You know that old phrase: "The more things change the more they stay the same?"
Well it might not be a perfect metaphor here, but it's a trip how different the two camps are while having supposedly the same goals.
- Both camps are made of curious people who delve into topics of interest, trying hard to understand how it all works.
- Both camps investigate and collaborate.
- Both camps are eager to share their information/research with their peers, and regularly publish books and other mass media.
- Both camps say their quest is to find out what's really going on in a particular situation, because something interesting seems to be happening.
However,
As we have seen throughout this category of Why Science Rejects the Paranormal, the paranormal has fallen short with rejecting science, misunderstanding science, and conducting bad science. On top of it, hoaxes have given the subject a bad reputation. And finally: For over a decade, $1 million was offered for proof of the paranormal; Nobody claimed it.
Hold your fire, please. We're on your side, paranormal. The thing is, if paranormal wants to play ball with science then paranormal will have to follow science's rules. Everyone knows that central to playing a game is that everyone follows the SAME set of rules. In this case it's the scientific method.
Therefore, science has basically given up on the paranormal. In the minds of skeptics, the case is closed. They won't even hear of anything paranormal without roundly mocking it for five minutes right out of the gate.
So too, the paranormal seems to have given up on even trying to play ball with science. Everyone says the WORD "skeptical" (I'm skeptical but...). Few can be bothered to find out what that really means, or to do any kind of real scientific investigation.
There's another old phrase: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to negligence.
Sometimes there are paranormal stories that seem to have evidence, or the researchers will seem to have good data. There is no entry to the science world. Because it's often only loosely cataloged in a scientific format, paranormal "evidence" is even less likely to be recognized.
Skeptics talk about logical fallacies and errors in method/analysis. YET, when any part of the paranormal is brought up, discussions center around hasty generalizations, not understanding a topic but dismissing it anyway, moving goalposts, red herrings, circular logic, and appeals to authority.... instead of discussing what actually is going on. Skeptics love to say.... it's probably this or probably that, and spend twenty minutes discussing how it could be this or that. The funny thing is, that seems good enough for them. They don't seem to care to know if that's really the case or not. They're satisfied with just saying "probably this or probably that - case closed."
All of this is to say that since the 1970s, the two camps have really split into their own autonomous groups. They don't even try to work together any more.
They've become echo chambers.
What is an Echo Chamber?
From Wikipedia:
In discussions of news media, an echo chamber refers to situations in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal. By participating in an echo chamber, people are able to seek out information that reinforces their existing views without encountering opposing views, potentially resulting in an unintended exercise in confirmation bias. Echo chambers may increase social and political polarization and extremism.
The term is a metaphor based on an acoustic echo chamber, in which sounds reverberate in a hollow enclosure. Another emerging term for this echoing and homogenizing effect within social media communities on the Internet is cultural tribalism.
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
It's been three-four years and four years since the latest skeptical push. Paranormal proponents continue to promote the paranormal. Skeptics continue to mock in the form of hasty generalizations.
The two sides are echo chambers.
The goal of APP is to bring the two sides together.
We could call out parties on both sides, but instead let's work together to move this subject forward. . Paranormal proponents - post your best evidence or theories Skeptical proponents - post your best expert advice
THANKS FOR READING THIS "OUR ANSWERS" SERIES: (Impasse: Why Science Rejects Paranormal)
What's Your Opinion?
QUICK LINKS - Impasse: Why Science Rejects Paranormal
MAIN / Why Science Rejects the Paranormal
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 1. Start Here - Short Answer
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 2. Scientific Revolution
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 3. Misunderstanding Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 4. Paranormal Rejects Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 5. Hoaxes
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 6. Failed Studies
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 7. The Amazing Randi
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 8. Bad Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 9. Echo Chambers
MAIN / What's Your Opinion?
Home
NOTE: The material in the APP's "Our Answers" sometimes seems elementary and simplistic, yet at the same time long and drawn-out. Yes. It's the beginning foundation for the topic. If you're an expert on a topic, then by all means add your suggestions to the appropriate forums. There can be a steep learning curve for those not already familiar with the many facets (and topics) covered by this project. Our answers are a starting point. (Feel free to help round-out topics if we've missed something.)
If you're in-between a novice and an expert, consider just checking out the several RESOURCES listed within each of our "OUR ANSWERS" posts. Readers don't have to take our word for it. Each part has good external sources/links, so you can get more in-depth and intricate answers from real experts. Remember when you see Wikipedia listed, that it has a ton of references so you can see where the information originated. Wiki is also great for an overview of a subject. And on big topics there's usually a system of organization that gives each facet its own flowchart of information/sources. (And Wiki is free, with no ads, and open to peer review. What's not to like?)
DISCUSSION & FEEDBACK
Share your knowledge. Don't be shy if you have a QUALITY contribution. (But please be polite, and proofread.) Sometimes special forums exist just for feedback on the project. That'll be apparent when looking at the list of a forum's discussions.
There are two ways to add your opinions/content: Either create a reply OR create a new post.
For a quick comment about whatever post you're reading, just REPLY to it. The button is available both above and below the post, and has BRIGHT PURPLE text.
To add a new post of your own to a discussion, use the "NEW TOPIC" button located on every forum's main list of posts. Generally hit the back button from any post you're reading (or use the breadcrumbs up top), to go back a step to the main forum for that discussion. The button is available both above and below every forum's main list of posts, has BRIGHT PURPLE text, and says "NEW TOPIC." (It sounds more formal than it is.)
If you have a nice chunk of GOOD INFORMATION, please choose to add a NEW post in the (most-) appropriate forum rather than a comment-reply. That way you'll generate comments of your own. PLUS it will show up in the list of posts so other interested people will notice it's there. (PLUS we're a new website/project, so we could use all the QUALITY submissions we can get.)
All of your content displays your avatar and tagline (signature). You can edit these in your "user panel" or it will default to generic/blank. BTW, users can include plugs to their own websites or whatever, in their profiles. USERS BEWARE and Google the website name before you actually go there. Make sure you're going to some place legit that isn't going to scam you or give your computer an STD. (Little joke there. I'll see myself out...)
TIPS FOR POLLS: Polls appear on some posts, IF its author has created one. They're open to ALL registered users. All APP-written polls are set to be ongoing and allow you to change your vote later. Feel free to comment your suggestions for improving any poll, ours or others', just be kind and helpful.
CREATING A POLL: When writing any post (not comment replies) look for the option named "Poll Creation" in a TAB below the "submit" button. Fill in your Qs/As and double-check the default options. You can always edit the poll later via editing the POST itself and navigating back to that same tab. (Change whatever and re-submit.) But that sort of defeats the purpose if you change it after people have answered, right? So to start, create an option for ALL POSSIBLE points of view. Lastly, the poll will display below the post after it's published. In "preview" mode it shows on top.
.
.