I'll start with mine:

I am skeptical to a fault sometimes. I hold the scientific method in high regard, and am even involved in research at a state university (Psychology).

While I do hold scientists in high regard, I usually read the methods section of research papers to get a good idea of how something was researched. That is how I decide how valid a particular piece is.

Because of this, I tend to remain skeptical of many mainstream opinions, as well as many conspiracy/supernatural opinions. I don't disbelieve them, but I don't hold them as truth unless I've done my own research.

This has pretty much led me to become atheist.

That god exists. Because of that I am dismissed as a nutcase and a heathen.

Right now I am open to the possibility of conspiracies.

When it comes to 9/11 I think it's possible that the gov't let it happen on purpose. I believe aliens probably exist, but I don't know whether or not they have visited us. I don't believe in paranormal or supernatural occurrences.

So I'm pretty much skeptical but not completely closed to those ideas.

Based on probability, there is a high chance that life has evolved somewhere else in the universe. Maybe not advanced, but still highly probable. As for a supernatural being such as ghosts; there is no reason to believe in something such as that unless evidence presents itself.

The same reason I dismiss people claiming to talk to god. Anecdotes and second hand stories can't be confirmed, and therefore aren't good enough for me to base my personal beliefs on.

If someone told me they saw a dragon, and gave me a blurry picture that could be a lot of different things, I wouldn't automatically start believing in dragons.

Because the scientific method is a very good system of testing reality. And at the level of education I'm at, I can at the very least read research papers and understand if they used a valid method when they were conducting an experiment.

When scientists use poor scientific techniques, it's pretty easy for me to spot, and their "findings" are typically refuted by other scientists.

When I took my research methods class, we went over all the forms of scientific inquiry. When it comes to methods, it is pretty easy to spot a poorly designed experiment. The cases where comprehension would become an issue is if you were getting into mathematical proofs and physics. I will give you that. When you get into fields like that though, peer review is most important, and these people are working with things that likely can't be experimented on in the first place (Like string theory).

But when you get into independent variables, dependent variables, sample size, repeatability, and strength of a correlation, and other things like that, you don't need to be an expert in a specific field to understand if it set up correctly or not.

I would hope so ;) I took research methods a year ago, and next semester I'm taking a graduate level research methods class (Advanced research methods). One issue I see with mainstream media is this: A headline will read, "New study links XXXX to XXXX." if you dig a little bit, you will find out that either the sample size is really small, or the correlational coefficient is only something like .0125, which is really weak. The news will leave that out, of course, and lead you to believe something that may or may not be valid.

Part of writing a research paper is the discussion in which you are required to discuss the limitations of your study, in the interests of academic honesty. So they are training us to be very critical of our own work.

Thanks.

This should be an interesting exercise for me. Hopefully my education can be applied to other fields as well. :D

You are correct. I can understand the statistics involved, but it is pretty much useless without understanding the context of it all. I have only taken a few biology classes so my understanding of this paper is minimal.

If I claimed to see a ghost, the burden of proof is on me to back up my claim. If the only "proof" to go off of is the testimony of person D, this isn't a strong argument. People can lie, manipulate, hallucinate, etc. Shared hallucinations is also something that has been observed.

In science, experiments must produce the same results, otherwise they aren't considered valid. if B and C dispute a scientific paper, but run the experiment and get the same results and A, they have no basis for their argument.

The problem is you are comparing some thing subjective (humor) and objective (The existence of ghosts).

If I claimed to be in possession of the holy grail, I would have to be the person to prove that I indeed have it. Saying, "Prove I don't have it!" is faulty reasoning.

That would lead me to believe that they are possibly schizophrenic.

Well it's definitely an example. If I'm standing in a room with someone, and they point at something that isn't there and start freaking out, chances are they are hallucinating.

But there are an array of explanations that exist:

1.) A hoax

2.) Someone misinterpreting what they sense

3.) Suggestibility (Like people who claim to have religious experiences)

4.) A dream

5.) And of course, it could be something paranormal

Now, strange shit has happened to me before. The thing is, based on what happened, I am not going to jump to a conclusion, because I can't based on what occurred. It isn't logical to claim number 5 happened when it is no more likely than any of the other events, and there is no evidence to back up that hypothesis.

