Hello members of the Paranormal Investigation Committees. I hope everyone is having a great start to the new year. As members of the Paranormal Investigation Committee, we tell people we are skeptics. Specifically, we are skeptical of people’s claims of paranormal abilities, whether it be the ability to speak with the dead, to divine the future from a deck of cards, runes, the motion of the planets, or the designs of the tea leaves in our cup. We are also skeptical of one’s ability to read someone else's thoughts or to project our thoughts to someone else. In my opinion, a skeptic is a person who doesn't believe something is true unless they see evidence. As a skeptic, you refuse to believe your sister saw a ghost — after all, she can't prove it. Skeptics are doubters — they need to see proof before they will believe. So, members, how do you define your skeptical self?

A skeptic is a person who approaches claims and beliefs with a critical and questioning mindset. A skeptic is inclined to question the validity of widely accepted beliefs, conventional wisdom, or assertions that lack evidence or logical reasoning. Typically, skeptics require substantial evidence before accepting a claim, and they may be inclined to scrutinize and analyze arguments to discern their validity. Skepticism is often associated with an inclination toward scientific evidence and logical reasoning, and skeptics may be wary of accepting claims without verifiable evidence or rational justification. While skepticism can be a valuable trait in promoting critical thinking and intellectual rigor, it is important to note that skeptics may also face the challenge of balancing healthy skepticism with open-mindedness and receptiveness to new ideas when presented with compelling evidence.

The problems of (naive) skepticism are, in my opinion, two-fold. One, none of us know everything, so someone might interpret an event or experience falsely. This is not a falsehood but it is false. It is mistaken identification. This means that perhaps the event really happened but it is mislabeled. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Two, an actual supernatural event could not be explained in natural methods. This concept misses the very idea of supernatural, above or outside of the natural. In such cases, the investigator, to be logical, must not dismiss it as impossible because it cannot be duplicated by natural means, but must investigate the event as he would a story of history. Check into the abilities and prejudices of the witnesses, etc.

James and Jack, Thank you for your insight.