The Debunking Dogma

[Joe Newman]

Starting a new thread picking up where Mick and I left off in the "JFK 50 years later" thread. He had posted a paper with this conclusion, so I will pick it up from there.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/dead-and-alive-pdf.3339
Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.

​

This is certainly a possibility for some and a probability for many. That said, a strong case can be made that everything after the dash applies equally to the debunking community. In fact, that's my thesis to a t.

I strongly disagree. Debunkers base their actions on science which in turn is based on the idea of falsifiability and challenges to existing dogma.

This is said all the time, but it's not supported by evidence as far as my experience goes. I may be new here, but I am not new to the the debunker/skeptic universe as a whole, and my chief kick against it is that this very line is parroted far, far more than it is practiced.

As for challenging the existing dogma, that's precisely what I am doing here because the walk does not match the talk anywhere near the degree to which is assumed.

As problematic as I found that study you cited, they couldn't have nailed my view of the debunker/skeptic model any better than they did because after long observation from outside the choir room looking in, I see a "unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system."

 

[Mick West]

Can you give some examples?

 

[Soulfly]

Are you here to dispute debunkers claims or just here to try and let them know why you think they are wrong? You keep bringing up "evidence" but I haven't really seen you give any evidence to support any of your claims, just opinions.

 

[Mick West]

The root problem I have with this idea is that you are equating "the conviction that authorities and officials engage in
massive deception of the public to achieve their malevolent goals." with the conviction that the scientific method is a great way of determining how the world works.

Those two things are entirely dissimilar. I'm sure you could argue they are both "monological belief systems",but that's just abstract semantics, not reality.

 

[Joe Newman]

The root problem I have with this idea is that you are equating "the conviction that authorities and officials engage in massive deception of the public to achieve their malevolent goals." with the conviction that the scientific method is a great way of determining how the world works.

Those two things are entirely dissimilar. I'm sure you could argue they are both "monological belief systems",but that's just abstract semantics, not reality.

I can argue lots of things, Mick, and one of them is for value of the scientific method, so you have nothing on me when it comes to that conviction.

I clearly stated my thesis, so let's go with that instead of your straw man version. We can have a far more productive exploration that way.

To be clear, this isn't about comparing the two camps. This is about the dogma that debunkers "base their actions on science which in turn is based on the idea of falsifiability and challenges to existing dogma."

That is your assertion, and I say it's demonstrably false. That's what this thread is about and I sure hope it stays that way instead of being pulled off course. But first things first. We have to build a base before we can go jumping off it.

You mentioned reality, but all I know is what you guys don't believe. I need to know where you are coming from. I know you have a long list here of all the stuff you don't consider part of reality, so I need to know the parameters of what you do consider real.

 

[MikeC]

OK - so you say it is demonstrably false - so.....demonstrate the falsehood(s).

 

[Joe Newman]

Are you here to dispute debunkers claims or just here to try and let them know why you think they are wrong?

Uh, those two are the same thing, aren't they? Regardless, I'm here to explore the debunker dogma, just like I clearly said.

You keep bringing up "evidence" but I haven't really seen you give any evidence to support any of your claims, just opinions.

I can't say I recall doing so, but if you have an examples of my making a claim sans support, I'd be happy to see them.

 

[Pete Tar]

...I know you have a long list here of all the stuff you don't consider part of reality, so I need to know the parameters of what you do consider real.

Examine, subtract all that is false, what is left must be real until proven otherwise. There is no final certainty but there is a practical balance.

 

[Cairenn]

I consider peer reviewed Science to be accurate until proven otherwise. I apply logic to questions. Is the 'story' possible? Is it probable? Can it be proved? Do I have suspend my logic to believe it? I will do that for good SF stories, fantasy and even decent romance novels. I will NOT do it to things in the real world, if doing it will harm or may harm someone.

I may not believe in 'power of prayer' but having friends say a prayer or light a candle is comforting to many folks. I will allow a suspension of disbelief for that.

