"You've been Debunked.."

I notice this word "debunked" gets bandied about a lot here, and is used very loosely. I just wanted to share some thoughts on this. I stopped posting at ATS for almost 3 years, because I kind of thought at the time it was a bit of a waste of time, it was basically nothing more than a glorified pissing contest of people battling self-righteously with ideas. Nobody really interested in the merits of other ideas or genuinely wanting to learn about others ideas or evaulate them. I am sure this is a wide generalization, but I am probably right that this is a general problem at ATS. Not just ATS but internet forums in general.

I am sure the word "debunked" has some genuine meaning, but in the context it is often used on this forum, it seems to be a case of "Im right and you're wrong, because I say so" That's not really denying ignorance, is it? You can't refute one belief with another belief. I will give an example, evolution vs intelligent design or polytheism vs monotheism, or science vs religion. At the end of the day these are all just contrasting beliefs, but sometimes people forget this. Here is an example:

"Intelligent Design has been debunked by Evolution." That is like saying Christianity has been debunked by Islam. A belief cannot debunk another belief.

There are others who claim science has debunked religion. I will point my neck out there and say that people who say such things are silly, and understand neither science or religion, and should know better than embarrass themselves with statements like those.

Some statements are just hostile and seriously should not be tolerated. I see many times people on this site are accused of being delusional, weird, stupid just because they don't share the same beliefs as others. This kind of behaviour is immature, and frankly betrays great insecurity. If one is so sure of their own beliefs, they would not be going on crusades to destroy others beliefs.

I see in just so many threads "skeptics" using science to disprove everything and thereby "debunking it" Let's take a classic example from Aliens and UFO forum: Somebody reports seeing a UFO, "It was the size of several football fields, it flew right over me, I could hear a kind of humming sound emanating from it. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life. As it flew over me, all of a sudden as if in a blink of an eye it darted into the sky at impossible speeds" Now comes a "skeptic" to "debunk" it.

They say, "Do you have any photographs to prove it" The UFO witness responds, "No", then the "skeptic" responds, "How could you not take a photo, most mobile phones have cameras now days, and if I saw this UFO I would have taken a photo. You are obviously lying, hence you're debunked"

[SNIP]

Or

"It was a hot air balloon"

It may sound like a bit of a trivialistion of the typical skeptical argument, but actually this is generally the quality of arguments put forward. Most skeptics swear by three scientific philosophical concepts, which are often used in unfair ways:

1. Occams Razor: The simplest explanation is sufficient, used to dismiss all cases which claim complex explanations.
2. Burden of proof: The claimant has a burden of proof to prove their claims, but the skeptic uses this to make negative claims, without accepting any burden of proof themselves.
3. No empirical evidence: The lack of empirical evidence is just that, there is no empirical evidence, but this is used by the skeptic to declare "there is no evidence" Actually, there is evidence, it's just not empirical evidence.

The above misuse of these concepts is what sets apart a pseudo skeptic from a skeptic. A pseudo-skeptic is basically someone who just doubts, and does nothing else. A genuine skeptic, being someone who investigates and considers all the data, all possible explanations, even the extraordinary ones, before coming to any kind of judgement. I find just with so many skeptics this is not the case at all. They often use a null-hypothesis: any explanation which does not fit their understanding of the world, should not even be considered.

If people were to mature a little and accept that actually nobody owns the truth on anything, then they would stop trying to debunk others, and open their mind to examining other possiblities, explanations, interpretations. Free the mind a little. In fact a forum like this is an excellent opportunity to expand ones mind and learn about what others think.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Mod Edit:

2e.i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances: Due to abuse of the subject matter by some (promoting various aspects of personal use, and discussing actual personal use), no new topics on this subject are allowed in any form.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Gemwolf]

Well look you bring up alot of valid points, about malicious internet users.
Who think they are on some kind of crusade.
And always are trying to say no its swamp gas etc etc.
But they are just as mentally unstable as others who post about creatures talking to them through there skin.
But in reality, most of the things people post are complete stupidity.
Kind of like the blossom Good child thing.
That's a classic scam that one.
And the Indigo Child thing.
Which is absolutely more absurd than even the Emo's.
There is things on this site, and others, that are still not completely explained.
They have tried to debunk it, and failed.
There is many things in the universe, that our current understanding can not explain.
But most of it is garbage made up by fools and deserves to be debunked.