I would say hoax and trick of the mind are up there for most likely. Dreams are very likely as well. Maybe paranormal stories happen in a person's own home when you could be dreaming or having a waking dream. A fair amount of people can suffer from hallucinations, but I don't think that possibility is the highest. And highly suggestible people can be made to believe things quite often; just look at religion and hypnotism. Obviously it's a possibility that if could be paranormal, but I don't think it is very likely.

What the hell is that website?

Exactly. Rigorously peer reviewed studies agree with my common sense.

However even then, I admit I am skeptical of a lot of the cutting edge science I hear. A lot of it is theoretical, so I view most of it as possible, not fact.

That's kinda how science works bro. Scientists will prove and disprove each other over time, new things are learned, and what we know slowly gets more accurate.

When a study finds something, the writer doesn't yell PROOF! Typically they'll recommend further research to better understand what happened.

It's a mess but it works great.

In which way does modern medicine kill? Because even people receiving treatment are made aware of the chance they will die. The side effects and risk involved in any sort of treatment are known and disclosed to patients. Buy fuck, let's just get rid of it. It's not like medicine has helped save millions of lives or anything.

But you must be really removed from modern science if you think scientists today are in it for the money. Given the amount of money professors at universities make, they are giving up much better paying alternatives to do what they are passionate about.

Obviously there will be corruption, as there is in every aspect of life. But one thing I find awesome is that corruption is easily weeded out of science. One recent example is the whole autism/vaccine link (Or the lack thereof). It turns out that the scientist who wrote the study who found the link between autism and vaccines fabricated data.

This shit gets caught by scientists. It's the idiots in the media that don't correct themselves.

Why are you blaming the scientists?

If you want to blame someone, blame the executives and politicians that stand to make money by promoting a dangerous product. Scientists do research, but if you haven't noticed, these people don't profit from it. They get paid the same modest wage. The executives are the ones who stand to make millions off of that shit. Our country is getting fucked up the ass by the rich. There is a lot of talent in the US, but most of us are at the mercy of corporate interests. The research happens, people know what's up, and their shit is taken and given out by someone who wants money.

But that's the medical industry and you seem to be ignoring the broader range of science.

The entire existence of science has been challenging the status quo. Every groundbreaking discovery in history has been met with skepticism. Nothing is wrong with this, as every one of these discoveries has proven their worth with time. The key difference is that these discoveries have been well backed up, and repeatedly confirmed over the course of time. They are testable, and when they aren't they stay as a hypothesis, not a theory.

I do have a few things to point out, that seem to get forgotten. Suppression of energy research? Look up what is going on with nuclear fusion. Half of the money spent of energy research is spent on nuclear fusion, which would totally fuck over the oil industry. Explaining the paranormal? Try showing me something that actually proves it beyond pure speculation.

At a university in my state, there is a professor that is fiercely trying to find bigfoot. You might call it suppression that nobody is taking him seriously, but you would be wrong. Nobody is telling him to be quiet. People don't take him serious because big foot is a legend; and in the decades that he's been hunting for big foot, he has produced Absolutely NOTHING that would point to his existence.

The problem is, if you try to shake the system, you better have a good argument. If you present them what these so called paranormal experts present them with, you won't be blowing anyone's mind.

What's the point of studying something if it can't be falsified? If I said that there was a god, but there was no way of observing or perceiving him, does it even matter?

God or gods are an example of something that can't be falsified.

It could be falsified if we gained knowledge of everything in existence.

Well it's definitely an example. If I'm standing in a room with someone, and they point at something that isn't there and start freaking out, chances are they are hallucinating.

But there are an array of explanations that exist:

1.) A hoax

2.) Someone misinterpreting what they sense

3.) Suggestibility (Like people who claim to have religious experiences)

4.) A dream

5.) And of course, it could be something paranormal

Now, strange shit has happened to me before. The thing is, based on what happened, I am not going to jump to a conclusion, because I can't based on what occurred. It isn't logical to claim number 5 happened when it is no more likely than any of the other events, and there is no evidence to back up that hypothesis.