# Inherent problems with paranormal studies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370 "2009-03-13T22:04:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/101 "2009-03-19T19:24:43Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > I think Edgar Cayce put it best when he said, “To the skeptic, no evidence is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” The famous American magician and mindreader, Joseph Dunninger, is often quoted as saying, "“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.” I thought this quote was original with Dunninger, and I have not seen it attributed to Cayce before. But I could be mistaken, and maybe Dunnninger ‘borrowed’ the basic gist from Cayce. In either form, I think it’s a very disingenous quote and one that misrepresents skepticism. Skeptics are happy to believe anything at all provide belief is supported by good evidence or good reasoning. > [@](#): > > Or are we so conceited as to assume we know all there is to know at this late date? That is not science. It is hubris. I don’t know anyone who is either involved in science, or who has a genuine interest, who thinks for one moment that we know all there is to know. Quite the opposite - one major spur to science is the awareness that there are still many things to be discovered about how the universe works. The reason little credence is given to ‘paranormal’ phenomena is that there is barely any good evidence or good reasoning to support the ‘paranormal’ hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/102 "2009-03-19T19:49:25Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > I think Edgar Cayce put it best when he said, “To the skeptic, no evidence is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” That’s an inaccurate portrayal of skeptics - if it was true, unorthodox scientific theories would never be accepted by skeptics, which they are - after enough evidence. And it’s an accurate if probably unintended critique of believers; believing without evidence is _stupid_. > [@InterestedObserver](#): > > Or are we so conceited as to assume we know all there is to know at this late date? That is not science. It is hubris. No one is saying that about science, except believers trying to falsely portray the attitude of the scientific faction. However, we do know quite a lot, and much of that knowledge rules out the sorts of things the believers claim. And they have nothing but anecdotes, at best to shore up their claims. Doing what the believers do - demanding that everyone pretend that reality works the way you want just because you say so - THAT is hubris. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/103 "2009-03-19T21:24:52Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > I’m sure a Moderator will address this soon enough, but I believe we have rules about referring to other posters using that word. Actually, you ARE allowed to call people trolls, but like any other insult, only in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/104 "2009-03-19T21:52:22Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Actually, you ARE allowed to call people trolls, but like any other insult, only in the Pit. Well, not _any_ other insult. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/105 "2009-03-19T22:11:54Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Well, not _any_ other insult. I think if we bang around here and there we might even find a list of such insults. ---
**Author:** ![Professor\_Murder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/90ced4/32.png) [@Professor\_Murder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Professor_Murder)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/106 "2009-03-19T22:33:41Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > I’m sure a Moderator will address this soon enough, but I believe we have rules about referring to other posters using that word. > > What _is_ clear, because it follows from **Kanicbird’s** _own reasoning_, is that he is ‘a satanic demon intent on disseminating made up rubbish’. See [my post in a separate thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942298&postcount=103) > > In fact you’ll probably find [the whole thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=510191) very illuminating. > > While I would never use the forbidden word, I do believe that any assessment of **Kanicbird’s** output leads fairly and accurately to the conclusion that he may be considered a vile, heartless, hate-filled pus dollop from Logical Bypass Land. Ok, that’s cool, I will restrain myself in future. He/she’s not worth the response though. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/107 "2009-03-19T22:37:28Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yes, but if Bob claims he can run a marathon in 2 hours and 6 minutes, but every time we try to test his marathon-running ability we never once see him cross the finish line, we’ve done two things. > > One, we have discovered that we have no good reason to believe that Bob can run a marathon in 2 hours and 6 minutes. Two, we have discovered that we have no reason to believe that Bob can run a marathon at all. If Bob ran a marathon in 2 hours and 17 minutes, we might not believe his claim to be able to run faster, but at least we’d know that the phenomenon of marathon running actually exists. I’ve been into running for years and have found that most marathons are formal, sanctioned events. You have to officially enter, be given a number and placed in the pack of runners according to your speed level. The fast people are always placed out front with a small pack of runners that are clearly visible to hundreds if not thousands of witnesses. If Bob finishes the race in 2/17 there will be an official who records his time. Now, if he comes up to you and says he has ran a marathon in that time and tries to do it in your lab and fails 100 times in a row, that means three things: 1. He is capable of running a ‘thon in his officially recorded and documented time. 2. He couldn’t do it in 100 tries in your lab. 3. It doesn’t mean he can’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/108 "2009-03-19T22:51:21Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Now, if he comes up to you and says he has ran a marathon in that time and tries to do it in your lab and fails 100 times in a row, that means three things: > > 1. He is capable of running a ‘thon in his officially recorded and documented time. > 2. He couldn’t do it in 100 tries in your lab. > 3. It doesn’t mean he can’t do it. 1. It means he \*was \*capable of doing it, assuming the document is genuine and the official who recorded it was accurate. 2. How odd, given your point #1. 3. It \*does \*meant that there is no good reason to believe that he can do it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370/109 "2009-03-19T23:05:41Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > I’ve been into running for years and have found that most marathons are formal, sanctioned events. You have to officially enter, be given a number and placed in the pack of runners according to your speed level. The fast people are always placed out front with a small pack of runners that are clearly visible to hundreds if not thousands of witnesses. If Bob finishes the race in 2/17 there will be an official who records his time. > > Now, if he comes up to you and says he has ran a marathon in that time and tries to do it in your lab and fails 100 times in a row, that means three things: > > 1. He is capable of running a ‘thon in his officially recorded and documented time. > 2. He couldn’t do it in 100 tries in your lab. > 3. It doesn’t mean he can’t do it. If he comes up and “says” he has run a marathon, that means diddly. If he shows the documentation, that’s another matter; it would almost certainly be compelling enough to prove he _was_ capable of running a marathon. If he can’t do it in your lab, though, that implies that he probably can’t anymore. Either that, or your lab is too short. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inherent-problems-with-paranormal-studies/489370.md?page=5)