Hi Lindsay!
Here are the chapter abstracts from
Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=bro ... pbid=10371You asked me for 'one piece' of evidence. I don't like doing that. You can get 'one piece' anywhere. What I do is recommend good books that I have actually read myself. I've read many. If someone doesn't want to read it for whatever reason, I shrug my shoulders and say 'whatever, it's your loss'.
The way I see it, skeptics should be reading books like this, of this quality,
all the time, just out of principle. But unfortunately it seems that sometimes when people are skeptical about something they don't look into it much. Or they look at at the wrong things, there's a lot of crap out there.
[...]
"This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave.
In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members.
Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position." (bold mine)
[...]
I don't like arguing with the pathologically skeptical too much. They usually piss me off. So I test people. If they can't bring themselves to
read a book, then I judge them to be lazy or their skepticism to be pathological and I don't bother with them. What's the use? It's the same as arguing with a young-earth creationist - a waste of time.