> Debunkers are inherently dishonest as they operate
> from the conviction the negative is true
> ergo any positive must be false regardless of the
> actual facts and/or (more often) the accounting by
> witnesses of an event.
It's not just dishonest, it's intellectual laziness and closed mindedness coupled with a lack awareness that there are some things science simply isn't equipped to deal with. Now, as you say, debunking does have a place in subjects that no one with two brain cells would take seriously (like flat earth). But by and large, debunkers engage in anything but logic. In their haste to be "scientific", they just make themselves look foolish.
As I said, they don't debunk evidence. They debunk phenomenological reports and attack the witnesses.
The most common example is
> that UFO's are not "real" therefore what witnesses
> saw must be something-anything-else.
It can't be a UFO, therefore it isn't. Textbook wishful thinking. It doesn't matter to them that their "explanation" is equally devoid of evidence or consistency and in many cases it's downright absurd. Their proposed explanations, like Merrell's sundogs, usually are inconsistent with the facts on the ground. Anything will do, no matter how ridiculous. The astounding thing to me is that people gobble up the debunking without thought just as much as those who gobble up crazy stuff like flat earth.
So many fallacies, so little time.
> They then go looking for any explanation that
> might somehow apply irregardless of the facts or
> what witnesses actually reported more often than
> not by way of omitting key details that are not
> consistent with the explanation they are trying to
> offer. All debunkers want is an "explanation"
> regardless if it is true or not. This does not
> mean all debunkery is "wrong" or that it is not
> useful in its own way, the problem is the premise
> it operates under in that the outcome of an
> investigation is already decided.
Yes. They're not big on facts and evidence if it conflicts with their cozy world view.