The Right Way to Debunk

The topic is how to debunk, not the nature of science. In case someone wants to propose a thread where LindaLou's comments could be addressed, I'll be sure to check in a couple times during the afternoon to see if there's something that can be promoted.--Percy

I'd love to discuss the nature of science if that's what people want to discuss, but this thread is about the nature of debunking, so someone will have to propose another thread. So far, no proposals.If we were talking about debunking, then I'd say that debunking involves examining how well claims correspond to reality, which is something that science does very well.--Percy

If you can see it, touch it, hear it, taste it or smell it, either directly or indirectly through instrumentation, then you can bring scientific observation and experiment to bear upon it.--Percy

Actually, no, I've never said there are things that cannot be studied by science, not things that are part of reality, anyway. Since I've already defined reality several times in this thread, I'm not sure why you ask me how I define it. It would make more sense for you to instead comment upon the definition I already provided so I can respond. If scientific study of someone's experience doesn't confirm it, what would you have science do? Fudge the data so the person doesn't feel bad?Science is the best method we have for finding out what is most likely true about reality, which is the world of our senses. If science with all its technology cannot detect something that someone thinks is nonetheless detectable, at least by them, then most likely the experience does not correspond to reality.--Percy

If you want to talk about the nature of science and whether some people elevate science to a religion and so forth, then I still think you should do what I suggested before, propose a new thread. This thread is about how best to debunk. But you go on to say at the end of your post: If your plan is to keep going off-topic as a way of forcing someone else to propose a topic for what you really want to discuss, then I really, really wish you would stop. Sure I have, and you had no trouble finding one of the places where I defined it. My definition of reality can be expressed in more than one way, but one of the simplest is just to define it in terms of our senses. Anything that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, either directly or indirectly through instrumentation like thermometers and particle detectors, is part of reality. Let me answer your question with a question: if there's more to reality than can be detected by our five senses (and any reasonable sense you'd like to add, like sense of balance, etc.), how are we to become aware of this undetectable part of reality? But 80% of Americans can't find Iceland on an unlabeled world map. As someone famous once said, you'll never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Such statistics are why the lack of quality science education in this country is constantly bemoaned.Scientific research is the term applied to investigation of a new or insufficiently well understood natural phenomenon. Debunking is the term applied to investigating claims of the type that have been shown false over and over again. Both scientific research and debunking apply scientific methods, they differ only in the stated goal. I think that's why you object to debunking, because it starts with an assumption of falsity instead of an open mind. But one doesn't want to keep one's mind so open that the contents fall out, which is what it would mean to ignore prior disconfirmations. Studying a purported phenomenon that has already been disconfirmed is what we mean by debunking. Ignoring prior disconfirmations is called denial.So having defined our terms, let us go on to examine what you say next about paranormal research: It seems in every post you either go off-topic or introduce untrue accusations, or both in the case of this post. No one has made any such claim in this thread. There are a small number of respectable paranormal researchers out there. A few posts ago I mentioned the research group at Princeton that just closed its doors, called the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory. It operated continuously for 30 years, and when announcing the closing the director, founder Robert G. Jahn, said that he's still convinced the phenomena exist and that further research was necessary to establish the reality of the paranormal (A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors). Sheldrake publishes in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, why don't you check it out. Marilyn Schlitz is a respected ESP researcher, why not look her up.I know skeptics and debunkers have a reputation for automatically dismissing claims out of hand, but the reputation is undeserved. For example, researchers have been trying to find scientific evidence for ESP for literally decades, we know now that even the CIA funded (and later abandoned) ESP research in the hope it would be useful in espionage, and it is in light of this history that claims of successful ESP experiments are met with skepticism.If ESP were any mundane area of research then the results would have long ago caused research to cease, but there is something about ESP that is inherently appealing, and so it just never goes away, in the same way that claims of alien visitations and Bigfoot sightings just never go away. There is far, far more research into ESP than the record of non-success could ever justify. Again, what would you have science do? Lie about the results?--Percy

