posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:50 PM
Dam, i would classify you as a skeptic. A very far cry from a debunker.
Believe it or not, i would also consider myself to be a skeptic.
To discuss skepticism further, let us begin with a definition;
1) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.
2) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.
A skeptic is an individual that does not immediately take sides on an issue, rather is critical of all opinions. A skeptic does not make a decision
until sufficient evidence is presented with which to make a determination.
Debunkers are often mistakenly labeled as skeptics. This is very, very wrong. A debunker has already decided not to believe without ever
looking at one piece of evidence. No matter what evidence or proof is presented to them, they will continually find inconsistent and baseless grounds
to deny. They often times will not look at the evidence so as to maintain, "I have not seen any evidence that...."
Debunkers rely of baseless accusations that are couched in emotive language seemingly designed for cinematic effect. Their goal is to distract their
audience from the fact that they have absolutely no evidence, let alone proof of what they are saying.
For an instance of skepticism as opposed to debunking, Geocentrism versus heliocentrism;
Early western astronomers were attempting to reconcile the vast array of inconsistencies presented by the church's Ptolemaic theory of Geocentrism.
What the church said directly contradicted what cold hard science presented. Obviously, scientists would have to be idiots to just jump on
heliocentrism like they had previously believed in geocentrism. So, through a skeptical enquiry known as The Scientific Method, they accumulated
enourmous evidence with which they could use to develop heliocentristic theories.
The church, facing the prospect of admitting they are only humans with no divine knowledge and no direct line of communication with god, refused to
capitulate. They wined and moaned like a bunch of babies, despite hard evidence.
Dam, you do raise some interesting questions based upon solid fact that actually make me think. Whereas debunkers make ridiculous assertions like,
"Thats impossible!" or "That can easily be explained" to which they then offer no explanation, of pull some illogical BS out of thin air.
Or they will say, "If they could fake 911 then they could plant WMD's in iraq!" Which, let me debunk the debunkers on this one right here and now.
Its called forensics. Why dont you guys ask the government how well their original "Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks" claim went over
once investigators actually looked at the samples and proved conclusively that it had come from Ft. Dietrich. Chemical weapons are produced different
ways by different countries. Tell tale chemical signatures left by manufacturing are impossible to conceal. Biological weapons have something known as
DNA!!!. Nuclear weapons are made from nuclear material. Nuclear material must be processed, enriched, and otherwise fabricated. Nuclear
material has very definitive levels of isotopes. Isotopes analysis is how they do carbon dating. Isotopes decay is how they use atomic clocks.
Isotopes can be put into Gas chromatography / Mass spectrometers. Nuclear materials / weapons can be traced back to the exact reactor from which
they originated. Post event forensics not only tell you who or where but when and how nuclear material was created...
[edit on 2/14/2007 by sp00n1]
[edit on 2/14/2007 by sp00n1]