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
But in reality, most of the things people post are complete stupidity.
Kind of like the blossom Good child thing.
That's a classic scam that one.
And the Indigo Child thing.
Which is absolutely more absurd than even the Emo's.

LOL CC! Didn't you realize the name of the OP? You devil - you!
Edit to Add:
reply to post by Indigo_Child


As CC said, you make some valid points, but so does he. There are many wild, unprovable claims on this website. Some are feasible and others are outright crazy or paranoid.

For instance, the claim to be an indigo child is unfalsifiable (don't take this personally). No one can claim you aren't anymore that you can claim you are. This - in a sense - is quite divisive and tends to split members into a few categories. Those who have faith in the claim, those who want to see tangible proof of the claim... or outright disbelief in the claim.

Much of this type of argument starts with the OP, who makes a baseless claim, instead of using words such as "i believe this is the case" or "this is only my point of view" etc.

If more people made these disclaimers at the beginning of a thread where the content contains a high level of subjectivity and ambiguity, I think half the problem would go away.

Just my 2c worth...

IRM

[edit on 18/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

Yes its an alternative edition of the Emo
A precarious species, made up of the illusions and failures of its parents

reply to post by CaptainCaveMan


Oh I see, ... I wasn't sure what they were a while back. Silly me - I though that perhaps The Indigo Girls finally had some kids and started a new band!

IRM

[edit on 18/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

The OP speaks a lot of truth. I'm on these boards to ponder the truth. I see people make an assumption and attempt to stop the discussion. When nobody responds they think they won the argument. The fact is, there really was never an argument it was a discussion of circulating ideas, opinions, and possibilities. Name calling, joking about someones screen name, and attacking anothers opinion with hostility in message tone can move the conversation from truth seeking to having to defend every point you make.

Sometimes I wish there were a feature on boards that would allow you to select a profile setting that you can only change once every so often. You may be able to set your profile as Philosopher, Debunker, Truth Seeker, etc. The person posting a new thread could then indicate which people should be allowed to view and comment on your thread so that conversations are kept on topic and without distraction.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
But in reality, most of the things people post are complete stupidity.
Kind of like the blossom Good child thing.
That's a classic scam that one.
And the Indigo Child thing.
Which is absolutely more absurd than even the Emo's.

LOL CC! Didn't you realize the name of the OP? You devil - you!

 

Edit to Add:
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

As CC said, you make some valid points, but so does he. There are many wild, unprovable claims on this website. Some are feasible and others are outright crazy or paranoid.

The claim to be an indigo child is unfalsifiable. No one can claim you aren't anymore that you can claim you are. This - in a sense - is quite divisive and tends to split members into a few categories. Those who have faith in the claim, those who want to see tangible proof of the claim... or outright disbelief in the claim.

Much of this type of argument starts with the OP, who makes a baseless claim, instead of using words such as "i believe this is the case" or "this is only my point of view" etc.

If more people made these disclaimers at the beginning of a thread where the content contains a high level of subjectivity and ambiguity, I think half the problem would go away.


Just my 2c worth...


IRM

[edit on 18/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

There are two problem/issues here:

1. Positive claims
2. Negative claims

I understand the problems you point out with 1) there are hundreds of unsupported positive claims. But likewise in the case of 2) there are many "debunkers" who make uncritical and unsupported negative claims. And you know what they say, "Two wrongs do not make a right"

I am particularly focussing on the "debunking" issue in this thread, which is a word which is thrown about rather carelessly and loosely, and critiquing and questioning the suppositions and the self-assumed neutrality certain skeptics make. Hence why I distinguish between pseudo-skeptics and genuine skeptics. A pseudo-skeptic is just as bad as a crazy believer.

