In a court of law, innocence is often inferred by a lack of evidence. The same is not true for the scientific method. Lack of evidence only infers lack of evidence. Some have applied such to courtroom logic to scientific matters and have declared verdicts (not opinions) on such things as Bigfoot, ET visitations and near-death experiences.

"Lack of evidence" may also be a subjective opinion. Ridicule is not a substitute for falsification. Refusing to examine evidence or declaring it false without scientific testing does not necessarily constitute "lack of evidence." While it may be true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, there no chance that they will ever be seriously considered as evidence at all if they are rejected outright, merely because they are "extraordinary."

To grant extraordinary evidence a fair hearing does not constitute "belief" or "making an extraordinary claim" but many who proudly label themselves "skeptics" love to imply that these are the extraordinary claims of "believers" in such subjects, and they are therefore somehow unfit for having a valid opinion. As a consequence, many subjects are under-explored, as the social pressures of appearing to be impartial to such subjects can often exact harsh penalties on careers and reputations.

Unknown variables are not zeroes. Substituting the X's for zeroes in an equation may seem to make it easier to solve, but the result will have no meaning.

Landrew wrote:As a consequence, many subjects are under-explored, as the social pressures of appearing to be impartial to such subjects can often exact harsh penalties on careers and reputations.

Which subjects did you have in mind here for being "under-explored"?

You seem to jump between 'lack of evidence' and 'poor evidence'. But if we go for 'lack of evidence' (since it is in the topic title), then what criteria for forming an opinion of a claim would you propose in place of evidence?

Thommo wrote:

Landrew wrote:As a consequence, many subjects are under-explored, as the social pressures of appearing to be impartial to such subjects can often exact harsh penalties on careers and reputations.

Which subjects did you have in mind here for being "under-explored"?

Am I risking being labeled a "believer" if I suggest some aspects of what is loosely described as the "paranormal?"

You don't often read that Marie and Pierre Curie were well-known paranormal investigators, because that portion of their work is considered irrelevant, but they applied the same scientific methodology to subjects like psychokinesis as to their work on radiology. Few if any serious scientists would be able to explore such subjects today without considerable risk to their careers.

John P. M. wrote:You seem to jump between 'lack of evidence' and 'poor evidence'. But if we go for 'lack of evidence' (since it is in the topic title), then what criteria for forming an opinion of a claim would you propose in place of evidence?

What great distinction exists between the two? Surely it's largely a subjective opinion to quantify evidence as either "valid" "poor" or "non-existent" in matters of skepticism.

Landrew wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Landrew wrote:As a consequence, many subjects are under-explored, as the social pressures of appearing to be impartial to such subjects can often exact harsh penalties on careers and reputations.

Which subjects did you have in mind here for being "under-explored"?

Am I risking being labeled a "believer" if I suggest some aspects of what is loosely described as the "paranormal?"

I don't know, you might be. Does it matter what people label you (assuming it's not abusive)?

I certainly can't agree that this area as a whole is underexplored, there are literally thousands of professional investigators and millions of amateur ones looking into this area and there have been for years.

People stopped looking for luminiferous aether after a much less pronounced investment of person-hours, and I would say they were right to do so, there are only so many hours in a day.

Landrew wrote:You don't often read that Marie and Pierre Curie were well-known paranormal investigators, because that portion of their work is considered irrelevant, but they applied the same scientific methodology to subjects like psychokinesis as to their work on radiology. Few if any serious scientists would be able to explore such subjects today without considerable risk to their careers.

Strictly speaking I don't often read anything about them. I'm not much interested in their negative results, indeed it's this lack of interest that can lead to publication bias something which brings us rather neatly back round to paranormal investigation, where it is frequently observed.

OK, let's try again:

John P. M. wrote:But if we go for 'lack of evidence' (since it is in the topic title), then what criteria for forming an opinion of a claim would you propose in place of evidence?

