Why do skeptics believe that the standards of science do not apply to them?

Question

In science the burden of evidence is always on the person making the claim. If I claim a series of experiments lends supporting evidence to the hypothesis that ESP exist I must meet both statistical significance and proper methods.

If I fail to do this one can claim that I have not provided evidence for my claim.

On the other hand if a skeptic states that a particular flaw (in statistics or methods) or fraud in the experiment is the reason for my results they are not claiming they don't believe my results they are making a positive assertion (introducing a new hypothesis) and by the standards of science are required to demonstrate where the statistics are wrong, where the flaw in method is located and that these factors can explain the results of the experiment. Again all claims in science require evidence.

They would also be required to show where fraud would be possible in such a way as to effect the outcome.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Zingrone_critics.htm

Answer 1

So what is your question? You have already answered yours by your explanation. Very good I might say too.

Answer 2

Hi

Without skeptics we cannot grow or improve. We would simply settle or give up on our hypothesis.

Keep in mind that all we pursue, believe in, and practice will always be questioned and criticized by others because they have not experienced it for themselves.

What I don't understand is how scientist laugh off the paranormal or parapsychology, yet they go to church and pray and celebrate "God" who is a Holy spirit.

Do they critique the bible? There are a lot of unexplained phenomenas in the bible, but for some reason these are accepted -  by skeptics -scientists etc....

How convenient for them....

Answer 3

because it's not them that are making a claim that seems unrealistic.

for example, you've seen a magician perform levitation.

he might claim that gravity does not apply in his case.

it is not up to you to show where he is wrong.

the claim that he's making is sufficiently far enough outside the real world that you don't have to prove that he is wrong.

it's the same with esp.  esp is sufficiently far enough outside the world all the rest of us experience that the onus of proof is on you, not your skeptic.

Answer 4

Wow, I just saw all the questions you asked. Looks like you're really angry at skeptics and you're lashing out. That's too bad. But I hope I can clear up some misperceptions about burden of proof.

If someone claims as fact that there is a flaw in methodology or there is fraud in some experiment, then the burden of proof is on that person to provide evidence. Regarding parapsychology and the often dubious methodology used, it's an easy task to provide support for the assertion of bad methodology since there are many resources that can be cited which have already done this investigation.

However, there is nothing stopping someone from saying "I think they are fooling us" or "I think their experimental controls are lousy", etc., and offering that as opinion. Opinion offered as such does not bear any burden of proof though citing something to support the opinion would be a good thing to do anyway if you want to make a convincing argument.  

Finally, it is not so much the standards of science which are at issue here, but just good logic in arguing a position. But keep in mind here that some people are content in offering their opinion for consideration without trying to make a thesis out of it, and in Yahoo Answers that is fine too.

Answer 5

Your probably being a little harsh and judgemental right now. I don't think many people here on yahoo answers is doing any serious scientific experiements with any serious results related to paranormal. I think just about everyone is going on personal point of view of the results of other research, or just saying how they feel.

And really when you get the results of such research it is subject to critisism. I understood this as part of the the scientific process. You have to analyze the research for flaws. If such flaws are possible, it has to be addressed.

If I proposed a new Theory of Gravity, in which I changed the formula, you would not have to come up with a new theory of gravity in order to debunk my theory. You would simply have to point out that there are flaws in my math, and that einsteins thoery still stands.

Skeptics do serve an important purpose, even if they are frustrating at times. They find problems with the research which would make the results skewed, or completely wrong.

Answer 6

I think skeptics do believe that the standards of science apply to them. They just see things differently, and that's not an altogether bad thing. It happens that I believe PSI phenomena occur, but if it hasn't happened to you it could seem a bit unlikely. I don't blame a person for saying "Wait a second. That doesn't seem right! What else could explain that?" As long as they don't try to go Randi on me I kind of like some skeptics!

Answer 7

Doubt is the default state.

A change from the default state is what bears burden of evidence.

Answer 8

I think it is more that they do not realize they have unscientifically reached and then irrationally clung tenaciously to certain assertions. I have repeatedly run into the same kind of situations with atheists. I am a Baha'i, and am not shy about proclaiming it. I have time and again challenged various atheists to show me where I am wrong, show me what I missed or how my conclusion is faulty. I have yet for anyone to do that. In fact, the majority who actually tried have come to embrace what I believe. Yet I have been called a "mindless sheep" and worse by many who obviously know nothing about my position other than I believe in God. At least one who called me a Christian later emailed me and said, "Sorry, man. My mistake."

Answer 9

Well, science is made up of nothing more than theories backed by our perception which we consider fact. Science conforms to reality, not the other way around. I would consider an explaination for the paranormal to be held to the same standard, which Quantum Physics actually has theories that go hand in hand with the paranormal.

If people who are trying to figure out the paranormal or believe in the paranormal are considered fruitcakes, then all Quantum physicists would have to be held to the same accountability. Essentially, all scientists in general what ever the background may be.

Anyways, even if you had proof, closed minded people would automatically just discredit you as a liar and a fabricator. After all, in their perception of the world, thats the most likely probability.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Answer 10

Because their claims are backed up by the government. The people in power. So they are the majority. And they can do whatever they like.