On Sun, 12 May 2013, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than
small 's' skeptic.
Nah, because we become "debunkers" only if we start logging onto forums in
order to crusade against the sad muddled beliefs of their users. For
example, I don't subscribe to crazy Phrenologist belief systems, or even
UFO stuff. Does that make me a Debunker? Nooo, I just disbelieve, yet I
have zero interest in those topics. And if a pro-N-rays thread takes off
here, that's no prob, even though I'm a complete Disbeliever.
Again, everyone please read: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html, it's
basically the Rule II details.
"Small-s" is just normal scientific critical analysis, while "large-S"
refers to the Skeptic Activists, to crusaders, to people who go out
searching for inferior deluded minds to set right. Large-S is the
self-described 'Skeptics' who've made up their own minds 100%, and who now
are selecting evidence in order to preserve this decision.
(A side issue would be folks like Leroy Ellenberger, a former TB follower
of Velikovski who became an over-the-top sneering critic. Heh, any pro-CF
people getting disillusioned, and want to launch a debunking crusade?)
So, is it OK for debunkers to come here and debate, as long as they stay
polite? Debunkery without sneering? Nope. It's still DEBUNKING, attack
by a convinced disbeliever, and is a useless and endless battle. It is
not a debate unless both sides are able to put themselves in the other
guy's shoes, or at least to shift their views according to evidence.
As I said, "Debunkers" are our police force, and it's easier to convince a
cop that burglary is OK, than to convince a debunker that CF isn't pure
garbage needing to be stamped out. We can mount all sorts of pro-burglary
arguments to send to the police. They won't even read them, unless it's
to find more stupidity to dissect. But that means they're SELECTING DATA,
ignoring anything that might harm their confident stance in their own
rightness!!! Yes, of course. Debunkers and police are supposed to be the
opposite of scientists: they won't give one thought to criticizing their
own position, especially when they're hip deep in bad guys; bad guys who
are trying to shatter their confidence and convert them into criminals, or
at least turn them into self-questioning wimpy fence-sitters.
So, if one wants to be entirely safe on vortex-L, then before deciding to
launch a solid and well-investigated criticims of the flaws of CF, you
really need to be a long-time CF believer. Or at least be very obviously
undecided and open-minded about it. Staunch disbelievers who actively
launch criticism, that's what Debunkers are, and that's who vortex-L is
designed to exclude.
PS
All this is modeled on many other real life wack-o alt-science
communities, communities where one segment may despise some of the beliefs
of another. The UFO people rubbing shoulders with astrologers. They
all get along by the simple trick of refusing to criticize the
"contemptible incorrect beliefs" of fellow community members. If they
want to debunk someone's dangerous craziness, they go well outside the
community to do it.
Ah, here's another aspect. Does someone say to you, "I totally disagree
with what you're staying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say
it?" Yes? Then they're probably no Debunker. In my experience,
debunkers want their targets silenced. Their core attitude might or might
not be hidden, but it involves disrespect, even disgust. (I.e. our police
force is contemptuous of the Perps, and hopes to see the bad guys removed
from society, not given a soapbox.)
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