-I do understand that what you're saying is likely along the lines of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and that one shouldn't form strong knowledge claims based on a lack of evidence for a proposition. That does sound sensible, and is part of why I don't label myself a strong atheist, but on the other hand it leads to a rather curious stance, in which one doesn't allow oneself to dismiss things such as unicorns, fairies and Russel's Teapot just in case. But having said that, I wouldn't have a problem if I was shown wrong in regards to fairies for instance. If I was - so what? Then I simply used to be wrong about fairies based on the then available evidence.

John P. M. wrote:OK, let's try again:

John P. M. wrote:But if we go for 'lack of evidence' (since it is in the topic title), then what criteria for forming an opinion of a claim would you propose in place of evidence?

I don't judge anyone's opinions if they are based on fairly weighing the evidence, but if they cross the line by misrepresenting data or corrupting the scientific method, I feel compelled to challenge their methodology. I feel that some skeptics do this irresponsibly at times. and I would hope that such a challenge is not rejected merely because it seems to be coming from the "side of woo," as some have implied. I am merely seeking accountability for skeptical claims based on "lack of evidence." I consider skepticism should be qualified by the same methodology as that of science.

Lack is what it is, though thought input brings about possibilties. Without thought input were all monkeys. Take a miscalculated experiment that could bring a turn in technology.

I became extremely laid back when I became comfortable with uncertainty.

Uncertainty is the root of skepticism.
Skepticism is the root of new learning.

Doorstep verdicts by "professional skeptics" do not often promote learning; they merely put many minds at rest,
if those minds are seeking comfort instead of knowledge.

It's virtually a "party line" among the professional skeptics fraternity that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. This seems to be based on the verdict of a single ridiculous book by Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Despite thousands of others whom cast more than reasonable doubt on the whole affair, not to mention ignoring the common sense notion that there was significantly more going on behind the scenes than the Warren Report concluded.

The same attitude is exhibited towards a myriad of other subjects, therefore I think it's time a truly skeptical eye is turned upon this type of "show-biz skepticism."

Landrew wrote:It's virtually a "party line" among the professional skeptics fraternity that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. This seems to be based on the verdict of a single ridiculous book by Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,

Wrong. It's based on forensic examination, by multiple, independent experts, all arriving at the same conclusion - that Oswald was the only shooter, that the trajectories work out just fine for him being the only shooter, and that the time evidence from the Zapruder film and the police audio tape match up perfectly.

Despite thousands of others whom cast more than reasonable doubt on the whole affair,

No, they make varying levels of absurd claims, not backed by actual EVIDENCE, and are thus rejected.

not to mention ignoring the common sense notion that there was significantly more going on behind the scenes than the Warren Report concluded.

"Common Sense" is the mantra of people who usually don't know or don't understand the scientific evidence and the scientific process. "Common sense" tells global warming denialists that the October 2011 blizzard in NYC means global warming is a hoax. "Common sense" tells evolution deniers that the lack of a living crocoduck means evolution is a hoax. "Common sense" is used to justify damn near whatever someone without actual evidence wants to believe.

The same attitude is exhibited towards a myriad of other subjects, therefore I think it's time a truly skeptical eye is turned upon this type of "show-biz skepticism."

You have yet to demonstrate that there's anything actually wrong with the sort of skepticism displayed here.

Just the first in an expected barrage of opposition to a challenge to the comfort zone of letting the professional skeptics do our thinking for us.

Whatever, Landrew.

Give some actual evidence, don't just wibble on about "letting professional skeptics do our thinking for us" or other allusions to group-think among skeptics.

Weaver wrote:Whatever, Landrew.

Give some actual evidence, don't just wibble on about "letting professional skeptics do our thinking for us" or other allusions to group-think among skeptics.

Fundamentals of Armchair Skepticism, lesson # 36:
-Put all burden of proof on the other side; "I'm right until you prove differently."

Landrew wrote:In a court of law, innocence is often inferred by a lack of evidence.

No, it isn't.

Courts do not determine innocence. The determination is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

Landrew wrote:The same is not true for the scientific method.

