Debunking the Debunkers

[Virtual Particle]

So much data.....

This article rebuts the most common arguments made by skeptics regarding psychic phenomena and the paranormal, and shows the flaws and limitations in their thinking and methodology. I've listed their common arguments one by one and pointed out the problems in them based on years of experience in debating and discussing with them. Skeptics who use these arguments include honest doubters, cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won't admit it), scientific materialists, haters of religion, etc. With the exception of sensational pro-paranormal programs, these skeptics are often given the chance to present their arguments and explanations in the media, national magazines, and certain television programs, without rebuttal from the other side, even when their explanations contradict the facts of the case. As a result, there is often an imbalance in the presentation of paranormal and psychic phenomena in the media, leaving most viewers uninformed. This article attempts to counteract the imbalance by providing sensible reasons, arguments and facts that most skeptics fail to consider. It is written both for the education and knowledge of the believer who deals with skeptics, and for skeptics who are willing to hear counterarguments to their positions.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resourc...g-skeptical.htm

However, the pseudo-skeptics like CSICOP members and Randi are definitely not open minded truth seekers, but rather their words and behavior are that of automatic dismissing and denying that which doesn’t fit into their paradigm. They are cynics who have closed their mind to anything that doesn't fit into their world view, dismissing all else as misperception, delusion, or fraud. But don’t take my word for it, for if you read their own writing and hear what they say, it’s obvious from their narrow tunnel-view of reality, and their righteous indignation of what’s real and what’s “quackery” (a word they love to use). They do not seek to understand, but instead seek to discredit and invalidate. Their skepticism is what I and others like to call “pseudo-skepticism”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit; fake.” Therefore, these debunkers exhibit a false mask of skepticism. In actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and deniers. They deny and dismiss all evidence, scientific or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and look for an excuse to justify it. They are not about seeking the truth or open-minded investigations at all, only in discrediting what doesn’t fit into their view.

http://geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Sk...l_Arguments.htm

Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme

hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their

emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold

Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react not

with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead

with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics: hostile

emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy',

extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning, underhanded

debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of name-calling and

character assassination.

Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior "Pathological

Skepticism," a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that various

unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list of the

symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of

the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.

http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense". Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule.

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

Any thoughts?

Edited March 3, 2006 by Triad

[ShaunZero]

GREAT Topic. Just what we needed. It's a good thing to be skeptical, but skepticism has turned into something beyond closed minded these days. It has become so bias and prejaduce, it's pathetic and sickening to listen to.

Even more here.

and

Here.

Edited March 3, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[Nethius]

I'm at a loss here... You title this "Debunking the Debunkers" but there is no debunking, just ripping on skeptics.

If you want to debunk a debunker show proof, until then why should anyone believe you.

Sorry ZeroShadow, but I don't agree - asking for proof is being close minded?

EDIT: ZS I checked out that first link. I think they should have proved this guy a liar through controlled testing, but I doubt Randi wanted to waste his time and money on such a claim. Now don't go putting all skeptics in the same group as Randi. And just because Randi refused to test this guy, does not mean he can't prove it on his own.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Nethius

[Virtual Particle]

In complete agreement on this end ZeroShadow note the link on the Pathological Variety......here is an interesting link of the issue of Parapsychology, actually prepared

by a real skeptic...

It is not the mission of this paper to attempt to prove that anomalous phenomena exist. Nor do I aim to prove the extent of anomalous behavior (slight and comprehensible within our worldview, or radical requiring profound perspective changes). Like Eysenck, I strongly maintain that the summary dismissive attitude of the major science dealing with the anomalous is incorrect and inappropriate , and that the area not only deserves rigid scientific scrutiny, but could contribute enormously to our knowledge base and methodology: Parapsychology uses, where applicable, the conventional scientific methods and scientific principles of deduction, induction, data examination, formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses and empiricism, and applying where applicable, theoretical mathematical realities. It is a science that has accumulated solid research data over a century. But that data has been subject to a scrutiny and skepticism unparalleled in any other area of scientific endeavor. Parapsychology could, ipso facto, be argued to be amongst the most important of the sciences for the very reason that it evokes such emotional attention: its research is not silent; it thunders through controversy because the consequences of its ostensible findings are literally mind shattering. This is because the domain of parapsychology impacts, interfaces and extends to cosmological theories.

http://www.pni.org/neuropsychiatry/medicin...ic/paraimp.html

Any thoughts?

