How does CFI appoint itself?

Would like for people to confirm how CFI appoints itself as an authority on ‘‘inquiry’’.
If evidence is accepted by scientific methods only,then how can one prove that a particular event of the supernatural never or did happen?
Like say for example I was in the company of a certain person and that person said something incriminating to my face,yet on my reporting it to the Police,they the Police say do I have any supporting evidence to prove what I’m alleging,and I reply with the big word ‘‘NO’’. Then don’t the Police dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence?.. Unless the Cops say go undercover and wear a wire device.
Okay,can anyone grasp how easily it would be for the supernatural lifeforms to exist without detection from elaborate scientific equipment?
Even the late Christopher Hitchens stated that there could be a pantheon of gods existing in the Universe without the scientific community knowing about it.
So how does CFI assert itself as an investigator to examining the paranormal?What special insight does CFI have to formulate it’s opinion on the paranormal not existing to themselves who have not experienced an encounter with a supernatural form?

Would like for people to confirm how CFI appoints itself as an authority on ''inquiry''. If evidence is accepted by scientific methods only,then how can one prove that a particular event of the supernatural never or did happen? Like say for example I was in the company of a certain person and that person said something incriminating to my face,yet on my reporting it to the Police,they the Police say do I have any supporting evidence to prove what I'm alleging,and I reply with the big word ''NO''. Then don't the Police dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence?.......... Unless the Cops say go undercover and wear a wire device. Okay,can anyone grasp how easily it would be for the supernatural lifeforms to exist without detection from elaborate scientific equipment? Even the late Christopher Hitchens stated that there could be a pantheon of gods existing in the Universe without the scientific community knowing about it. So how does CFI assert itself as an investigator to examining the paranormal?What special insight does CFI have to formulate it's opinion on the paranormal not existing to themselves who have not experienced an encounter with a supernatural form?
Read the mission statement on CFI Main Page. It clearly spells out what to expect , no more, no less. IMO, a good first positive step for answers to your Inquiry. After that read the Forum on the Paranormal and read the free flowing discussion. That would be a good second step. And if you have a theory or viewpoint, post it in the Forum and we can discuss it.
Would like for people to confirm how CFI appoints itself as an authority on ''inquiry''. If evidence is accepted by scientific methods only,then how can one prove that a particular event of the supernatural never or did happen? Like say for example I was in the company of a certain person and that person said something incriminating to my face,yet on my reporting it to the Police,they the Police say do I have any supporting evidence to prove what I'm alleging,and I reply with the big word ''NO''. Then don't the Police dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence?.......... Unless the Cops say go undercover and wear a wire device. Okay,can anyone grasp how easily it would be for the supernatural lifeforms to exist without detection from elaborate scientific equipment Even the late Christopher Hitchens stated that there could be a pantheon of gods existing in the Universe without the scientific community knowing about it. So how does CFI assert itself as an investigator to examining the paranormal?What special insight does CFI have to formulate it's opinion on the paranormal not existing to themselves who have not experienced an encounter with a supernatural form?
CFI does not claim to be a super investigator. It investigates claims by using critical thinking techniques. Anyone who understands the rules and techniques of criical thinking can do this. It is not magic. Any investigator of paranomal claims can apply critical thinking to the claim. What is your point?
Would like for people to confirm how CFI appoints itself as an authority on ''inquiry''. If evidence is accepted by scientific methods only,then how can one prove that a particular event of the supernatural never or did happen? Like say for example I was in the company of a certain person and that person said something incriminating to my face,yet on my reporting it to the Police,they the Police say do I have any supporting evidence to prove what I'm alleging,and I reply with the big word ''NO''. Then don't the Police dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence?.......... Unless the Cops say go undercover and wear a wire device. Okay,can anyone grasp how easily it would be for the supernatural lifeforms to exist without detection from elaborate scientific equipment Even the late Christopher Hitchens stated that there could be a pantheon of gods existing in the Universe without the scientific community knowing about it. So how does CFI assert itself as an investigator to examining the paranormal?What special insight does CFI have to formulate it's opinion on the paranormal not existing to themselves who have not experienced an encounter with a supernatural form?
CFI does not claim to be a super investigator. It investigates claims by using critical thinking techniques. Anyone who understands the rules and techniques of criical thinking can do this. It is not magic. Any investigator of paranomal claims can apply critical thinking to the claim. What is your point? The point is how can critical thinking conclude that's there is no paranormal activity? Say for example I have had contact with supernatural entities,yet I can't produce any photographs or for that matter any of those supernatural entities to appear before your eyes. So how does critical thinking arrive at the position of me being delusional or crazy or fraudulent?..... Why does critical thinking never say that I could very well be telling the truth?

