The hatred of debunkers

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

The thread title in the example posted is called "Tell Me Your Real Life Ghost Story" - which is clearly meant for people to gather and relay their stories.

With your method, after the first story is posted, the debunkers flood in, pick it apart, and no more stories will be posted - thus what could have been an interesting thread is derailed. This happens FAR too often. While you are always welcome to make a comment - off-topic or not - it is the repeated debunking that ruins threads meant solely for discussion and speculation.

Had the thread title been "What Do You Think Of My Ghost Story" then you would be correct in assuming that they are seeking opinions and are interested in having their experience debunked.

a reply to: network dude

My sentiments exactly.

originally posted by: ATF1886

originally posted by: network dude
This is a conspiracy site. In my opinion, the best one. There are some of the most articulate, intelligent members here in one spot, and almost all, are friendly and willing to share their knowledge at any time. This site even has a moto of "deny ignorance".

Now, ignorance is not derogatory as long as it's temporary. We all have our areas of knowledge, and most have large gaps waiting for knowledge. As long as you are willing to accept that others may have the knowledge you seek, you can learn almost anything here. But I notice that if your belief is challenged, there can be a big temper tantrum, for lack of a better term.

Debunking. The art of removing bunk. Once the bunk is removed, only facts remain. I am of the impression that on a site where facts and knowledge are king, the debunker would be welcomed. Not so. Sure some enjoy the learning process, and there are many members who quietly read, and learn, all without making a single post. But the ones that challenge the integrity of debunkers seem to be missing the point. They act as if you are stealing a part of their soul when you explain the flaws in their story. Can it be attributed to just ego? Does the will to have your beliefs validated outweigh the will to learn the truth? Would you rather live in fear of a lie, than understand the reality in front of you?

Instead of attacking the debunker, verify his information. Attack that. But, do it with the same or better verifiable facts to prove your point. And if you run across someone in a forum whom you disagree with, remember, that in a different forum, they may be on your side.

And for the love of all that's holy, If you ask a question, be adult enough to at least let the ones who answer you know that you read their post. Drive by posts are like drive by shootings. The work of a coward.

I agree
"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. For example, "if A then both B and not-B, so not-A" and "if not-A then both B and not-B, so A".[2] First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον απαγωγή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate."

link to info

I can remember arguing idiocies with set members now agreeing with them.

See now what I can't stand is an argument by two separate individuals and a third party getting involved trying to belittle someone and run now that's coward...

What wry good humour...

a reply to: network dude

I agree with the above - I'll add on to say that people should also know when to post something, and when to not post something in relation to debunking. When I post, I always ask myself "okay, my viewpoint may not be the same as the OP's, but can I say it in a way that doesn't offend people?".

There is a huge difference between having a debate, and trying to belittle someone who doesn't agree with you. In a debate, everything is civil; there's no name-calling, mud-slinging, pointing fingers. If you don't share the same view as me, I don't mind - in fact, I want to hear what evidence you bring to the table, like any person should. But when someone starts saying things like "your running scared like the rest of the masses" or "only an idiot would think such a thing", that is where my tolerance level for their theory goes out the window.

-foss

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

The thread title in the example posted is called "Tell Me Your Real Life Ghost Story" - which is clearly meant for people to gather and relay their stories.

With your method, after the first story is posted, the debunkers flood in, pick it apart, and no more stories will be posted - thus what could have been an interesting thread is derailed. This happens FAR too often. While you are always welcome to make a comment - off-topic or not - it is the repeated debunking that ruins threads meant solely for discussion and speculation.

Had the thread title been "What Do You Think Of My Ghost Story" then you would be correct in assuming that they are seeking opinions and are interested in having their experience debunked.

If they're posting "Tell me your real life ghost story" on a site like ATS and NOT expecting it to be picked apart, the issue is not with the debunkers. I'm sure there are websites that are story circles and support groups for ghost botherers and any number of other paranormal believers, but ATS makes it's stance known right there at the top: "DENY IGNORANCE". Ask questions, pick holes, debate, question, learn.

Yes, it will always be that way everywhere. You want info. You need to search for the truth. Not filter it for the truth you want. Most people just want to be agreed with or hear themselves speak. Not to get info or to be educated. My roommate was mad one day cause i disagreed with him when his was misinformed. I said why are you having a tantrum why so mad at me? He said when i tell him he is wrong it is like i am calling him stupid. lol. I said you disagreed with me. Should i take it as the same insult? " Oh i never thought of it that way" he said. I said, So it is all about you being heard and not listening then? Conversation was over, he walked away and pouted like a child for a few days. lol.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I agree to an extent. I started out on these forums as a believer in many things, but it was only after looking at all the evidence and arguments against these things that I became a skeptic. Too many times, believing is the result of not wanting to look at all the evidence, only the evidence that agrees with you. If you cannot overcome this hurdle, you will never move on intellectually no matter how much time you spend in the subject.

