the evidence we have now to support evolution.

The question you should be asking, is do you really want a whole world of people blindly believing every claim that everyone makes?

Thats where the skeptics step in. We prize logic and reason over rumors, urban legends, and extrodinary claims.