Differences? I don't think so. I agree with everything Crash said, and I only wish I had said it as well as he did.What might seem to be a difference appeared in his reply to where you said, "It is not true that all research ever done on the subject has reached negative conclusions," and I agree with his reply, because he qualified it with an additional condition. I replied in an unqualified fashion to what you said, agreeing that it isn't true that no research has ever provided supporting evidence for the paranormal. Crash qualified his reply, giving a nod to the fact that the more rigorous the study the smaller the effect, virtually nil in the best studies.LindaLou, I really think you're going to have to dig yourself out of your own confusion. You can again blithely dismiss the possibility that you're confused, but it's undeniable because apparently just the fact that two people phrase the same points differently leads you to conclude differences.There's an internal contradiction in your position that is for some reason apparent to everyone but you, again made apparent when you noted that 50% of Americans claim to have had a supernatural or paranormal experience, which you think lends support to the paranormal. But around 50% of Americans accept some variation of creationist views, and in this case you don't interpret the same percentage as lending support to creationism. You can't have it both ways.Even worse, you seem unaware that it is a grievous fallacy to argue the validity of anything on the basis of how many people believe it.Contradictions like this in your thinking have been pointed out again and again, to no avail no matter how many different ways people explain things to you. I think if there's to be any resolution for you that it must come from within.Science is not some weird entity distinct from the day-to-day world. Science just does what we all do everyday, which is to look around us and observe. The only difference is that science is very careful about observing - science has developed technologies and methodologies that raise observing to a high art. If someone thinks they've observed a paranormal phenomenon then if it really exists science can observe it, too, the only difference being that science will do it with great care and thoroughness. That's why the best way by far to determine if a phenomenon is real or not is science.--Percy

My post was on-topic. You're responding the way you always respond to criticism, with a counterattack, usually one that makes no sense, as again here.As I've noted, as Crash has noted, as Ringo has just noted, there's a fundamental inconsistency in your thinking. Until you resolve it you'll be unable to understand that science is the best way by far to learn about the real world. What occurs to me is that you're not listening. Most of your replies are an original essay using the previous post as a point of departure, and you rarely address what anyone actually says unless it angers you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar in 2nd para.

Knowledge is useless if you do not know how to think about it. The way you debunk creationism is the same way you debunk the paranormal and alternative medicine. You seek the best evidence of the phenomenon and see what it tells you about how well the claims correspond to reality.You're attempting to apply different rules of evidence depending upon whether you agree or disagree with the scientific view, which makes no sense whatsoever. For evolution, which you agree with, you accept the scientific evidence, while for traditional medicine, which you disagree with, you reject the scientific evidence while accepting hunches and anecdotal evidence. Very contradictory, and it's because you're not blindly applying a scientific approach no matter what, you're instead choosing how you'll approach a problem depending upon the outcome you want.In debate with creationists you agree with evolution, so you choose a scientific approach. In debate against traditional medicine, you reject a scientific approach and start casting accusations of bias and scientism. Makes no sense, and after all this time it seems unlikely that anything we say is going to resolve this contradiction for you. You're going to have to figure it out for yourself.--Percy

Here we go again! How many times do we have to point out that that's not what we're saying? Finally, an accurate précis of the position of the other side. Everything material, yes. The question you were asked, and that you haven't answered, is if reality is anything and everything detectable directly or indirectly by the five senses (and any reasonable additional sense you'd like to include, such as the sense of balance, etc.), then if there's something more to reality that is not detectable by our senses, how are you going to detect it? Be nice if you'd finally reply to this one. Here we go, yet another accusation. Now we're guilty of insulting meditating monks. Could you just drop the accusations and stick to the topic? LindaLou, you are as blind as a bat to your own contradictions! Creationists believe there's a huge anti-religious agenda behind evolution, and of course there's no truth to it. You believe there's a huge conspiratorial agenda behind traditional medicine and big pharma, and of course there's no truth to this, either. Science wants to talk about evidence and concepts and hypotheses, but just like creationists you want to talk about agendas and conspiracies. The fact of your contradictory position is as obvious as a slap in the face.It is apparent that no help from the outside will help you see the contradictions in your position. You apparently think that whatever you believe is true, and so any arguments you advance for your true position must also be true (a fallacy of the first degree), so you go on and on casting accusations and non sequiturs at everyone else while failing to do the one thing that will bring understanding: self-examination. The blatantly obvious answer to this hasn't changed, LindaLou, I don't know why you keep saying this. There are people who are making big money in alternative medicine, and they don't have to do any research or deal with the FDA, contributing enormously to the bottom line of alternative medicine. If making big money makes one's position questionable, then both sides are on equal ground, except that one has scientific research behind it. This is, finally, the topic. If I set out to debunk some claim of alternative medicine and instead run into strong supporting evidence then guess what? It ain't debunked, it's confirmed. But how can you with any consistency advocate scientific investigation as a way to support the positions of alt med when through this entire thread you've been arguing against science as a way of reliably establishing anything that might be true about the real world? Instead of just denying there's a contradiction, which is just stonewalling, why don't you reply to something someone actually said about the contradictions? It's not like we haven't been specific.--Percy

