Aine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has a BA in journalism and anthropology which
> makes him a good writer with just enough
> background to make his debunking sound good. I'm
> not impressed with him either, although I'm
> embarrassed to admit that I've quoted him
> too...and then I did my homework.
>
> But I completely agree with the substance of your
> post, and I side with you and Lee on this one.
> Debunking is in no way disproof. Debunkers debunk
> phenomenological reports, not evidence.
>
> Debunkers don't understand that by attacking so
> hard, they simply generate more sympathy for the
> people they're trying to debunk.

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. The most common example is that UFO's are not "real" therefore what witnesses saw must be something-anything-else. 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.