It always comes down to how much evidence, or lack of, is a person willing to accept before they believe. The typical skeptic would like some hard evidence backing these claims and when that evidence is lacking they typically suggest that whatever it is is still in speculation mode.

I do not believe that aliens have visit us as I look at that is available as evidence, but that doesn't mean I do not want to speculate either. Speculation is what most believers do not understand even it is what they do.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

The thread title in the example posted is called "Tell Me Your Real Life Ghost Story" - which is clearly meant for people to gather and relay their stories.

With your method, after the first story is posted, the debunkers flood in, pick it apart, and no more stories will be posted - thus what could have been an interesting thread is derailed. This happens FAR too often. While you are always welcome to make a comment - off-topic or not - it is the repeated debunking that ruins threads meant solely for discussion and speculation.

Had the thread title been "What Do You Think Of My Ghost Story" then you would be correct in assuming that they are seeking opinions and are interested in having their experience debunked.

Well said. Unfortunately attitudes-that include ad hominem attacks ie "People who believe in ghosts are crazy, are you? Where is your proof?" in a story sharing thread- stunt certain honest posts and threads from being shared.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

The thread title in the example posted is called "Tell Me Your Real Life Ghost Story" - which is clearly meant for people to gather and relay their stories.

With your method, after the first story is posted, the debunkers flood in, pick it apart, and no more stories will be posted - thus what could have been an interesting thread is derailed. This happens FAR too often. While you are always welcome to make a comment - off-topic or not - it is the repeated debunking that ruins threads meant solely for discussion and speculation.

Had the thread title been "What Do You Think Of My Ghost Story" then you would be correct in assuming that they are seeking opinions and are interested in having their experience debunked.

If they're posting "Tell me your real life ghost story" on a site like ATS and NOT expecting it to be picked apart, the issue is not with the debunkers. I'm sure there are websites that are story circles and support groups for ghost botherers and any number of other paranormal believers, but ATS makes it's stance known right there at the top: "DENY IGNORANCE". Ask questions, pick holes, debate, question, learn.

Actually in those threads, it's frowned upon to pick apart a post because it's sharing a story as asked by the OP.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
If they're posting "Tell me your real life ghost story" on a site like ATS and NOT expecting it to be picked apart, the issue is not with the debunkers. I'm sure there are websites that are story circles and support groups for ghost botherers and any number of other paranormal believers, but ATS makes it's stance known right there at the top: "DENY IGNORANCE". Ask questions, pick holes, debate, question, learn.

Well, considering that "a site like ATS" also has forums for recipes & pets, I would say that nothing is off limits here. Also, forum etiquette exists, and most people have no problem ascertaining how that works.

The motto of this website is bandied about like a trump in a card game. Or a magical phrase that makes the poster who uses it somehow superior in intellect.

Denying ignorance begins and ends with you. No one else. It begins with a willingness to learn and understand what you don’t know. It begins by recognizing your own wilful, stubborn, and sometimes arrogant, need for confirmation of your own bias. Even at the cost of gleaning a truth you might have learned from removing the blinders you have so firmly in place.

If you can’t take a moment to look objectively at the possibilities in what someone else is saying because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, then you are wilfully ignorant and subjective in your approach to investigation and learning.

More Here...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Here are my fundamental rules when I look at any conspiracy.

In general
1. All conspiracies are based on bad/evil acts orchestrated by some generic_01 evil empire. Why are there not any good conspiracies? This in itself speaks volumes to me.

2. LOGISTICS!! Look that the logistics for the conspiracy to happen. When the logistics run out of control then it is most likely a false conspiracy.

I would also "extend" the logistics issue to include people not directly involved. For example years ago I knew a squaddie who knew that the SAS were on the Falkland Islands before anyone else "in the public arena" knew. He opened the door to the armaments store !!!!! What about the dinner ladies that feed the journalists. The secretaries that photocopy notes and forward emails etc etc The number of people who would need to keep a secret is many many times more than the number of people directly involved.

I would add a third rule :

3. Human Nature. The amount of incompetance in the world is phenomenal. This is often accompanied by a.s covering behaviour. The second aspect of human nature is to be number one. Hence the journalist who reports on a story before getting all the facts so they can get the headlines DUH !!!!