That's your conclusion, not mine. What I've said is that science studies what is detectable, directly or indirectly, by the five senses, and that if there is more to reality than the five senses can detect it raises the question of how you're going to detect it. What I said was that science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely true about reality. The definition of true that I'm using is, "Consistent with fact or reality." I think the definition of truth that you and LindaLou are using is "that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence." We're not talking about the same thing. Definitions are from Answers.com.--Percy

Notice that my definition said "directly or indirectly". Things that are real have the power to affect us through our senses. We need instruments to detect many things in reality that our senses cannot detect directly (electrons, distant galaxies, DNA). That blind people's eyes can't perceive light doesn't mean light isn't part of reality for them. Certainly photocells still work for blind people, and a spectrometer rigged to print braille or to speak could tell them the color of things.The key question for you is that if there are portions of reality that our senses can't detect, then how do you detect them? That was a definition, not a synonym. Why would you expect the sentence to still make sense after you replace a word with the actual phrase of definition? The parts of speech won't even necessarily match up.What I said was pretty clear, but I can rephrase it for you. Science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely consistent with or representative of reality. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that science makes no claims to ultimate truths, because you've been here a long time and this has been said on many occasions, including by me in this thread several times. Then start a new thread. This thread is about the best way to debunk, which I believe is to seek evidence of a claimed phenomenon to see how well the claims stand up against reality. But you and LindaLou keep making vague statements like this without ever telling us how you're going to detect anything that your senses can't detect. As long as you continue to avoid addressing what appears to everyone else as a very basic logical contradiction, it's a pretty safe assumption you're wrong.--Percy

Not only am I apparently insulting, now I'm crafty. Could you please just address the topic and leave me out of this? We already know what you believe, because you repeat what you believe over and over again. What you don't do is address much of anything in the replies to you. For instance, there's the internal logical contradiction in your position, which you once again fail to address, so I ask again: If there are aspects to reality that are beyond detection by our senses, how do you propose to detect them?It would also address the topic if you described what you think the best approaches to debunking are. Why would people who work within a large self-perpetuating system like alternative medicine making a lot of money and not constrained by actual research funding or the FDA, not be biased in its interests?Human beings and all their frailties are a common denominator, LindaLou, it factors out. The difference between traditional and alternative medicine is that one has a scientific foundation and most of the other does not. People from both sides toss this out at you because you don't listen or respond to what people say. Since you're unresponsive to external feedback, any recognition must come from within.--Percy

Iano, I can't even tell what topic you're addressing. My position is that the best way to debunk something is to examine the evidence and see how well it corresponds to reality. Evidence is what we gather through our senses, either directly, or indirectly through instrumentation. Since everything we know about the real world arrives through our senses, if there are aspects of reality that we cannot sense, then it is not possible for us to be aware of them.That's my position, and it's pretty clear. I can try to address any rebuttals you might like to offer, but I can't explain this any more clearly than I already have. If it doesn't make sense to you then we'll just have to leave it at that.The questions I've asked of you and LindaLou, not once but many times, have yet to be answered:

• If there are aspects of reality indetectable by our senses, how do you propose to detect them?
  ​
• What do you think is the best approach to debunking?

--Percy

You seem to be hung up on the number of senses as somehow significant to the discussion, and not reading the thread very carefully, either. As I already said a couple of times, add any additional reasonable senses you like, such as the sense of balance, etc.Science can study anything that can be sensed by people. There is nothing that can be sensed by people that science can't study. There can only be pointless speculation about indetectable phenomena. But that's the topic. Sounds like you should be reading the thread instead of participating.--Percy

That's nonsense. Observing the real world is what people do everywhere all the time, and that's all that science does. If people can observe it then they can be scientific about observing it. There's nothing about having a lab notebook in front of you that renders phenomena unobservable. You've queried, I've responded as best I can. As I already said, if this doesn't make sense to you then we'll just have to leave it at that.--Percy