Did you actually read the 20 Best Christopher Hitchens Quotes - Unreasonable Faith
Dec 16, 2011 · Christopher Hitchens has a lot of quote … although a god or several gods in a committee MAY exist, … He built our universe on the laws of nature …
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2011/12/the-20-best-christopher-hitchens-quotes/
Supernatural is by definition beyond observation from the Natural world.

Did you actually read the 20 Best Christopher Hitchens Quotes - Unreasonable Faith Dec 16, 2011 · Christopher Hitchens has a lot of quote ... although a god or several gods in a committee MAY exist, ... He built our universe on the laws of nature ... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2011/12/the-20-best-christopher-hitchens-quotes/ Supernatural is by definition beyond observation from the Natural world.
Aren't you contradicting your reply by stating ''a god or several gods'' built the universe from natural laws? Why can't there be supernatural god(s) who can use the laws of nature to create matter? Wouldn't that be the supernatural interacting with the natural?

What do those quotes from Hitchens have to do with there being a group of supernatural beings?
Have you W4U considered there is a group of sadistic supernatural beings who get pleasure from making an Earth full of different lifeforms over many millions of years to watch those lifeforms devour each other while ‘‘natural disasters’’ are chucked into the mix?

Did you actually read the 20 Best Christopher Hitchens Quotes - Unreasonable Faith Dec 16, 2011 · Christopher Hitchens has a lot of quote ... although a god or several gods in a committee MAY exist, ... He built our universe on the laws of nature ... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2011/12/the-20-best-christopher-hitchens-quotes/ Supernatural is by definition beyond observation from the Natural world.
Aren't you contradicting your reply by stating ''a god or several gods'' built the universe from natural laws? Why can't there be supernatural god(s) who can use the laws of nature to create matter? You tell me, you quoted Hitchins.
Wouldn't that be the supernatural interacting with the natural?
IMO, if it interacts with the Natural world it is of the Natural world. From Websters,
Supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature 2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
This may be your first test in critical thinking and dropping the semantics.

Yes I was quoting Hitchens about himself not excluding the fair possibility of a group of supernatural gods existing somewhere in our current time frame.
As for the Websters definition of the supernatural,I would say that dictionary is a man made stab in the dark in it’s infancy.

ok, bye

ok, bye
And so there you have folks,the Websters dictionary is infallible on it's meaning of the term ''supernatural''..... boy does this sound so like religious people calling their Bible infallible?
The point is how can critical thinking conclude that's there is no paranormal activity? Say for example I have had contact with supernatural entities,yet I can't produce any photographs or for that matter any of those supernatural entities to appear before your eyes. So how does critical thinking arrive at the position of me being delusional or crazy or fraudulent?..... Why does critical thinking never say that I could very well be telling the truth?
It doesn't. It only concludes that there is no evidence of supernatural activity, as per your own example. Your "experience" with "supernatural entities" is simply your Experience; it may be real, or it may be delusion, or it may be fraud. With no further evidence, we can't say which one it is. Does that clarify things a bit?
And so there you have folks,the Websters dictionary is infallible on it's meaning of the term ''supernatural''..... boy does this sound so like religious people calling their Bible infallible?
Not quite. Words are human inventions. A dictionary is also a human invention. It attempts to collect words and define their meanings according to the way people actually use them. Does that make sense?
Would like for people to confirm how CFI appoints itself as an authority on ''inquiry''. If evidence is accepted by scientific methods only,then how can one prove that a particular event of the supernatural never or did happen? Like say for example I was in the company of a certain person and that person said something incriminating to my face,yet on my reporting it to the Police,they the Police say do I have any supporting evidence to prove what I'm alleging,and I reply with the big word ''NO''. Then don't the Police dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence?.......... Unless the Cops say go undercover and wear a wire device. Okay,can anyone grasp how easily it would be for the supernatural lifeforms to exist without detection from elaborate scientific equipment Even the late Christopher Hitchens stated that there could be a pantheon of gods existing in the Universe without the scientific community knowing about it. So how does CFI assert itself as an investigator to examining the paranormal?What special insight does CFI have to formulate it's opinion on the paranormal not existing to themselves who have not experienced an encounter with a supernatural form?
CFI does not claim to be a super investigator. It investigates claims by using critical thinking techniques. Anyone who understands the rules and techniques of criical thinking can do this. It is not magic. Any investigator of paranomal claims can apply critical thinking to the claim. What is your point? The point is how can critical thinking conclude that's there is no paranormal activity? Say for example I have had contact with supernatural entities,yet I can't produce any photographs or for that matter any of those supernatural entities to appear before your eyes. So how does critical thinking arrive at the position of me being delusional or crazy or fraudulent?..... Why does critical thinking never say that I could very well be telling the truth? In answer to your first question, CFI does not conclude there is no paranormal activity. They may conclude, after investigation, that no objective evidence has been provided by the person(s) making a particular claim. The burden of proof is on the person(s) making the claim, not on CFI or any investigator. You apparently do not understand the rules of critical thinking and the burden of proof . If you can't produce any evidence that can be examined an investigator has no choice but to conclude that your claim is simply unproven. CFI and other valid invetigators do not conclude that a claimant is delusional or crazy or fraudulent. The only conclusion they make if no valid evidence is produced is that the claim has not been proven. That's all a valid investigator can do. Your mental state is of no consequence. For that you will need psychiatric testing. CFI does not do psychiatric testing and does not make psychiatric diagnoses. All CFI does is test claims for valid, objective evidence. If you can't provide such evidence, CFI can't do anything more than to state that you have shown no evidence and that your claim is unproven. Lois

