Question by : why are EVPs not considered as any kind of proof to the skeptics?
“electronic voice phenomenon” that ghost hunters claim to get that are spirit voices. they also claim that it is proof bc even if was picking up on random frequencies, the answers are too on to be just coincidence. i’m just curious what the flaw is in it. is it not considered testable because it is too random? or is it something else. thanks

What do you think? Answer below!

Give your answer to this question below!

Support for skeptics starts to gather steam
BCLocalNews
“You meet people who think people are poisoning them by the chemtrails or think you can eat certain things and you'll be cured. There's lots of things that people believe in and they don't necessarily look at the evidence for. People will just believe …

and more »

chemtrails – Google News

The Nelson Post (blog)

Chemtrails or contrails? Skeptics unite
The Nelson Post (blog)
Have you ever been perplexed by a friend's proposal to read your astrological chart? Do you shake your head when someone tells you that airplanes are purposely showering the population with poison? Are you exasperated when told that you will be cured …

chemtrails – Google News

Defying skeptics, Las Vegas teams trudge forward to investigate paranormal …
Greenfield Daily Reporter
Ray Hyman, emeritus psychology professor at the University of Oregon, is parapsychology's most noted critic. He doesn't believe in ghosts, but said that's not the issue. "This flies in the face of reality," he said, claiming Schwartz' findings are …

and more »

parapsychology – Google News

Phoenix New Times (blog)

UFO Convention Brings Skeptics, Scientists (and a Few Loonies) to Arizona
Phoenix New Times (blog)
More than twenty speakers graced the stage over the five-day event with stories of crop circles, extraterrestrial contact, government cover-ups, and even Stan Romanek — the self-claimed most abducted American in history. A vendor's area filled up a …

and more »

crop circles – Google News

Question by Dana1981, Master of Science: Is it a coincidence that global warming “skeptics” make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?
Roy Spencer is a huge proponent of Intelligent Design (he also claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling until his analysis was proven wrong). Roy Lindzen doesn’t think secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Neither does Fred Singer, or that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer.

An article written by columnist Christopher Booker has recently been cited by “skeptics”. Booker has previously argued that asbestos is “chemically identical to talcum powder” and “poses no measurable risk to health”.

Why is it that these sources of global warming “skepticism” so frequently make such scientifically questionable (or more often, just flat-out wrong) claims?

Give your answer to this question below!

Psi Skeptics: If Psychologists Find Signs of ESP, Maybe Psychologists Have a …
Big Think
At the heart of their case against Bem is a fundamental tenet, which, I think, can be paraphrased as: Parapsychology? Dude, seriously? If psi is for reals, …

parapsychology – Google News

Con men, quacks & cheats beware: the skeptics are on to you
Pioneer Press
The truth is out there, and it doesn't include ghosts, alien abductions and crop circles. At least that's the worldview of the Minneapolis …

and more »

crop circles – Google News