The Right Way to Debunk

Quick caveat here too. Wherever I go here I seem to attract a pile-up (funny, that). When that happens I can't promise I can address every post; and if some are saying similar things, I will attempt to address those points in one go. I don't have the sort of time for this that I used to, there are other threads here I'd like to talk on, creationists to debate elsewhere, and life in general. Thanks for your understanding.

You seem to be enjoying yourself on the other forum RAZD. I've certainly enjoyed reading your posts. It looks like the opposition is starting to melt away due to lack of ways to rebut what you are saying Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Good advice for talking on this forum too. Thank you. I hope people won't be offended but I really can't respond to every post when the pile-up happens, though of course I read each one. Last time I attempted to do so I got flustered and it just wasn't helpful.

I'll try to focus more on the topic here too. I agree, we've been discussing the nature of science, which is OT. I'd particularly like to respond to Crashfrog's comments on another thread.Referring to the above quote from you though, I think it is essential that you define what you mean by "reality." You've said here and there that some things cannot be studied by science. Do they fit your same definition of reality as those things that you believe can be studied by science?I ask because I think many people honestly do want to look for answers in science but science does not always acknowledge the legitimacy of their experiences. So they have to look elsewhere. You aren't going to debunk the kinds of claims they end up making because they feel the science you hold up as such a beacon of objective reality, tells them that they are crazy. It's always going to be there in their minds: "I saw a ghost/had a spiritual experience/had a precognitive vision -- I am convinced of its reality -- and all your science can do is tell me that I've got a screw loose. Well, screw your science then."A different approach is called for here IMHO.

You haven't defined what you see as reality as such. Maybe the closest you have come is this: Is the implication that there actually is nothing in existence that can't be studied scientifically, because there is nothing that cannot be detected by the five senses? Or are you saying that there could be more to reality than this, but that it cannot be measured by science? If your answer is a), then I refer you to what I said about scientism, which I will re-define here. If b), then I was wondering what you think those unmeasurable things are. I've seen scientism compared to religious fundamentalism in a few places actually. Interesting. The claim that everything is measurable by science and that anything which isn't, i.e. religion and philosophy, is a delusion, is a common one here. I've seen estimates that 50% of Americans claim to have had a supernatural or paranormal experience. It is not true that all research ever done on the subject has reached negative conclusions. Maybe part of the problem lies in the methodology of the studies. There still aren't many of them done by well-financed, open-minded scientists as anything other than a quiet hobby, because of the automatic label of woo-woo the whole subject attracts. You can say to half of Americans that science does not confirm the validity of their experiences. Do you think they will all back down and say OK, it was just a mistake, or I must be delusional? There is an inherent denial here that such experiences can have any reality whatsoever.If you would like to start a separate thread about this yourself, then be my guest. What is testable by science, and what do we do about the rest that isn't? Is science really the only way of making sense of the world and of the human condition?

The problem is that people are saying that the whole idea of the paranormal is crackpot. Telepathy, psychokinesis, precognitive visions, ghostly encounters -- the whole lot is collectively dismissed as mistake or delusion. I'm not saying people don't make mistakes or have delusions, sometimes in whole groups. But there's this prejudice in most of modern science today that completely rules out any possible validity of any of these claims, from anybody.I've mentioned Rupert Sheldrake a number of times. He is probably best-known for his idea of morphic fields. He has also conducted experiments into dogs who know when their owners are coming home, telephone telepathy, and the sense of being stared at. His scientific credentials are excellent, but he felt so strongly about these areas of research that he was willing to let most of the establishment label him a nutcase in order to pursue them. You can read in more detail on his website, here.More particularly, you can read about his "Seven Experiments that Could Change the World" here. He explains the ideas behind each, and how each could be conducted in a rigorously scientific way. Science and logic are extremely useful, as I said, but they are not the only ways. What else do most of us do? Weigh things in the light of our past experiences. Talk to others who have wisdom on the subject. Educate ourselves as best we can. Meditate. Sleep on it. Constantly question and re-shape our views based on new evidence. I never know for sure that I have arrived at the truth; and I think anyone who believes this, is deluding themselves and stunting their spiritual growth -- whether they are religious or not.from an interview by Tom Collins with the late professor of comparative mythology, Joseph Campbell, You guys are so much fun to talk to. I'm going to see family in the US over Christmas and then I'm starting a new job. I hope I can find some time to keep chatting, it's very enlightening.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Interesting. There are some differences here from the sorts of things Percy was saying. I think this would make a fascinating new thread. And as Percy says, this discussion really belongs there and not here, however much some people want to engage with it at the moment (me included, to be honest).I'm going on vacation shortly and will be rather busy afterward, so I hesitate to begin a topic where I'll mostly have to drop out for a few weeks; I'd rather wait a little while. I also think I could do with some research into this subject myself so that my own views are more solid, and I have evidence at hand to back them.In the meantime, I'm happy to stay on topic here, and I'll make sure I do. RAZD has taken an interesting debunking approach on the other forum. He has given definitions of "delusion" and "cognitive dissonance." The latter is a particularly good one to refer to when distraction and denial tactics are being used, and when people simply ignore the evidence that has been presented.It's also interesting to see the approach he has taken to what I like to call regurgiposting. Instead of refuting a pasted page from a creationist website, RAZD has asked the poster to use their own words, and he has told them that quoting from another site without citation is plagiarism. He posted a link to a relevant TalkOrigins page full of refutations of the PRATTs contained in the regurgipost. At the moment the original poster is militant about having been called a "liar." I'm waiting to see what RAZD says. I've learned a lot from him over there so far; I should be able to do a better job of holding the fort once he's finished I think.

