I put this in the same lines of what would happen if Ghosts were proven…it doesn't necessarily mean I'm still going to believe every ghost story out there (like your elephants) People seem to think that being skeptical and accepting the paranormal/supernatural/ghosts/what have you are two diametrically opposed points of view. Every medium, ghost hunter, ghost believer, psychic, and voter SHOULD be skeptical.

So YES, a medium can be a skeptic in my opinion and there is no conflict that should arise from this.

I can have incidents occur to me which extend beyond the realm of coincidence yet still question when they happen to others (and even to me, myself) I would be remiss NOT to.

Given the state of the education system that may be crossing over into the everyday world, too.

Like almost all things, it's in the eye of the beholder…there are always going to be those who will not believe anything or who will believe almost anything.

But in the realm of the paranormal, it appears there are NO boundaries beyond which one can be reasonably assured that the report is false.

I like to say "yet" It, like many fields is still evolving, and if we can get people like Ghost Lab to stop dinking things up as far as the mis-application of science, maybe there will become a point when those boundaries will become a bit more solid. For now, though, it seems to be an arena where if you don't have absolute trust in the person reporting the event, the credibility isn't there.

Actually, IF the medium IS legit, then that person should have better qualifications for applying skeptical thinking…IF legit, that person has some idea of what or what is not possible/credible…not absolute, but at least a better idea.

The Doctor said:

When you say "that person has some idea of what or what is not possible/credible"  are you saying that there is some kind of critera that can be applied to claims ?  ( not that there simply should be some critera )

Don't know since I don't think I have the "sight" lol But IF the person truly does have the "sight", he or she would at least know what is possible. Maybe not necessarily what is impossible, but could at least say "yeah, that _could_ happen"

I think the first thing to raise a flag would be if the person runs around proclaiming to the world that they can do this and especially if they have an ad running somewhere :) The next flag would be if they go on and on about what they've done but as soon as you ask pointed questions they start to back pedal and put conditions and stipulations on things.

You've just come across an elephant for the first time. You're looking at it from a great distance through a telescope…just a speck but enough to class it as an elephant. You see it walking around and squirting water with it's trunk. Based upon that, you KNOW that an elephant walking and squirting water is possible. You haven't seen it fly yet so you can't say for sure whether or not it can, and you're not seeing it in enough detail to say for sure there are no wings or other characteristics that would allow it to fly. That could be where the medium is, the person has seen enough to know what is possible, but can't rule other things out because it's still new.

The other way around, you're seeing a big bird walking around from a distance, it's wings folded and inconspicuous…it hasn't spread them or displayed them. You know from what you've seen that the bird can walk. You haven't been able to determine whether or not it can fly, though.

And, again, I'll add…Yet.

Well, I can't proxy for one so let's just wait until one comes in here and posts.

Well, at least we did prove the inverse by example…a Skeptic CAN be a medium…OR a large LOL