No. It is pretty much the same with the scientific method. You either "prove" your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt (support your theory with evidence) or the conjecture is not accepted (found "not guilty").

The "innocent" determination (the falsity of the claim) only comes when something has been demonstrated to be false.

Landrew wrote:Lack of evidence only infers lack of evidence. Some have applied such to courtroom logic to scientific matters and have declared verdicts (not opinions) on such things as Bigfoot, ET visitations and near-death experiences.

Wow. You have completely ignored everything that you have been told about this, haven't you?

What the lack of evidence indicates is that there is absolutely no reason to accept those claims.

Landrew wrote:"Lack of evidence" may also be a subjective opinion. Ridicule is not a substitute for falsification. Refusing to examine evidence or declaring it false without scientific testing does not necessarily constitute "lack of evidence." While it may be true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, there no chance that they will ever be seriously considered as evidence at all if they are rejected outright, merely because they are "extraordinary."

Bullshit.

They are not rejected outright. They have been rejected after investigation.

Just because YOU don't understand that the garbage that you are accepting as evidence has been discredited doesn't mean that it hasn't.

Landrew wrote:Despite thousands of others whom cast more than reasonable doubt on the whole affair, not to mention ignoring the common sense notion that there was significantly more going on behind the scenes than the Warren Report concluded.

But would you use that to form a position of claimed knowledge? If so, I don't see how that can be said to be any better. Quite the contrary.

There's only so much one can do to find the truth. Take the Loch Ness monster. Many anecdotes have been told for centuries, a few forgeries and some claimed non-forgeries have been shown, and on the scientific side, the Loch Ness has been extensively probed through and through without finding anything. What is one to conclude from this? One can choose to be a 'believer' based on the anecdotal and 'fuzzy' evidence, or one can choose to be undecided based on the scientific findings (or rather lack thereof) contrasted by the anecdotal evidence, or one can choose to side completely with the latest scientific findings, which have revealed nothing of note.

I don't think it would be arrogant to side with the latter, and say that as of now, Nessie most likely does not exist. Should new evidence surface (pun possibly intended), then that stance could be revised.

It may not be a claim of metaphysical knowledge, but in everyday parlance we would say that we know, based on the available evidence (or lack thereof) for the claim.

Landrew wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Landrew wrote:As a consequence, many subjects are under-explored, as the social pressures of appearing to be impartial to such subjects can often exact harsh penalties on careers and reputations.

Which subjects did you have in mind here for being "under-explored"?

Am I risking being labeled a "believer" if I suggest some aspects of what is loosely described as the "paranormal?"

You don't often read that Marie and Pierre Curie were well-known paranormal investigators, because that portion of their work is considered irrelevant, but they applied the same scientific methodology to subjects like psychokinesis as to their work on radiology.

So what? Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and studied it.

This is an appeal to authority. You are throwing out the name of someone respected in their field and then trying to imply that gives their work legitimacy in another field.

By the way, what were the results of their study of the paranormal?

Landrew wrote:Few if any serious scientists would be able to explore such subjects today without considerable risk to their careers.

That is because it would be like scientists trying to explore the subject that the Earth is flat or that leprechauns exist.

MrFungus420 wrote:

Landrew wrote:In a court of law, innocence is often inferred by a lack of evidence.

No, it isn't.

Courts do not determine innocence. The determination is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

Landrew wrote:The same is not true for the scientific method.

No. It is pretty much the same with the scientific method. You either "prove" your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt (support your theory with evidence) or the conjecture is not accepted (found "not guilty").

The "innocent" determination (the falsity of the claim) only comes when something has been demonstrated to be false.

Not even close. A lawyer is asked to "prove his case." No scientist would pass peer review if they claimed to "prove their hypothesis." The fundamental purpose of a trial is to achieve a verdict. Skeptics who have corrupted the scientific method to achieve a "verdict" are only serving to stifle investigation and the curtail opportunities for acquiring greater knowledge.