Obviously as the topic title suggests my main beef is with skeptics who constantly claim they have debunked something, when actually they haven't done so at all. That kind of negative unsupported claim is just as bad as a positive unsupported claim. In fact most of the claims made on ATS are unfalsifiable anyhow, and thus cannot be debunked. The example I gave of the UFO witness above cannot be debunked, because there is no way of proving or disproving that that their experience was genuine or false.

The closest one has to an objective method of testing the validity and consistency of something is through logical analysis. If an account contains obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, then one can point those out and "debunk" that account. But using scientific dogmas to "debunk" is simply a case of using a belief to debunk another belief. That in itself is invalid.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Sometimes I wish there were a feature on boards that would allow you to select a profile setting that you can only change once every so often. You may be able to set your profile as Philosopher, Debunker, Truth Seeker, etc. The person posting a new thread could then indicate which people should be allowed to view and comment on your thread so that conversations are kept on topic and without distraction.

That wouldn't work. The idea is to exchange ideas and theories from both sides of the fence in order to find the truth... which is often somewhere in between. You say you wish to ponder the 'truth' but in an undemocratic way?

ATS isn't about back slapping and blowing wind up someones proverbial. When claims are made, they need to be substantiated otherwise it can simply be looked upon as trolling by a lot of members.

If a person wants a particular subject taken seriously, then the only way to get that is to provide substantial proof.

I can't see labels working on this site such as believer, bebunker and so on. It's just a way to marginalize someone.



IRM

[edit on 18/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

Nice reading and I do believe I can relate to the 'debunked' scenario.
It does feel like a few claim victory over the entire topic without even sticking theyr nose in the 1000's of 'vitnesses' saying and having photos and/or video, and some times there are test gathered and taken to labs with untollerated values of dangerous toxins...

And that is not how you go about debating an issue.
Take an judge in an trail only accepts the evidence from the one part, cause the judge feels that the evidence from the other part is to 'abstract' to fit hes reality perception..

And let us take,as the op sayd, the UFO ET case, one can not debunk it by old school learnings, when I went to school 20 years ago, famous astronaughts haddent been on cnn telling the world that ET do exist,I would say that the ET issue is far from Debunked.
I would rather say it is about to begin , realy..

I cant remember learning that the moon is 1 billion years older than Earth either, or that it is hollow mady probaply of some solid iron since the craters there are flat, not sticking in to the surface,and the recorded one hour seismic echo after the lunar capsule shot up from the moon.

You can not say debunked just because you are told when a child that it isnt true, you must check every angel on it, then think about it, 'Can it be? How could it be ? etc...

After all: a theory is just an theory until its proven fact. If the evidence change, so MUST the theory..

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Good post, I've tried to have this debate with several members. Glad to know I'm not alone on this. Someone's belief in science is just as someone's belief in religion. I think the main thing is that NO ONE has got it all right yet.

The only way to get there is to keep an open mind. I am a HUGE disbeliever in the Greys/Reptillian/GFL topics. But I don't go in to those threads and start rattling off, letting my mouth write checks that my arse can't cash. I don't know. I've never been abducted *to my knowledge * So I don't feel that I'm qualified to disprove any of that.

Kudos to you for being a little more enlightened than the average ATSer

OP: I agree with most of your argument, with one exception: Intelligent Design.

I agree absolutely that science can't debunk religion, and I've argued that on threads where they try, despite being agnostic myself. They're two separate areas.

Intelligent Design on the other hand is a specific theory that claims to belong to science, not religion. As such, it is on equal ground with evolutionary biology and can be "debunked" by science.

Theological evolution cannot (that's the claim that evolution happens but is directed by God) because it is a religious argument.

The teachings that Intelligent Design was created to protect cannot be debunked by science, because they are religious teachings.

But as soon as Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory so that it can be introduced into the classroom in public schools, it becomes a legitimate target of "debunking" by science.

