Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

The Pantomime of Debunkery

106 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

macqdor

https://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/the-pantomime-of-debunkery/?fbclid=IwAR00gczg5uW-k2Lud2D_6B5dyIV8Ye2RPg81xtU75NqTYyxC06SlqEHIb18

 

The Pantomime of Debunker

Quote

There was a time when I could be found trying my hardest to debunk the latest claims being made by the latest jerk trying to have their 15 minutes of fame by styling themselves as a ghost hunter, psychic, exorcist, or something equally as tacky and ludicrous. By being so caught up in this ballet, I sometimes failed to recognise the difference between the jerks and the regular people I was coming into contact with. I came to realise that this approach to paranormal research doesn’t actually do very much and those who participate in this pantomime of debunkery just run the risk of preaching to the converted and not much more

 
 
 
Quote

As paranormal researchers, we have to be careful to not lose sight of the human element of the stories we come into contact with when we research claims or when we tackle misinformation. It’s possible to be a good, decent skeptic researcher without jumping on every bandwagon that presents itself. On the other hand, being a debunker who shoots from the hip and rushes to be the first to debunk a story, or attempts to publish the more articles debunking the latest paranormal claims than the next debunker can be as irrational as someone claiming they married a ghost pirate, or have goblins in their garden. Plus, with this ‘it moves, you shoot’ approach, you run the risk of seeing bogeymen when there are none, which is quite ironic when you think about it…

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

It is true, debunkers do have the reputation of simply ignoring any and all evidence and claiming "fake".

Skeptics, however, look for rational explanations rather than jump to less likely and extreme explanations. The prosaic must be considered if possible over the "paranormal" if it is at all possible. After all the paranormal by it's own definition is outside of the normal scientific explanation. The problem with a lot of paranormal research is that the methodology used to "research" is itself questionable. There doesn't seem to be a systematic way to quantify any "data" to actually prove anything. 

I stumbled across a series on youtube (then amazon prime) by two guys, I guess from buzzfeed. To me it is a perfect example of the typical "ghost hunter" scenario with the exception that one of the two guys is obviously not a believer at all. It is simply a fun romp through supposedly haunted places and in the end the believer believes and the skeptic is still skeptical. The tools used are at best inconclusive or just plain silly. All that remains is anecdotes and stories. Nothing proven that cannot be explained as wishful thinking, blurry images, bad audio subject to interpretation and the possibility of manipulation.

I also watched a documentary on the Amazing Randi, it had a few examples of how easily people are completely fooled through trickery. I would suggest watching it or at least reading about his attempts to show people how easily they are manipulated into believing the con-men that are out there.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

 

Skeptics, however, look for rational explanations rather than jump to less likely and extreme explanations. 

And after watching the scene for decades I find most so-called 'skeptics' to be simply anti-paranormal types looking for a more intellectually respectable title. A term  also coined for this is 'pseudo-skepticism'. 

3 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

 the Amazing Randi

A textbook example of what I just said above.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

So funny that the people responding to esoteric_toad's daft post have done exactly what is mentioned in the OP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
54 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

A textbook example of what I just said above.

That you Uri?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Horta said:

That you Uri?

No, just a serious observer of the scene for decades.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

not sure this is what the thread is about and i will try to word this respecful, what i have observed is some or most really die hard true believers just do not need any real evidence or proof, if told someone has goblins in the garden or married a ghost pirate that story is enough, its true to them.

I am not sure why i cant jump on that ship of belief is enough but i cant, i need to solve it i need proof and some things go unexplained for me that is fine, unexplained doesnt make for me an automatic jump to paranormal that it does for the true believer.

i also have seen some mean spirited things said by both sides, ive seen true believers seem to be cocked and ready to get offended if their ancedote isnt hailed and believed by all, ive ran into very interesting alleged accounts and just recently i asked two diffent people "did you research for collaboration on  your experence?" both didnt answer that question but rather accused me of attacking them hit me with insults etc, that reaction i do not understand at all.

i fully grasp why a true believer wouldnt like a skeptic to jump right to some boring explanation, it takes the wind out of ones sails to learn santa isnt real but i also would like to be able to ask additional questions without being accused of attacking, insulting or harassing the story teller, if you dont have an answer say so, ill respect that far more that smoke and mirrors drama games.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