 

[MikeC]

I'm still waiting for the demonstration of the falsehoods......

 

[Joe Newman]

Can you give some examples?

Yeah, I can give tons. But instead of piling them up out of the box, I thought it would be better to give an excellent non-example in order to have something to juxtapose them against so people can see the stark contrast.

I got this reply from cosmo earlier and it just me blew me away for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject, but everything to do with form.

Joe Newman said: ↑

I'm of the mind that they went there and probably faked some of the footage we saw.​

Why do you believe this, and, would it be possible for you to list specifics? Which footage in particular do you consider genuine, and how do you tell the difference between that and what you allege is "fake"?

Joe Newman said: ↑

They certainly had the capacity and shot the shit for no other reason than a Milli Vanilli backup.​

Based on what evidence do you think NASA "had the capacity" to engage in the required fakery?

Joe Newman said: ↑

Their track record hadn't exactly been spotless along the way and there was a freakish amount of pressure to pull it off.​

It's not like the missions went off without hitches (obviously). I'm curious to know what your insinuation is about NASA's track record, though: are you referencing the Apollo 1 fire (or the Apollo 13 malfunction), or are you suggesting some form of deceit on their part?

***

You might not think there's anything special about this one, but I say it's an extremely rare beast. If you disagree, show me another like it.

 

[Mick West]

Can you explain what you think that exchange demonstrates?

 

[Soulfly]

Uh, those two are the same thing, aren't they? Regardless, I'm here to explore the debunker dogma, just like I clearly said.

No, disputing evidence usually involves trying to present counter evidence to back up your claims and telling debunkers why you think they are wrong is just your opinion.

I can't say I recall doing so, but if you have an examples of my making a claim sans support, I'd be happy to see them

This is said all the time, but it's not supported by evidence as far as my experience goes.

You have made claims, that evidence given by debunkers can not be called debunked. You dispute debunkers evidence yet give none of your own in return.

 

[cosmic]

You might not think there's anything special about this one, but I say it's an extremely rare beast. If you disagree, show me another like it.

I'm of course curious to know what you mean.

 

[Joe Newman]

I'm of course curious to know what you mean.

Heh. There you go again with the curiosity. This is why I put your post up there as a great example and something I would love to see more of.

Why? Look at it. I make a series of statements about how I thought about an issue that many folks consider a closed deal. Maybe you do as well, I don't know.

And the reason I don't know is exactly what is so great about your post. Instead of just assuming what I might have to say is wrong, or arrogantly proclaiming I was full of shit, you did what is so rare in debunker circles--you simply asked me to clarify and expand what I was saying. I don't mean just once, but all the way down the line.

That may not sound like a big deal, but it only becomes clear why it was when you look at what you didn't do.

You didn't put words in my mouth. You didn't assume where I was coming from. You didn't erect a silly strawman and argue against that instead of what I put forth. You didn't assign me a camp so that you could safely dispense with the issue by labeling it as the province of thsoe krazy kook konspiracy klowns.

You didn't do any of that. You just asked me to clarify and expand so that we could flesh out the skeleton I put up to see if we agreed or not on the meat of the matter. It was so beautiful and rare I almost cried right before fainting.

Which leaves me with the simple question: why can't the approach you took be more the norm than the freakish anomaly it struck me as?

 

[Mick West]

So can you give some examples of "the norm"?

 

[cosmic]

Joe Newman: while I appreciate your kind words, I don't think my replies are anomalous. All the message boards I've ever enjoyed have enforced specific rulesets about politeness, similar to the protocol here. Moreover, I'm genuinely interested in discussing the subject, as space exploration and the history of spaceflight are of great significance to me.

Your compliments are nice to read, of course -- however, it should be noted that my replies to you really aren't anything special. I'm simply trying to understand what you believe about Apollo and why. Despite my queries, we've yet to establish any of that.

P.S.: it's cosmic, not cosmo.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention... yes, I do consider Apollo conspiracy claims of any variety I've encountered long since put to bed.