[stargazer123]

[Virtual Particle]

Nethius I am not ripping at anyone each of these articles present information related to the differences between valid skepticism and the pathological variant.

For example in relation to the latter....

For many years this "prize" has been Randi's stock-in-trade as a media skeptic, but even some other skeptics are skeptical about its value as anything but a publicity stunt. For example, CSICOP founding member Dennis Rawlins pointed out that not only does Randi act as "policeman, judge and jury" but quoted him as saying "I always have an out"! (Fate, October 1981). A leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." Randi's fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this "prize" and sees it as of no scientific value. See Randi’s Challenge and Why Randi may have to pay up

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ske...x.htm#randprize

Any thoughts?

[ImOne]

One of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientists and Nobel laureates, physicist Max Planck, observed that; 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

We shouldn't have to wait but about another 10 years, maybe 20.

[ShaunZero]

Sorry ZeroShadow, but I don't agree - asking for proof is being close minded?

No. That's why I said there's nothing wrong with being a skeptic. I am one myself. But there's a different from being a closed minded skeptic and benig a skeptic.

Edited March 3, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[Virtual Particle]

If you want to debunk a debunker show proof, until then why should anyone believe you.

Myth #13: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.

The problem with this is that skeptics are very often ``shown the data'' and very often don't believe it. Instead, they unpack the studies and look for the errors. This is known as doing good science. When a result contradicts accepted theory, or a fundamental assumption of natural science a good researcher, a good skeptic, will give it more than glancing attention.

For example, the PEAR or auto-ganzfield results are by any stretch of the imagination extraordinary evidence. They are large meta-studies incorporating hundreds of separate experiments. They are the ``proof'' of psi-effects for skeptics, and everybody else to see. I have read those studies and remain unconvinced. I would be convinced, however, by the same level of data for a variety of other effects. In what way has PEAR not met its burden of proof?31 I remain unconvinced because of what I consider procedural and statistical problems with the meta-studies, or the collection of experiments that make up the meta-studies. I also remain unconvinced because I cannot see what belief would provide me? What theory drives the belief in psi? How will it help bring together other data, or generate new ideas? What phenomena (besides these meta-studies) would be explained by the psi-hypothesis?

Prior beliefs affect our acceptance of the data, and it could be argued that skeptics such as Gardner, Klass and Nickell are good skeptics because of their prior beliefs. They know going into an investigation that there is a prosaic explanation, and are determined to find it. What's wrong with that? Well, it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions.32 It also doesn't do much for skepticism's reputation when a researcher goes in falsely, and obviously so, proclaiming neutrality. Why not just be honest and say: ``I don't believe it. It is possible to convince me, but I don't think that is going to happen because in my experience, the world doesn't work that way.''

http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html

Any thoughts?

[Virtual Particle]

Unfounded criticism of a parapsychology book in Nature

Highly regarded journal refuses to publish correction of error in review: a case of censorship?

"Any time a reputable news organisation gives its readers or viewers details that later turn out not to be true, they are obligated to tell the truth". -- Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes, CBS.

In the highly regarded journal Nature (Oct. 23rd. 1997, p.806), I.J. Good gives a strongly critical review (now available on the Web, courtesy of Nick Herbert) of Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe. The Journal refused to publish the rebuttal of the criticisms printed below. It has also since that time refused to publish a request from the author of the book for a correction to be noted (see also Apr. 9th. 1998 update: a grossly inadequate 'correction' is now published).

Update of Aug. 14, 1998: In its correspondence pages (Nature 394, 413 (30 July 1998)), the journal has now belatedly published Radin's letter (with the omission, no doubt not surprising given the Journal's record, of his closing remark 'I hope this note motivates readers to study the evidence for themselves'). A comeback by Good, still conforming to Rossman's strictures of 'obsolescent critique', is appended to Radin's letter. This is more than six months after the author originally requested of the journal publication of a note concerning the error, and more then eight months subsequent to my own similar request. The charge of censorship on the journal's part is hardly affected by this belated response, perhaps made only in response to widespread complaints.

See also comment by Michael Rossman.

Should the Journal offer a response to the criticisms contained on this web page, such a response will be posted here.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregoodtxt.html

Any thoughts?

[Nethius]

Myth #13: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.

Myth? Try me then. Do you claim to have any abilities? If so, lets see them.

Well, it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions.

