When it comes to superpowers, it may seem natural for those who accept and believe that the paranormal exists in front of those who suspect and deal with such allegations in a critical way. In fact, in all forms of the media under the title of paranormal, the skeptics are always placed to counter the claims of believers.
The biggest issue here is that the skeptical skepticism against the believers is not connected because it is not only other than the believers who must be suspicious when it comes to assessing superpowers. The idea of ​​”skeptics against believers” enhances the idea that once you believe that there is something real or real, you stop doubting new claims you face. This may be true for some, but I don’t think this is the case for the majority of people who believe in ghosts. Doubts, in essence, require an open approach to claims and information. It is a good basis for building strong critical thinking skills, which you owe to yourself.
Not only that, but the submission of claims in support of the equity and the rational meters on an equal footing is in fact a logical fallacy. The wrong balance occurs when two sides of the argument are presented as righteous on an equal footing with each other, regardless of their objective accuracy.
to update: I originally participated in a discussion in Uncannycon here that may not be accurate, and it has been removed so that it does not represent what was said or not said, after my attention was caught.
The confidence of the shareholders who support the descriptions often in assurances on the causes of phenomena is often a cautious suspicion that approaches the researchers skeptical of the case. The use of the wrong balance by those who produce the media content under the title of a paranormal guarantee everyone’s meeting. It is usually submitted as enabling the public to decide on the claims that are submitted.
However, is this really the result? Is the presentation of speculation equal to the academic truth in force that really enables people to make enlightened decisions regarding the extraordinary claims that are submitted? I don’t think it’s so, and I think this represents many possible issues. These skeptical interpretations are not equal to the pro -emotional allegations that have no good quality evidence to support them and we must stop acting in another way.
