One long argument

John Michael Greer attacks and exposes three common rhetorical tricks used by "skeptics" to reject evidence that challenges their current scientific paradigms. Greer points out that if the "logic" of the skeptics is applied consistently, Darwin´s theory of evolution should have been rejected out of hand back in 1859, since there was no known naturalist mechanism for how inheritance might possibly work, nor for the old age of the sun (which makes evolution of life on Earth by slow steps impossible). 

Thus, the mere absence of a known "mechanism" doesn´t disprove a theory, let alone the phenomenon the theory tries to explain, and yet, skeptics often use this argument as "proof" that of course telepathy, astrology or magic can´t possibly even exist. (It´s worse than that. Even observed physical phenomena are disowned in this way, such as ball lightning.) 

Another common tactic is to propose an exotic armchair explanation (which is never tested), but which "must" be true, since at least it isn´t "supernatural". Which is funny, since (as we all know) extraordinary claims must be backed up by extraordinary evidence...

Worth reading and pondering.  

Three Fallacious Arguments: An Interlude