It seems to me that a lot of people here on ATS are so wrapped up in a "them and us" attitude they forget that even Queen has to go to the toilet! They attribute atypical human behaviour to "them" and thus dismiss my number 3 above. My father was a politician with a nationwide focus at one point years ago so I know that a lot of what I read here on ATS about politicians is offensive BS. My mother was chair of the bench in a court so I know a lot of the utter mind numbing human nature that crossed her path on both sides of the legal divide !!!!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I agree to an extent. I started out on these forums as a believer in many things, but it was only after looking at all the evidence and arguments against these things that I became a skeptic. Too many times, believing is the result of not wanting to look at all the evidence, only the evidence that agrees with you. If you cannot overcome this hurdle, you will never move on intellectually no matter how much time you spend in the subject.

It always comes down to how much evidence, or lack of, is a person willing to accept before they believe. The typical skeptic would like some hard evidence backing these claims and when that evidence is lacking they typically suggest that whatever it is is still in speculation mode.

I do not believe that aliens have visit us as I look at that is available as evidence, but that doesn't mean I do not want to speculate either. Speculation is what most believers do not understand even it is what they do.

The problem arises when people don't understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence. If you are going to accept subjective evidence, then you are already well on your way to being a believer. Until you can shake that false paradigm, you will probably remain a believer.

You cannot prove something without objective evidence. No amount of subjective evidence can replace the needed amount of objective evidence to prove something. The only thing subjective evidence is good for is supporting objective evidence, but it isn't supposed to stand alone. Much of this site is PLAGUED by subjective evidence presented as definitive proof of something. This probably helps to create the hostile attitude towards skeptics. The skeptics point out that the evidence by its nature is flawed, and the believers don't want to hear it because this evidence agrees with them.

If you find yourself arguing about the validity of subjective evidence over not having objective evidence then you probably have a confirmation bias speaking.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some things will not ever have proof. Religion based on faith. My ufo sighting, My ghost sighting, My feelings. Things we experience can be discussed, but not proven. Unless we can physically reproduce it.

Even with chemtrails, I cannot dispute what others claim to have seen. they saw it. But I can attempt to explain what they saw with things I know exist. Bigfoot. Until a body shows up, he never existed. Even with some really convincing footage. And we can say with a fair degree of certainty that he doesn't exist. Sightings were probably a misidentification of another animal. But, some folks hold out that sliver of hope that maybe we were wrong.

Debunking has a place and it's integral in finding the truth. But keeping that window open in case something new is exposed is just as important. (IMHO)

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some things will not ever have proof. Religion based on faith. My ufo sighting, My ghost sighting, My feelings. Things we experience can be discussed, but not proven. Unless we can physically reproduce it.

This is where you are wrong. You have no idea what will or will not eventually have proof for it. Claiming that just because we won't eventually have proof to prove something doesn't give you the right to substitute subjective evidence in the place of objective evidence. That is an invalid argument. Subjective evidence just ISN'T trustworthy. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Even with chemtrails, I cannot dispute what others claim to have seen. they saw it. But I can attempt to explain what they saw with things I know exist. Bigfoot. Until a body shows up, he never existed. Even with some really convincing footage. And we can say with a fair degree of certainty that he doesn't exist. Sightings were probably a misidentification of another animal. But, some folks hold out that sliver of hope that maybe we were wrong.

What you are describing here is the difference between objective and subjective evidence. You are questioning a bunch of people's subjective experiences by demanding that they produce physical, objective evidence of these things. You have just outlined the age old battle between skeptics and confirmation bias as well.

A popular saying that believers like to say is, "no matter how much evidence we provide, you will never believe," and this REALLY highlights the misunderstanding believers have for what is and isn't valid evidence. They are in fact partially right. No amount of subjective evidence is going to make me believe, but if you can produce some objective evidence THEN you have my attention.

Debunking has a place and it's integral in finding the truth. But keeping that window open in case something new is exposed is just as important. (IMHO)

I am an agnostic in all fields of study. Just because we are 99.9999999% sure that something is the case, there is never enough evidence to get to that 100% so I allow for any possibility provided that the appropriate evidence can be produced first.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is where you are wrong.

HA HA! you missed my disclaimer!

Unless we can physically reproduce it.

Seriously, a persons memories cannot be debunked. You can disagree, or disbelieve, but you can't change them.

I think debunking is important, but it also has it's place. My opinions on many things have changed over the years. And I expect they will change even more over time. Other's information is what changed things up till now, so I am grateful for those that debunked things in the past. Even if it made me mad at the time.

