I'm just replying to the original post...I've not read everything in between due to time, so if I'm repeating, I apologize. Just link the paragraph that addresses this tactic, that I use frequently.
#11 - You're asking way too much of me to believe this. This isn't a matter of belief or paradigm, but when someone comes to me making said-outrageous claims with nothing more than anecdotal evidence, I have a hard time simply believing them just by word-of-mouth. I call to mind the "bridge for sale" analogy; If I walk up to someone looking to buy a bridge in New York and tell them I have a bridge for sale for a mere $3,000, are they going to believe me? Are they going to give me $3,000 site-unseen? Is there a bridge? Is it for sale? Is it really mine to sell? Are they going to call me a fool? Accuse me of lying about the bridge even though they've never seen it nor it's location? There are a lot of reactions and a lot of dynamics to every such claim.
If I wantonly believe, I'm considered gullible and mis-guided, most likely justifiably so. If I wantonly disbelieve (or sometimes, simply question the claim) I'm considered a debunker and a skeptic, again, perhaps, justifiably so. For me, it comes down to an individual choice based on the evidence that YOU present to ME and what each, individual piece of evidence weighs on MY scale.
The original post continuously referenced research into psi. Ironically enough, I did a research paper that asked the question, "Was Practical Application of Psi Ever Proven by the Field of Parapsychology?" I found pages of reference, each from several scientific, peer reviewed journals claiming the negative-result factor in which, on several occasions, those that conducted the Gansfield research admitted to discarding negative or null result tests, most times out of ignorance and not out of malice. It would appear that someone is lying; either the researchers or the papers written by the skeptics. You can't have both in this case. Even IF the null or negative results were not discarded, evidence of psi, or precognitive ability, was on such a low scale it was NOT considered 'practical' in any sense of the word. Meta analysis showed a statistical variance that was, very clearly, irrelevant in real-world scenarios. Something was there but it was so small it was insignificant and unimportant. That aside, I also stated several other medical and scientific articles for test results, most done with either virtual environments or fMRI's, in which there were 0 positive results for the existence of psi.
Of course, every bit of my own research and every evidence I gathered could be filtered through and discarded for this reason or that reason....or any reason listed on the original Top 10 posting. In the end, you're not going to convince a believer to question and you're not going to convince a skeptic to believe. Myself? I'm agnostic by the true definition of the word; such things cannot be proven nor disproven through current means nor technology, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked me, "Do(es) psy/ghosts/UFO's/Bigfoot/etc... exist???" I would reply, "No." I've never seen a bit of evidence to prove the existence of such things, but I've not seen evidence against such things, either, so I would fall back on my own DEFAULT experience that they do not. Does that make me confused or non-committal? To some, yes, it does. To me, no, it doesn't. It makes me a realist. If YOU believe you saw a ghost or a UFO, or a goddess in the side of a mountain, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I have to believe too, just because you worked for the CIA or whatever validation you toss in my face. I don't consider that enough validation to believe such a claim.
Does that make me a skeptic (one that's decision-confused?) I suppose if you want to get upset about my doubt, sure, but the positive side of skepticism is the ability to question everything, even open-mindedly. If you shut that down than you might as well go listen to Coast-to-Coast. Me? I'll continue to question, be doubtful, and cling to (some) of those Top 10 techniques, sometimes happily so.
One thing I will agree with is the disrespectful and disgraceful use of ad-hominid attacks by skeptics. Just because you don't believe in someone's story does not give you the right to call them crazy, stupid, or what-not, at least not without further proof of such (medical records?) Attacking someone personally for their claims of experience is one of the lowest forms of countering a claim I can imagine. Skeptics who do that are no longer skeptics; they're just assholes. Argue your point to the point you cannot or are not willing to argue any more, then move on, convinced or not of the other side. Just don't lower yourself to trying to bully someone into shutting up by attacking them personally. That just show's that you're the idiot at that point.
