Skeptic: "Did you get any evidence?"
You: "No, but the feeling was unmistakable - "
Skeptic: "So... no evidence."
You: "Well, I have three photos but the shape is kind of blurry - "
Skeptic: "That's called pareidolia."
You: "You know what? I didn't come here to be patronised."
Skeptic: "Fair enough. But also, have you considered weather balloons?"
Why are they like this
Because we're tired of being shown photos of clearly mundane objects and having to explain why they're mundane? The difference is our job is easier. You claim something paranormal, we ask for evidence. Burden of proof isn't being mean, it's basic epistemology. If you came to us with actual proof instead of feelings and blurry photos, the conversation would be different.
Also weather balloons is a strawman. Nobody's said that in like fifty years.
Genuine answer though: most skeptics aren't wrong to be skeptical. The problem is skepticism without curiosity is just smugness. You can ask for evidence and still be interested in hearing the story. You don't have to be a dismissive knob about it.
Equally, believers, if you're going to report something, at least try to gather evidence. Show that you give a shit about being accurate.
This is brilliant and unfair to both sides which is exactly the vibe we need. The believer in this scenario is being defensive ("I didn't come here to be patronised") when maybe they could acknowledge that blurry photos are genuinely not very convincing. The skeptic is being a smartarse when they could just say "interesting, but here's why this specific explanation is more likely."
Neither side wants to actually communicate, they both just want to win the argument.
Why are they like this
Because if you admitted we might have a point, you'd have to question your own beliefs. And if we admitted you might have experienced something real, we'd have to question our materialist worldview. It's emotionally safer to just mock each other. 🙄
Log in to join the discussion.
Log In to Reply
