Different Standards for Skeptics vs Believers

[ProfWag]

I'm afraid that I have to raise the flag to point something out about the different standards that Skeptics must adhere to in this forum. In another thread, I was using a reference from the National Academy of Science to support a statement that I was making. The response I received was: "Um are you naive? You actually think that a group put together and controlled by a governing elite is going to be unbiased, objective and logical with no agenda or vested interest? lol That's what I call blind faith."
In other threads, a poster has referred to Dorothy Allison's psychic detective "gift" and used as his references a book by Scott Jacobson (whoever that is) and the Unsolved Mysteries TV series. These "references" were not criticized in the least.
Now I ask, if you are truly trying to support the belief in things paranormal, how can a solid, valid source that is totally acceptable by academics, governments, and the public alike be totally thrown out with me being called "naive," yet a reference in support of paranormal abilities from the Unsolved Mysteries be heralded as a totally acceptable source?
I eagerly await some explanations.
ProfWag

[Student of Sophia]

Can we get a link to that exchange?

[ProfWag]

Sure, here's the one about me being naive, about a quarter of the way down:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=230&start=50

The Unsolved Mysteries reference can be found here, about half way down:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=208&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10

If you'd prefer that I cut and paste to make it easier, please ask.
Wag

[deadmanjay]

I might get hated for this, but everyone should be held to some sort of equal standard and until you can adequately debunk a source, not with just half assed remarks, then it should stand.

[Eteponge]

I gave good reasons for both sources.

* Actual video interviews with the Police Detectives and Family Members of the Victims and Dorothy herself in the Unsolved Mysteries Episode. The reason this is significant is because the information is straight from the most important sources. The Police Detectives, The Family Members of the Victims, and Dorothy herself. And the information presented in the segment can be cross-referenced with other more indepth sources on the cases presented, and it matches. (So you can't claim they made stuff up.)

The rebuttal to this is that it is a TV Show, and that those interviewed must have been either misrepresented, taken out of context (impossible when you actually watch the interviews), or they used clever editing to get the result they wanted, etc. All of which are unproven arm chair conspiracy theories on the part of the Skeptics. *Gives you your tin foil hat*.

* In the Foreword to the Scott Jacobson Book, it states...

"Material for this book was gathered from several sources. Dorothy's own retelling of the stories has been supported by newspaper and magazine articles and signed affidavits from many of the parties involved. In most cases, the families of the victims have cooperated fully, regardless of the fact that the interviews stirred unpleasent memories. Many of the law-enforcement officers involved have also given generously of their time in recounting their experiences with the psychic detective." - Scott Jacobson in Foreward to 'Dorothy Allison: A Psychic Story'

The rebuttal to this is that he is simply lying. Another unproven arm chair conspiracy theory.

All you guys could come up with was arm chair conspiracies theories about how both sources must be flawed, as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual fact. It's all "Doubt Throwing" Tactics.

I've stated time and time again that I NEED more solid sources than these to fully verify these accounts. However, with the absence of such better sources, these are the best available currently given what we have available to us regarding Dorothy Allison.

I'd love to interview *all sides*, the Police Detectives who found her useful, and those who didn't. Everyone involved on the cases that she got spectacular hits on, and those where she got terribly off misses on.

My main point is that Skeptics say that everything Dorothy did can be chalked up to weak general clues "I see water, I see trees, I see a billboard" that turned out to be weak easily explainable hits, combined with several slightly above average lucky guesses that weren't anything, and the data I presented suggests there ARE very good cases of hers, and ARE very spectacular hits that don't fit into the standard mold. That's my main point, some of these cases highly suggests there might be something there with her. It's about dealing with the *existing* data, not arm chair conspiracy theories.

[ProfWag]

If Dorothy had the "gift," then shouldn't others with more recent examples that we could study and discuss rather than 30 year old information?

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

Okay, I'll try to be patient. Surely there is a case out there where a psychic directly solved a crime. I mean, there is a popular TV series devoted to the triumphs of Allison Dubois. There must be police records supporting these claims. Surely.

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[deadmanjay]