Yeah its impossible to really debunk a claim, there is always an explanation for something no matte how solid the evidence. I told my friend before, there is no right and wrong, just who can argue their point strongest. If you notice on here the people most respected arent those with the most interesting ideas or opinions, it is those who speak sharply and talk as if they know they are right. Confidence sells!

People do try to use their beliefs to prove other beliefs wrong, which is just silly, but every person has some inherent need to be right. Otherwise we would have discussion as opposed to arguments all the time.

I for one am glad for the debunkers because there are way too many threads like "Proof of aliens!" and it shows a street lamp or some poorly doctored picture... they help me keep my sanity when people are so quick to cite something because they WANT to believe.

There are two problem/issues here:

So you say.

1. Positive claims
2. Negative claims

Have you ever heard of standard deviations?
Moving averages?
Surely your alien pals would explain to you simple things like this right?
Does there have to be, either a positive, or a negative?
One extreme to the other?
Because personally, I know, there doesnt have to be.
And what is a claim?
Insurance claim
Why are you talking about claiming something?

I understand the problems you point out with 1) there are hundreds of unsupported positive claims. But likewise in the case of 2) there are many "debunkers" who make uncritical and unsupported negative claims. And you know what they say, "Two wrongs do not make a right"

That makes no sense in logic at all.
In fact it sounds like you really lost it there.

I am particularly focussing on the "debunking" issue in this thread, which is a word which is thrown about rather carelessly and loosely, and critiquing and questioning the suppositions and the self-assumed neutrality certain skeptics make. Hence why I distinguish between pseudo-skeptics and genuine skeptics. A pseudo-skeptic is just as bad as a crazy believer.

I personally don't like certain terms or cliches either.
Ill show you in the next paragraph yeah?

Obviously as the topic title suggests my main beef is with skeptics who constantly claim they have debunked something, when actually they haven't done so at all. That kind of negative unsupported claim is just as bad as a positive unsupported claim. In fact most of the claims made on ATS are unfalsifiable anyhow, and thus cannot be debunked. The example I gave of the UFO witness above cannot be debunked, because there is no way of proving or disproving that that their experience was genuine or false.

"my main beef"
I personally don't like it, when people use the term "Beef" to describe there own personal emotional turbulence.
Beef is a food, I like it kept that way.

The closest one has to an objective method of testing the validity and consistency of something is through logical analysis. If an account contains obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, then one can point those out and "debunk" that account. But using scientific dogmas to "debunk" is simply a case of using a belief to debunk another belief. That in itself is invalid.

Obviously through the last paragraph, it shows you are not logical at all.
And are just trying very hard, to seem that way.
Which is disturbing.

Oh and one other comment id like to make.
In the T&C of this site, made by Simon Gray, it says one must not make additional accounts, and talk to ones self.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]

I believe you have exampled just the kind of thing the OP was actually referring to... humorously by accident.

Although it would be more comprehensible if when quoting you used the quote feature. (It is the button near top right of a post that says, "quote".) It's difficult to tell which part of your text came from you vs. the OP you were quoting.

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan

There are two problem/issues here:

1. Positive claims
2. Negative claims

Have you ever heard of standard deviations?
Moving averages?
Surely your alien pals would explain to you simple things like this right?

OK, this is a nice example of someone using abusive scoffer tactics rather than conversation. That last line was hostile, if not outright irrational, and not even called for since it deliberately skewed the discussion away from the very point the OP was making.

(As a related note, had you any education about let alone exposure to the so-called alien situation you wouldn't be (a) using it to indirectly scoff a separate subject by proxy to the word and (b) implying that aliens explain anything to anybody.)

More important to the focus and nature of the OP's comments, they were only addressing specific 'claims' in the positive or negative. This does not imply they've never heard of a position in the middle or statistics. It means they were clarifying the kind of issues they were addressing.

I might add the previous comment that deliberately pulled out of the ATS universe the one topic that matched the OP's screen name and then mocked it as ridiculous was also hostile and another scoffer tactic, given the thread was not about that and given it's clear it was included solely to invalidate and insult. That I may agree on this issue is beside the point; it was rude.