^ ^ 'True Believer' is an odd sort of a title which doesn't make any sense to me. There are people who come to UM and do appear to blindly believe stories without making any attempt to research them, but I think you'll find they are very young and new to the world of the paranormal. If you look closely at what older, more established 'believers' say, I think you'll find that they are in fact keeping an open mind ..... they not aligning themselves with either side, but rather accepting the possibility some phenomena may be true. And this is precisely what is so annoying about so many sceptics/debunkers: that they are absolutely adamant something is not true when they have no evidence!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 4/15/2019 at 2:10 AM, papageorge1 said:

No, just a serious observer of the scene for decades.

Your definition of serious is different to everyone else's I think. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Mac is feeling threatened again I take it :lol:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
24 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

^ ^ 'True Believer' is an odd sort of a title which doesn't make any sense to me. There are people who come to UM and do appear to blindly believe stories without making any attempt to research them, but I think you'll find they are very young and new to the world of the paranormal. If you look closely at what older, more established 'believers' say, I think you'll find that they are in fact keeping an open mind ..... they not aligning themselves with either side, but rather accepting the possibility some phenomena may be true. And this is precisely what is so annoying about so many sceptics/debunkers: that they are absolutely adamant something is not true when they have no evidence!

 

while i have seen time and again what you post about the skeptics and lack of evidence and demanding proof from a true believer,  i keep a very open mind anything is possible yet for me to jump from "belief its possible" to "its a fact" i do need proof, its just not about belief for me, so where does that put me?

i also see basically see pretty much all true believers take questions and asking for evidence and proof as a big personal insult,

perhaps they are jaded from more hard core skeptics but if a person tells a tale and i ask for collaborations and they get angry any useful discussion is pretty much over.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
1 hour ago, the13bats said:

while i have seen time and again what you post about the skeptics and lack of evidence and demanding proof from a true believer,  i keep a very open mind anything is possible yet for me to jump from "belief its possible" to "its a fact" i do need proof, its just not about belief for me, so where does that put me?

i also see basically see pretty much all true believers take questions and asking for evidence and proof as a big personal insult,

perhaps they are jaded from more hard core skeptics but if a person tells a tale and i ask for collaborations and they get angry any useful discussion is pretty much over.

 

Don't forget, not all paranormal experiences can be proved ..... maybe even most .... they happen unexpectedly and are over in a flash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Don't forget, not all paranormal experiences can be proved ..... maybe even most .... they happen unexpectedly and are over in a flash. 

Not one has been proven, across all time and across the globe. Doesn't that say something? 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not one has been proven, across all time and across the globe. Doesn't that say something? 

Well proven to the many witnesses, though. What does that say ?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

People will believe what they want to believe. Regardless of proof or lack of.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Well proven to the many witnesses, though. What does that say ?

The same thing as any wild claim. 

The plural of anecdote is not data. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

People will believe what they want to believe. Regardless of proof or lack of.

A sweeping generalisation that simply isn't true.              

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

The same thing as any wild claim. 

The plural of anecdote is not data. 

Trite cliches don't affect the opinion of those that know, Or even solidify the opinions of those that don't, seemingly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not one has been proven, across all time and across the globe. Doesn't that say something? 

Another sweeping generalisation that isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

People will believe what they want to believe. Regardless of proof or lack of.

Not necessarily, I only believe what I have very strong reason to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Just now, ouija ouija said:

Another sweeping generalisation that isn't true.

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Name a paranormal incident that is beyond doubt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Trite cliches don't affect the opinion of those that know, Or even solidify the opinions of those that don't, seemingly.

Neither does actual proof  your a perfect example of that. 

Its not uncommon for a believer to pull that cloak of superstition ever tighter about themselves whenever properly challenged. 

You're a good example of that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, psyche101 said:

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Name a paranormal incident that is beyond doubt. 

Obviously there aren't any, so what can we safely deduce from that ? Suppose your were the witness to something that convinced you, what then would you deduce about there being no conclusive case ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.