You've asked, nay begged me, to stop going off topic here. I wonder what keeps tempting me to do so . . .?You're OT mate, especially with the comments on the paranormal. I can certainly discuss them with you on another thread and explain there why I said what I said.I've been reading about the limitations of empiricism, trying to educate myself. More lectures about science=the Way to the Truth (TM) aren't very helpful to me right now. It is one way, and a good way, but The Way?Has it ever occurred to you that there may be a grain of truth here and there in what creationists say about their problems with certain aspects of evolutionary theory, independent of the blatant lies their leaders have told them? Just wondering. Occasionally I find them thought-provoking. In "debunking" I think you have to be careful to bear in mind what the other person is saying, rather than just making blatant statements about how science explains everything. The idea of morphic fields springs to mind . . .

RAZD you're lovely I am finding it hard to stay on topic here. We were originally talking about how to deal with creationists who refuse to move their arguments on. Percy is right in that I'm picking which other comments to address, even if they seem to be OT to me, because I disagree with those most strongly.I would start a new thread now, where I would display less of what is seen here as avoidance behaviour, but I honestly will have to disappear from it and I'd rather be able to stick around to have a good conversation. Percy and I are due for a chat about what science is and what it can discover, and I'd be keen to hear about other people's opinions on that.

I was expecting someone here to say something like that. Problem is, not being a theist, I'd have a hard time figuring out who created everything.All I was actually saying is that when someone is "debunking," it's easy to go from the assumption that the debunkee is 100% mistaken. And indeed, you have to be careful in a debate if you concede anything to them at all, because they will take that, run with it, and possibly ignore everything else you say. When I'm trying to tear up a creationist's argument, the last thing I'm going to do is talk about personal questions I have myself of evolutionary theory.Evolutionary theory isn't static, is it? No one pretends we know 100% how it works. I think the evidence is there for everyone to see, but I think there may still be some interesting things to learn about the processes which produced that evidence. Some creationists devote their lives to refuting evolution and my opinion from talking with them is, if you throw out 99.9% of the crap, there's a little left over which is genuinely intriguing.When I get some time I'll go to the relevant threads and ask some of the questions I've got. I don't think this is the place to throw them all out. Some of them might admittedly reflect my lack of in-depth scientific knowledge, and as such I'll expect to be corrected, but I'd like to find out what people say.

Hi Sidelined, thanks for the link. It looks like an intriguing site but I have to honestly say that I'm not sure what it's driving at. Can I ask what you got from it?

