We can spell it your way. It's more classy with a y, I think.
The thing is, I don't think it's right for a non-scientist like myself to criticize scientists for not agreeing with me about the worth of a precognition study or Ian Stevenson asking little boys to take off their shirts, to look at their birth marks, because if it doesn't feel right to them, even though it's their own people who did the work, meaning other scientists, then they shouldn't accept it. I wouldn't want them to. And as far as the evidence you're asking me to present, it would mostly, or exclusively, be things you've already heard of and already discarded.
Of course, it is
much easier to just gulp down the
woo!-lade, and pretend that you are above the fray by accusing me of pre-rejecting your "evidence", without ever having to present any.
You may be right that it is intellectually dishonesty to pretend that discredited studies were discredited because of prejudice, or maybe it's intellectually dishonesty to pretend that prejudice has nothing to do with it, and that only scientist who are pro-paranormalia can be dishonest, not the ones who are con.
I think you will find that very few scientists even bother with being "con-paramormalia"; it is much more likely to find actual scientists pursuing evidence. It is much easier, of course, for you to comfort yourself that people who disagree with the
woo! you pitch are simply tarred with dishonesty and sticky with deceit. After all, that is behaviour you, yourself, claimed to be practicing...
On a side note, I don't know what your Verónica Grande reference was about, but thank you for the lovely Google images.
The
Verónica Grande is a cape move, where a
matador assumes a position outside the swirl of the cape to fool the bull into thinking he is where he is not. It is a lovely move, and is incorporated into
Folklórico, but it is not an honest debate tactic.
What is the other saying, the one about credibility not bring a boomerang?
I think it's a moving goal post thing. I don't have a link.
Is that an accusation, or an admission? If the former, support it or withdraw it. If the latter, well, surprise, surprise. (It was, after all, I who suggested that you ought to nail them down, first.)
Well, if you follow the history of parapsychology from its early days to here and now, you can see how all of these things have already been tested and proven again and again. The skeptics then tear every study apart for reasons that aren't made clear to the unbiased bystander. You'll disagree, of course, but that's my answer.
If the "studies" can be demonstrated to be poorly done, or improperly blinded, or specially-pled, or of insignificant sample size, or misstated,or any one of another ways that research can gang agley, then "these things" have, in fact, NOT "...already been tested and proven again and again...".
Oh, wait, that's right: according to you, the only reason for a "con-paranormalia" scientist to insist upon rigour is dishonesty.
Yes. That's why the client needs to be tested, in tricky ways that circumsomething those hazards. Which has been done, but which you will now insist has not been done.
You have dizzying powers of prediction. I am sorry: I must have missed the post where you provided citations to, ,and sources for, the manifold studies where rigorous steps were taken to "circumsomething those hazards". Be so kind as to put up a link to that post, there's a dinkum cobber.
To say nothing of the consent issues with testing the "client" in "tricky ways"...
That's easy. They're animal souls. Same thing as evolution, only not just with apes. This is evident in that most people are sheep. Smiley face.
Transparent evasion. How do you explain the fact that the population is growing all the time, yet "souls" are recycled?
Is
the extent of your argument?
That would be a good place to start. Agreed.
Not a "good place"; the "only place". Unless and until the "soul" is demonstrated to exist, it is fruitless to discuss how the "soul" is "recycled". It's exactly like fanbois arguing about whether "reversing the polarity" would, or would not, actually "fix" the transporter.