Like Global Warming or whatever you like to call it today. I had no real knowledge, but I didn't want to think that man could have any impact of "the world". Now, with years of others explaining things, I feel as if man is affecting things, (though only very, very temporarily) But I still would like to think we couldn't.

not on topic at all, but the fact that we worry so much about warming, yet we seem to not worry too much about how we are affecting the oceans with things like fukashima and fertilizers baffles me.

originally posted by: network dude
Seriously, a persons memories cannot be debunked. You can disagree, or disbelieve, but you can't change them.

There is sound science that says that the brain doesn't store memories like a computer does. You brain will distort your memories as time goes on. If you are predisposed to believe something, you will remember it like you saw it. In other words, your memory WILL lie to you. So while a person's memories can't be debunked, a person's memories are HIGHLY untrustworthy. All we can say for sure when someone gives us a personal anecdote is that something happened and the person witnessed it. You need further, objective evidence to further expand on what it was.

I think debunking is important, but it also has it's place. My opinions on many things have changed over the years. And I expect they will change even more over time. Other's information is what changed things up till now, so I am grateful for those that debunked things in the past. Even if it made me mad at the time.

Skepticism is important. Debunking is just a tool that skeptics use on fallacious claims.

Like Global Warming or whatever you like to call it today. I had no real knowledge, but I didn't want to think that man could have any impact of "the world". Now, with years of others explaining things, I feel as if man is affecting things, (though only very, very temporarily) But I still would like to think we couldn't.

That should teach you a lesson to never let your beliefs get in the way of the evidence.

not on topic at all, but the fact that we worry so much about warming, yet we seem to not worry too much about how we are affecting the oceans with things like fukashima and fertilizers baffles me.

I agree, the pollution debate is very lopsided. Pollution in the air is a politically hot topic, but pollution in our waterways and ground soil is a non-existent conversation.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
It seems to me that a lot of people here on ATS are so wrapped up in a "them and us" attitude they forget that even Queen has to go to the toilet! They attribute atypical human behaviour to "them" and thus dismiss my number 3 above. My father was a politician with a nationwide focus at one point years ago so I know that a lot of what I read here on ATS about politicians is offensive BS. My mother was chair of the bench in a court so I know a lot of the utter mind numbing human nature that crossed her path on both sides of the legal divide !!!!!

In the military this is called opsec. As you suggest the only time you do not have patterns is when everyone is in a vacuum. Even with the creation of the nuclear bomb they tried to keep everyone in a vacuum in the middle of an isolated desert, and even that wasn't totally successful.

3. Human Nature. The amount of incompetance in the world is phenomenal. This is often accompanied by a.s covering behaviour. The second aspect of human nature is to be number one. Hence the journalist who reports on a story before getting all the facts so they can get the headlines DUH !!!!

Conspiracies are all perfectly orchestrated and the secret is forever, otherwise they would not be conspiracies anymore.

Here is one more along those lines...

If a conspiracy has gone a decade with no real advancement then it is most likely false.

originally posted by: network dude
Debunking has a place and it's integral in finding the truth. But keeping that window open in case something new is exposed is just as important. (IMHO)

Is there a single skeptic on ATS that would not accept anything with the right evidence in place? I do not think there is anyone who suggests that no mater how much evidence they will still not accept the truth.

I always said, joking, throw a dead alien body up on my kitchen table and you got a believer.

In the 1800s and before, Big Foot was somewhat of a possibility, today that window is rapidly closing, but get me some Big Foot Scat and we can discuss more.

Unfortunately the window of opportunity is closing on many of these conspiracies...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Unfortunately the window of opportunity is closing on many of these conspiracies...

As long as there is a person willing to listen to a story and entertain the possibility, there will always be believers.

But bigfoot is exceptionally good at policing his scat. (must be very eco-friendly)

originally posted by: network dude
But bigfoot is exceptionally good at policing his scat. (must be very eco-friendly)

Like unicorns, they poop rainbows. It doesn't leave a trail.

How strange that I have no any problems with debunkers. Because I am a little lazy and just do not have too much time and energy to go through every piece of information I have received, I am in fact waiting for clarification or try to check if debunkers would make any mistakes...

BUT I do not like one type of communication. Before one of my subordinates had been very much critical to almost every opinion other members brought out and had NEVER contributed his idea. The result is the harm to the moral of the whole team. I had to stop him. The bottom line to me is to be constructive. No matter how skeptical you are, you have to be constructive.