Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers

Followers of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence whether mainstream exobiology or the marginal exploits of ufology — are routinely confronted with three terms that quietly challenge assumptions of reality: skeptic, debunker and believer. In the storm of claims, hypotheses and accusations that define esoteric research, these labels are routinely misused. I’d like to take this opportunity to look a bit closer at these emotionally charged words in order to see what they really mean, and how they sculpt the epistemological landscape. (I suspect that most readers versed in forbidden science secretly know all of this already, but the public arena incessantly distorts definitions to suit its own politics; consequently, one rarely sees skeptic, debunker or believer used in proper context.)

1.) Skeptics - Skeptics are thinkers. Skeptics neither debunk nor believe — unless they are able to establish that a given phenomenon deserves to be debunked. Belief is not a luxury the true skeptic can afford; the mechanics of skeptical thought are rooted in probability and open-mindedness. Being a skeptic requires courage and intellectual flexibility. What looks like a neat idea may turn out to be unsubstantiated nonsense; conversely, it might be the real thing.

2.) Debunkers - Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described skeptics. There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the pro side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk.

The term debunker is often taken as a negative word, perhaps best personified by orangutan scientist-theologian Dr. Zaius in Planet of the Apes. But there’s nothing wrong with being a debunker as long as the debunker can back up his or her claims. Of course, this doesn’t mean that some commentators won’t abuse the urge to debunk — usually in the name of skepticism. For example, astronomer Donald Menzel debunked countless UFO sightings based on his scientifically baseless conviction that there could be no such thing as an alien craft in Earths airspace. Veteran ufologist Philip Klass continued in Menzel’s role, correctly debunking many spurious UFO reports but erroneously debunking others. This is inevitable, as Klass self-stated maxim was that all UFO reports can be attributed to prosaic causes.

3.) Believers - Along with faux-debunkers, believers are the most significant fetter to open-minded inquiry. Believers have no pressing need for facts; a few vague correlations or anonymous insider remarks will suffice. Believers typically revolve around the notion that great shifts in scientific thought are usually initiated by lone eccentrics whose genius is often recognized only posthumously. Thus, their being branded as cranks by the mainstream is flaunted as a badge of honor, as if identifying them as architects of the Next Great Paradigm.

While genuine pioneers are indeed often derided in their time, this is no promise that today’s crackpot theory will be vindicated. However, this doesn’t faze believers. Nothing fazes believers. True believers will weave contradictory evidence into their own models of reality, rationalizing it with arcane philosophical acrobatics. (Try wrapping your mind around the schizophrenic cosmos conceived by Christian Fundamentalists and Creation Scientists.)

We should all strive to be skeptics. But that means taking a hard look at the principles of skepticism as relayed by the mainstream skeptical community (whose output is as flawed by what it doesn’t present as believer-oriented media is flawed by its credulity).

Mac Tonnies

April 13th, 2009 by admin | Posted in Aliens | (0)