And what is a claim?
Insurance claim
Why are you talking about claiming something?

This is just semantic harrassment; it does not even make sense within the context of the OP's comments. Everybody understands what a positive or negative claim about something is; your riff here sounds like the "word salad" of borderlines.

I understand the problems you point out with 1) there are hundreds of unsupported positive claims. But likewise in the case of 2) there are many "debunkers" who make uncritical and unsupported negative claims. And you know what they say, "Two wrongs do not make a right"

That makes no sense in logic at all.
In fact it sounds like you really lost it there.

It made sense to me: it is no more supportable for scoffers to use opinion as if it were fact, than it is for anybody else to do so; justifying the same bad tactics solely because someone else does it as well, is not an excuse. Frankly I thought the OP worded it better than I just did, but the logic wasn't convoluted or anything.

Obviously as the topic title suggests my main beef is with skeptics who constantly claim they have debunked something, when actually they haven't done so at all. That kind of negative unsupported claim is just as bad as a positive unsupported claim. In fact most of the claims made on ATS are unfalsifiable anyhow, and thus cannot be debunked. The example I gave of the UFO witness above cannot be debunked, because there is no way of proving or disproving that that their experience was genuine or false.

"my main beef"
I personally don't like it, when people use the term "Beef" to describe there own personal emotional turbulence.
Beef is a food, I like it kept that way.

Again, you're being harrassive here. In a different thread it might be humor, but this isn't, this is just trying to take every form of offense against the OP without even addressing what they are saying as a subject matter; so you twist and attack out of context small pieces of word or phrase. If you are entirely sane, it's rude and abusive; or it's just not entirely sane.

The closest one has to an objective method of testing the validity and consistency of something is through logical analysis. If an account contains obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, then one can point those out and "debunk" that account. But using scientific dogmas to "debunk" is simply a case of using a belief to debunk another belief. That in itself is invalid.

Obviously through the last paragraph, it shows you are not logical at all.
And are just trying very hard, to seem that way.
Which is disturbing.

I find it pretty convincing, and your response bizarre and childish.

Oh and one other comment id like to make.
In the T&C of this site, made by Simon Gray, it says one must not make additional accounts, and talk to ones self.
[edit on 18-3-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]

Are you "implying without saying so" that the OP is doing this? If not, why would you say this?

Chances are I don't even share a perspective with the OP on at least half a dozen topics right off the bat I can see, but I feel they're being somewhat abused here, and that's injust enough I feel I should say something.

PJ

Empirical evidence is scientifically based research from fields such as psychology, sociology, economics and especially from research in educational settings.

If you've got evidence that doesn't fit this sort of standard it's simply not worth looking at. Alien abduction eyewitness testimony does not.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by midnightbrigade

The only way to get there is to keep an open mind. I am a HUGE disbeliever in the Greys/Reptillian/GFL topics. But I don't go in to those threads and start rattling off, letting my mouth write checks that my arse can't cash. I don't know. I've never been abducted *to my knowledge

* So I don't feel that I'm qualified to disprove any of that.

That is a very humerous and effective way of describing unsupported skeptical responses. To respond to somebody making a positive statement of Greys/Reptillians etc with a negative statement ridiculing it, is merely responding with disbelief, in other words belief against belief.

To scoff at someones version of reality simply alludes that the scoffer believes in a different version of reality. Thus scoffing is never a legitimate response. In the world we live in today, sometimes described as post-modern, nobody has ownership of truth. It's an open field. We maybe living in a world with no aliens and UFO's, conversely we maybe living in a world with aliens and UFO's. Especially with something as far-reaching as aliens and UFOS. That is like saying the world only exists as far as you can see and not beyond. When talking about aliens and UFO's, one is talking about the vast unobservable universe, and to make negative claims about what is in the unobservable experience can never be legitimate or scientific. It is basically ignorant.

