Since the art of debunking various phenomena is like figuring out how Houdini really pulled off a trick there is a belief system built in to the debunkers methodology that all things can naturally be explained. ... However I have noticed that the things that are debunked are generally ones that have a relatively easy explanation that also reinforces the debunkers belief system.
Yes, you are correct. There are a belief system in us debunkers. I think, sorry for generalizing, debunkers in general are prone to be scientific evidence-based types who does not believe in anything unless there is hard evidence supporting the claim.
But even in science there is "belief". The following is three basic assumptions of science:
- There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
- Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
- There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
Source:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Contrary to what many people think, those three rules can't be proven, but they are the basis of all scientific studies. For example, rule 1 can't be proven unless EVERYTHING is examined and proven, which practically is impossible to do. The same goes for rule 3, which I find to be the most important rule. It basically states that if I test the effect of gravity on 100 identical balls, it will get the same result with ball no. 101. This is again something which can't be proven, unless I measure something on all items which exists. This is important, since science would be impossible without the
uniformity of nature. If I say that bulls do not have gold in their horns, I don't have to prove that by cutting off the horn of every single bull in the world to check. I simply take an appropriate sample of horns and check.
To people who "believe" in science, this is logical. To people who don't, they can question those assumptions, and we can't do much to prove them wrong.
So, if what the above is what you refer to as our belief system, yes. I believe in that. That is my
religion!
Edit: I like below wording better, including limitations of the scientific assumptions:
External Quote:
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
- 1. The world is real. The physical universe exists apart from our sensory experiences.
- 2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe.
- 3. Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world.
- 4. Nature operates uniformly throughout the universe in space and time.
BASIC LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
- A. Our senses have their own biological limitations. Even technological devices for extending those limitations have their own limits of accuracy and range.
- B. Our mental processing of sensory data is not always reliable. We are influenced by previous experiences, biases, and degrees of attention, all contingent* on circumstances.
- C. It's impossible to know if we have considered all possible alternative explanations.
- D. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge (and therefore uncertain). It is not absolute knowledge (certain and eternally true). It is dependent on available evidence, circumstances, tools and our analysis.
Source:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/NOS Over.BasicAssump.html