Such as???

Also have to note how these articles throw all kinds of big words and fancy phrases at you to try and confuse you into believing what they are saying. You find this method alot with woo woo sites. Any normal person could say in 5 words what these articles say in 50

Edited March 3, 2006 by Nethius

[ShaunZero]

Any normal person could say in 5 words what these articles say in 50

Go for it.

[stargazer123]

GREAT Topic. Just what we needed. It's a good thing to be skeptical, but skepticism has turned into something beyond closed minded these days. It has become so bias and prejaduce, it's pathetic and sickening to listen to.

Even more here.

and

Here.

Unforunately it comes from every spectrum...completely closed minded and then skeptical are different things. Which brings me to the point that I agree with you.

It seems nearly impossible to discuss possibilities with anyone who already has their mind made up and will not see any claim or evidence that goes against their preconcept. it becomes a circular arguement that seems quite wasteful use of energy in my mind.

just my thoughts.

[Lilly]

Can I give it a try?

Valid evidence should be considered.

That's exactly 5 words.

[Virtual Particle]

The third approach, which I've tried to empower and legitimate, is the zetetic. Zetetic is an old word coming from the Greek followers of the skeptical philosopher, Pyrrho. The main feature of this approach is to emphasize the communal norm of skepticism present in the scientific community. By skepticism I would like to strongly distinguish between doubt and denial. Doubt is the skeptical approach; the debunker's approach is denial. True skepticism which is a part of science consists of doubt preceeding inquiry, and that essentially takes the position of non-belief rather than of disbelief. The main elements of the zetetic approach are: firstly, ignorance; secondly, some doubt; thirdly, an emphasis upon inquiry. Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry. This approach involves a general acceptance of what Mario Bunge calls methodism, on science as method, not science as some established absolute body of knowledge.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

RIDICULED DISCOVERERS,

VINDICATED MAVERICKS 2002 William Beaty

THE LIST: scroll down Weird science versus revolutionary science

While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without any investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who dismissed (or even helped suppress) a large number of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware! Today many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents only appear sane and acceptable to us because we have such powerful HINDsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the times they were first discovered.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#list

This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method. In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation. The paper ends with a plea that instruction in and opportunities to experience the nature of science are vital in preservice and inservice teacher education programs to help unseat the myths of science.

http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/methods/scie...nce%20(McComas)

Any thoughts?

Edited March 3, 2006 by Triad

[different]

Sorry ZeroShadow, but I don't agree - asking for proof is being close minded?

no but making fun of other people to mask your own insecurity and blocking out all other ideas could fall under that catagory

[Virtual Particle]

Date: 8 Apr 1998 01:19:29 GMT

From: DOwens6683 <dowens6683@aol.com>

Newsgroups: alt.paranormal

Subject: Stupid Skeptic Tricks

Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up

exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are

often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal

knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less

honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make

the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing

world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use

specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas

and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently

fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.

In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the

years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they

tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps

if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel

better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a

point or two.

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

This is for real?

When discussing the reality of psi phenomena, especially from the scientific perspective, one question always hovers in the background: You mean this is for real? In the midst of all the nonsense and excessive silliness proclaimed in the name of psychic phenomena, the misinformed use of the term parapsychology by self-proclaimed "paranormal investigators," the perennial laughing stock of magicians and conjurers … this is for real?

The short answer is, Yes.

A more elaborate answer is, psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments. There are disagreements over to how to interpret the evidence, but the fact is that virtually all scientists who have studied the evidence, including the hard-nosed skeptics, now agree that there is something interesting going on that merits serious scientific attention. Later we’ll discuss the reasons why very few scientists and science journalists are aware of this dramatic shift in informed opinion.

http://www.deanradin.com/Chapter1.html

Why would I risk the ridicule of my peers to explore a topic as controversial and inflammatory as that which is known as "psi" phenomenon? And more importantly how and why is it relevant to the study of neurobiology? Given the nature of the topic, it may not always be easy to discuss such scientifically or diplomatically. It is my contention; however, that serious review of the scientific evidence, legitimate scientific discourse and funding for research has been seriously impeded because of its controversial nature. And, furthermore, that it is as relevant a topic for investigation as are other methods by which information is perceived by humans.