OK let me try to clarify, briefly, then.The accusations of scientism come from comments here about how science leads us to The Truth (TM) and how science only measures what is experienced via the 5 senses -- which according to many people here is everything. I don't agree. Wise people who have spent years training in meditative practices and who believe they have experienced the transcendent, are told they are deluded. This is frankly insulting and it shows that while scientific intelligence may be in abundance here, other ways of being and knowing are neither acknowledged nor practiced by quite a few.There is no agenda for any group which investigates evolution, is there? None that I can see. No one is making big money from digging up fossils or dating rocks. Creationists only accuse them of having a bias because they have a desperate need to believe that science is an evil, godless conspiracy. Most are willing to throw out what they do know about science, or remain cocooned in comfortable ignorance.I can see you many many others attempting to throw my last 2 sentences back in my face, telling me I have a desperate need to believe in alt med and the paranormal, which makes me no less comfortably ignorant than creationists. However, there are people who are making big money from selling medications. Big pharma is one of the biggest moneymakers in the US. Wall Street is beholden to it. They have bought off many politicians and also many doctors. They pay for most of the clinical trials of their own drugs. They have every reason to safeguard their profits. You've dismissed this before as irrelevant or paranoid but I think most people could see from this that there is a reasonable basis to doubt the objectivity of people involved in that system.As far as a need to believe, I simply think that there is good evidence that alt med can work, and that aspects of the paranormal are real and deserving of serious study. We can talk elsewhere about studies that have already been conducted. Sometimes in order to be more open to an idea, a whole society needs a paradigm shift. I'm continually amazed at how hard the skeptical view works to preserve the status quo. Allopathic medicine must be right, because it is how we do things, and we have so many studies. Therefore we're going to ignore or dismiss whatever challenges it. Fortunately there are a few people with open minds who are willing to consider other ideas. My GP, for instance, who is more or less mainstream, but told me that traditional Chinese medicine cured his asthma.I'm not looking for more off-topic in-depth debates on all these things here, but I do not see any underlying contradiction in my approach. I'm willing to consider other points of view, to question, and to look into concepts that skeptical dogma tells me I ought to be laughing at as nonsense. Declaring that something is nonsense before looking into it at all in an objective way, is nothing short of prejudice.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Apparently I'm not the only one who is unsure about your definition of reality Percy. So apparently when you say that science is the best way of understanding reality, you mean reality as defined by what is detectable by the five senses, yes? You don't seem to want to lay out your cards about what you personally believe could be beyond that, if anything, and I don't blame you; if you did admit here that you think there might be something beyond, then the resident pseudo-skeptics would be trying to shred you up. But I don't mind telling you what I believe. In fact, I've been talking about this in the Message 116 Christmas Carols thread. Why are you comparing the sciences that study evolution with Big Pharma? It is not an equal comparison, which I explained in my previous post. You accuse me of seeing nonexistent conspiracies. There is also such a thing as willful blindness. Why would people who work within a large self-perpetuating system making a lot of money, not be biased in its interests? Is this not even a logical possibility for you? Allopathic medicine is based upon some very specific paradigms. If I said we may need a paradigm shift, it would not be the first time in history, or even the history of science. This is how we move our knowledge on. If we always trusted the received wisdom of the orthodox majority, we'd never do that moving on, we'd be stuck.There is no contradiction between talking about evidence, concepts and hypotheses, and agendas and conspiracies. This is because science cannot be totally objective. Its methods are formulated and practiced by human beings who bring their own biases to the process, and it is illogical to expect them to be able to be completely objective. It's an impossibility for a human being because who we are, and how we think, is based largely on our personal experiences, loyalties, pre-existing beliefs, etc.I don't disagree with you in saying that science is an excellent way of finding out about the world; and if we're measuring that which is detectable by the five senses, then it's one of the best ways. But it's also important to know where its limits and flaws can lie. Is this anything more than a hypothetical example? And what do you classify as strong supporting evidence? I can't honestly remember what you said to me personally on the alt med thread where I talked a few months ago, but I know that when I provided positive studies and also evidence of how some negative studies had flaws, this was all summarily dismissed because of the view that the majority must be right. Basically, no matter how good the studies were that I presented, they were superseded in sheer volume by other kinds of studies. Surely an objective way to do science would be to look at any kind of anomalous evidence and start asking some questions about what it might tell us about current ways of thinking and understanding, and how we could learn from further studies.I don't actually like the word "debunk." It carries several negative connotations. First is that instead of objectively looking at the evidence (see above), you are predetermining that it is "bunk" and that you are going to show everyone that it is so. Another negative connotation is lack of respect for the person making the claim, and again an immediate assumption that they are lying, mistaken or deluded. I don't see any of this as objective science. From having honestly listened to what creationists have said to me, I do see the occasional thought-provoking remark. I think one is guilty of black-and-white thinking to never truly listen to their debate opponent, or to dismiss everything they say as 100% total nonsense. What do I get for this view? Accusations that I'm about to become a creationist myself. Well, not unless the half-lives of radioactive elements suddenly decide to do a back-flip, or the fossil record decides to jumble itself up overnight.You're beginning to sound like Russ, Percy: "Know yourself." People seem to toss this out when they are frustrated that someone else doesn't agree with their point of view. But it's important for everyone to do it, all the time. I work on it every day. I wouldn't come here to talk if I didn't want to. Goodness knows I'm never actually going to win a debate on your terms, so there's no other reason for me to hang around.