I do think many skeptics(or pseudoskeptics) are self-righteous. They go into a discussion behaving as if they are neutral, vanguards of truth, and have a moral responsibility to purge the world of delusion. Ironically, such an attitude is deluded itself. If people were more honest with each other, that actually they are just as ignorant of the truth as the next person, we would avoid all this unecessary posturing and rhetoric. Instead, rather than enganging in futile battles with each other, we would just explore possibilities, interpretations, explanations, contrasting narratives.

Here is what I consider a legitimate response to a positive and unsupported claim:

"Sorry, I have no reason to believe in your claim"

A illegitimate response:

"You're a kook", "That's not possible"

All claims made by an author are individual cases, which will consist of their own set of internal evidence to support their case. To generalise all cases, again what pseudoskeptics do often, is commiting a fallacy of generalization. For example

1. All claims of psychic abilities turn out to be hoaxes
2. Yours is a Psychic claim
3. Therefore it will turn out to be a hoax.

This is the kind of fallacious reasoning used by even so-called professional skeptics. It is a joke really. Let us work through a hypothetical example of what I consider a genuine skeptical investigation using the UFO witness description I gave in the OP.

Scenorio 1:

Skeptic: Do you have any evidence to support this?
Claimant: No, nothing, other than my experience of it
Skeptic: In that case I have no reason to believe you.

Scenorio 2:

Skeptic: Do you have any evidence to support this claim
Claimant: Yes, it was witnessed by groups of people on the same day. Some even captured a video of it.
Skeptic: Interesting, so it would appear that this is not limited just to you.
I think further investigation is required of the groups testimony and the video.

Here is what a typical pseudoskeptic "investigation" would look like:

Scenorio 1:

Skeptic: You are obviously lying and an attention seeker

Scenorio 2:

Skeptic: Obviously this is a mass-hallucination or hysteria(in which case how does one hallucinate a video?) obviously this a mass hoax and the groups are all lying.

The psuedoskeptic does not investigate any claims, they just pontificate. They are not at all open to the claimant, and their dialogue with the claimant is an unequal one. They will present explanations which will be completely at odds with the claimants account and thus fail to explain their evidence.

A genuine skeptic is somebody who will investigate a claim, remain open to the claimant and have an equal dialogue with them, constantly synthesising new information and testing out explanations and having the integrity to reject their own explanations which do not fit the claimants acounts. Unfortunately, as many on ATS will be aware of, such skeptics are very rare.

Psuedoskepticism should not be tolerated, not even for a moment.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Intelligent Design on the other hand is a specific theory that claims to belong to science, not religion. As such, it is on equal ground with evolutionary biology and can be "debunked" by science.

Intelligent design is no more or less scientific than evolution. They both try to account for the empirical data, but using completely different models to explain it. Intelligent design adopts scientific theories of intelligent-pattern recognition, which tries to show that the design of the human body is irreducibly complex, such as the stomach and cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Nobody has seen a directing intelligence which organizes the cells in the body to form certain complexes. Likewise, nobody has seen evolution, where cells through random chance form certain complexes and then are naturally selected.

So both are as scientific and unscientiic as each other. To be honest our way of doing science is ironically unscientific in my opinion because of the fallacy of psychologism. A theory at the end of the day is just a hypothetical construct and consists of a set of arbitary assumptions. Science can only make observations, and draw inferences, but as soon as it starts making assumptions that is when it stops being scientific.

[QUOTE]But as soon as Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory so that it can be introduced into the classroom in public schools, it becomes a legitimate target of "debunking" by science.

You are probably aware that what is scientific is a debatable matter itself. Is Psychology science? Is Sociology Science? Is Theoretical physics science? I am by no means anti-scientific, I am very much pro-science and consider myself a scientist, but that does not mean I ignore the limitations of science and the problems of how science is done. Basically, for all its strengths, science is not really a legitimate method of debunking anything.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by OTTOKARMA



I am waiiting for a moderator to warn you. Meanwhile, I am going to put you on my ignore list. Congrats.