There are some valid reasons for the prejudice that surrounds this topic. Often when one thinks of psi phenomenon some strange themes come to mind such as UFO's and Alien Abductions, ESP, crop circles, Astrology, Ghosts, Mediums, Channeling and Angles. Most of these come under the heading of "paranormal" and are decidedly difficult to examine scientifically. The plethora of information on such subjects that floods the internet is more likely to reference mysticism, faith and spiritually than offer scientific theory or experimental outcomes and I will leave such to those realms.

I, therefore, in this paper will not be referring to alien astrologers channeling their horoscopes through mediums who have been abducted. Only the concepts that comprise that which is known as "anomalous cognition will be discussed." Its components are telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition (1).

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...2/Plotnick.html

AGAINST EXCESSIVE SKEPTICISM

COLLECTED QUOTES

"The ability to quote is a servicable substitute for wit."

- W. Somerset Maugham

http://www.amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

This chapter does not argue against skepticism. On the contrary, it demonstrates that critical thinking is a double-edged sword: It must be applied to any claim, including the claims of skeptics. We will see that many of the skeptical arguments commonly levelled at psi experiments have been motivated by non-scientific factors, such as arrogance, advocacy and ideology. The fact is that much of what scientists know - or think they know - about psi has been confused with arguments promoted by uncritical enthusiasts on one hand, and uncritical skeptics on the other. History shows that extremists, despite the strength of their convictions, are rarely correct. So, are all scientists who report positive evidence for psi naïve or sloppy? No. Are all skeptics intolerant nay-sayers? No. Does psi justify the belief that angels from the Andromeda galaxy are among us? No.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/guide/field_guide.htm

Nethius I do believe your request to discuss my background is off topic though there are several posts in other discussions???

Knightmeir states in relation to the validity of PSI.....

Some of us have looked at this objectively, and thus far, see nothing, which is why the opinion that it is in fact steaming bovine fecal matter in snow (snow enhances the steaming effect) exists.

Any thoughts?

Edited March 3, 2006 by Triad

[+joc]

I have a thought...how about giving us some of YOUR thoughts instead of page after page of someone elses.

[ShaunZero]

Is that a last resort? What's wrong with the words of these other people?

[+joc]

Is that a last resort? What's wrong with the words of these other people?

That's just it...Triad is using ...the words of other people...not even one sentence of thought process of his own. The only words uttered thus far by Triad are: Any thoughts? So, my thought is...if you are going to start a thread to debunk the debunkers...at least have an original thought somewhere in the thread. I for one don't have time to read novels of information. Perhaps you do...I and most don't. No original thought...only the words of others...makes for a boring if not totally useless thread IMO.

[Virtual Particle]

Joc you asking for my opinion?? My opinion should be obvious otherwise I would not have presented the comments included.......there are many more links.

Any thoughts?

[Virtual Particle]

Joc your comments are inappropriate a very good way to start a discussion is to present the data available and then get into personal discussion.

If you are looking for an original thought..... this forum is having a problem with pathological skeptics.

Any thoughts?

[+joc]

Joc your comments are inappropriate a very good way to start a discussion is to present the data available and then get into personal discussion.

If you are looking for an original thought..... this forum is having a problem with pathological skeptics.

Any thoughts?

Yes. Pathological and skepticism do not belong together in the same sentence. It isn't a mental problem to be skeptical of things that are completely out of the realm of common understanding and common sense. It isn't pathological. The premise is flawed. And you haven't interjected even one thought of your own into the matter. I am not criticizing you Triad...just pointing out the obvious. I'll go now...I have no intentions of ruining your thread.

[Megalomania]

lol... You can really tell that this is gunna turn into a giant war.. so I think I'm gunna steer clear of it

Anyway, thanks to Triad for the interesting read

[Virtual Particle]

Joc you have not read one link presented in this thread because had you read the thread you would not have wasted your time with such a response. PSI is not out of the realm of common sense and understanding that has been made clear here and your response is an indication of you inability to address the reality of the situation.

Extremism is always pathological and when I see comments like the one posted below which is included in this thread..... :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...pic=62325&st=30

In relation to you comments concerning my thoughts to be very clear, I searched the links and I posted them, so again obviously I agree with them.

If by your comments you are suggesting that true skepticism cannot be pathological because true skepticism under no circumstances includes such behavior, as presented in the above linked thread. I can agree, but to be certain such comments are an example that something is wrong.

To be clear what has been presented to date I hope offers all concerned a moment of thought and introspection

Thank you RE

Any thoughts?