Oh, goodie, another sample of psychobabble! Let's translate these into English, shall we.
- You instinctively know from just reading that some new paranormal claim isn’t true. You feel angry, you don’t feel doubt.
Means: You have seen a lot of paranormal claims, and the non-paranormal explanations for them. When you see the same claim repeated, you are inclined to point out the explanations, which often baffles the claimant that thinks the claim is "new".
- You believe extraordinary paranormal claims requires extraordinary evidence.... yet trust an extraordinary accusation of paranormal fraud only requires anecdotal rumour.
Means: You know that fraud exists and that there is nothing paranormal about it. When you see someone who claims paranormal powers are being accused for fraud, you are more ready to accept this than that the claim is real, since there is nothing extraordinary about commiting fraud.
- You have total faith in the opinion of CSICOP, an organization set up to oppose paranormal claims with nothing but something else explanations..
Means: You do sometimes read stuff from CSICOP, an organisation set up to provide actual explanations of claims of paranormal phenomena.
- You believe paranormal belief is of grave danger to humanity . You petition to stop paranormal claims in the media to protect the public from making their own minds up ….
Means: You believe that belief in the paranormal can have adverse effects, because it has been shown to cause people to harm themselves unecessarily, to give money to known frauds, to avoid proper medical treatment, etc. You petititon to stop media presenting known cases of fraud as legitimate, because that is deceiving the public.
- You believe a scientist who claims a real paranormal effect is an error prone idiot and a scientist who finds nothing paranormal was unquestionably correct. You support peer reviewed journals only publishing correct outcomes to prevent funding for ‘pathological science’
Means: You believe that a real scientist that claims a paranormal effect may or may not be a good scientist, may or may not be intelligent, but does believe in something of which there is no real evidence of existing, despite how it could easily be tested for, if it existed. You decide to read up on the scientist and his claims, to see if he has a point, or if he's just another Dr. Schwartz or "Dr." Kent Howind.
- You believe the paranormal (i.e. contradictory to normal established scientific principles) must follow normal scientific principles or it cannot exist.
Means: You believe that if a paranormal claim is actually proven, that simply means that very much of we today think we know about the universe is wrong. Until that happens, you believe that there are non-paranormal explanations for all the paranormal claims you've so far studied.
Fortunately no one in this forum thinks like the above.
Some people on this forum
may think like the above
after the translation; but that is for them to decide, not me. You are of course right that nobody on the forum thinks like the above before translation.
And after this poor attempt of for the umpteenth time trying to giving skeptics false opinions, Open Mind has once again demonstrated the false advertising of his nickname.
And by the way, care to provide examples for us? As in showing for example an actual skeptic claiming that he has total faith in CSICOP? Or that there has ever been an extraordinary accusation of fraud?