So why do CFI claim to be investigators of the paranormal if they can’t detect it?
What makes the skeptical community think they have the ability to find the scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a known scientific fact?
If the paranormal has made a visitation to me then why must I be placed on the lunatic fringe junk heap?
So critical thinking is a very weak tool when dismissing the existence of paranormal activity.

So why do CFI claim to be investigators of the paranormal if they can't detect it? What makes the skeptical community think they have the ability to find the scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a known scientific fact? If the paranormal has made a visitation to me then why must I be placed on the lunatic fringe junk heap? So critical thinking is a very weak tool when dismissing the existence of paranormal activity.
Oh hi highflyertoo, I'm back. tell me have we made any progress yet on your claim that the supernatural may or may not exist? Reading the post I did not see anyone who dismissed your experience with paranormal activity or place you on the lunatic fringe heap. Do continue how and why you did have or believe you had these experiences. I am looking forward to learning about the supernatural. I must admit my lack experience in that realm myself. How does one communicate? Can one learn to communicate? What are the messages? So much to learn here, please continue describing your experience, so I may be more enlightened. Thanks in advance.
highflyertoo, date="1390081229" So why do CFI claim to be investigators of the paranormal if they can't detect it?
Does CFI investigate the paranormal? I thought someone explained that CFI investigates "claims" of the paranormal.
What makes the skeptical community think they have the ability to find the scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a known scientific fact?
Has the skeptical community (who are these guys?) made the claim to have the ability to find scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a known scientific fact? Are you part of the skeptical community? You seem to have the ability to make the paranormal a known scientific fact. You have had the experience, no? I must admit I am impressed.
If the paranormal has made a visitation to me then why must I be placed on the lunatic fringe junk heap?
How could anyone place you on the lunatic fringe heap when they don't know yet about the paranormal visitation you experienced? Please do tell me about it.
So critical thinking is a very weak tool when dismissing the existence of paranormal activity.
Again, I have not seen anyone (including Hitchins) outright dismiss the existence of paranormal activity. There are questions that must be answered, else how can one convince and /or teach another how to recognize these activities? Don't you agree? I did state that IMO something Supernatural is by definition not Natural (observable), but I am open to being taught. In fact I must admit I am curious. Would do me the favor of explaining your visitation, and thereby backing up your claim?
So why do CFI claim to be investigators of the paranormal if they can't detect it? What makes the skeptical community think they have the ability to find the scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a known scientific fact? If the paranormal has made a visitation to me then why must I be placed on the lunatic fringe junk heap? So critical thinking is a very weak tool when dismissing the existence of paranormal activity.
Critical thinking is the ONLY tool anyone can use when trying to establish whether anything paranormal has occurred. Who is placing you onthe lunatic fringe heap? Certainly not CFI. It must be somehing you are worried about. The skeptical community does not claim it has the ability to find scientific evidence required to make the paranormal a scientific fact. It offers to weigh the evidence a claimant presents. If no valid evidence is found they will make a statement to that effect. The burden of proof is on you. You can't blame CFI or any other investigatory body for saying that your evidence is invalid. If you want anyone to accept your claim as true you have to provide testable evidence that supports it. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, your claim will be considered invalid by any critical thinker. Don't shoot the messenger. Learn about critical thinking. You can start here: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

If you want to blame or attack anyone try CFI’s number one paranormal investigator Joe Nickell. He’s debunked many an extraordinary claim, including the infamous “Shroud of Turin”. you might even read one of his books or pick up a copy of Carroll’s The Skeptics Dictionary to start. Of course you could just chuck skepticism aside and believe in what you preceive you see or hear. If the latter then I strongly suggest a visit to your physician.
Cap’t Jack

If you want to blame or attack anyone try CFI's number one paranormal investigator Joe Nickell. He's debunked many an extraordinary claim, including the infamous "Shroud of Turin". you might even read one of his books or pick up a copy of Carroll's The Skeptics Dictionary to start. Of course you could just chuck skepticism aside and believe in what you preceive you see or hear. If the latter then I strongly suggest a visit to your physician. Cap't Jack
And what particular physician would you suggest to put my head straight? 1) Non religious practicing physician 2) Religious practicing physician 3) Other