Skepticism vs. Debunking

[AgnosticBoy]

I assume that we all agree that lack of evidence does not make a claim false. Are skeptics being consistent with this standard if or when they only consider evidence AGAINST something? In other words, is skepticism all about debunking? Or should it be about weeding out facts from non-facts in regards to either side (for and against the resurrection) of a matter?

I understand that it's good to have a standard where you have the ability to prove something false, but that is not the same thing as looking for evidence that would only point to its problems or falsehood. That's not healthy skepticism, imo. Looking for evidence that would only support a claim is just as bad. Either way, it's possible for there to be evidence both for AND against a claim.

Edit: edited to include an example...
Here's an example of someone only looking for information that would debunk (RE: Reverend George Rodonaia NDE - full discussion here).

I am having problems to find any skeptical information about this guy therefore I am posting this here:

Reverend George Rodonaia (died October 12, 2004) underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not "return to life" until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist. Yet after the experience, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of spirituality, taking a second doctorate in the psychology of religion. He then became an ordained priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church. He served as a pastor at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Baytown, Texas. Reverend Rodonaia is one of the NDE experiencers profiled on this page who was dead for days during his NDE.
Taken from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If someone knows any skeptical informations about this guy or how to debunk his story please let me know. I will also take a look at it.

For Debate:
1. Is a skepticism that only seeks to debunk, a reasonable type of skepticism?

[Purple Knight]

Now, as far as I know, as far as I have experienced, and as far as I have found, though I have of course doubted it, the scientific method is the strongest and best gateway to obtaining information. This means that once we have a hypothesis, we take a baseball bat, a crowbar, a blowtorch, and the kitchen sink to that hypothesis and try as hard as we can to tear it apart. Now, the weakness of this method is that it requires integrity, that people will not play with their pet hypothesis with kid gloves on, but I know of no method that does not require some sort of integrity. If you're truly disingenuous you'll just fudge your numbers, which can be done with any method.

This method of trying to tear the knowledge we think is true to pieces produces good results. The knowledge that turns out to be false falls by the wayside, leaving only the truth. So yes, it is in trying to debunk everything we know that yields the superior result. We know this.

So we should of course try to debunk it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

I assume that we all agree that lack of evidence does not make a claim false. Are skeptics being consistent with this standard if or when they only consider evidence AGAINST something? In other words, is skepticism all about debunking? Or should it be about weeding out facts from non-facts in regards to either side (for and against the resurrection) of a matter?

Best I can tell, skepticism has no responsibility to refute the claims of those who can't show their claims are true.

It's also kinda hard to disprove stuff that there's no 'there' to disprove

I understand that it's good to have a standard where you have the ability to prove something false, but that is not the same thing as looking for evidence that would only point to its problems or falsehood. That's not healthy skepticism, imo. Looking for evidence that would only support a claim is just as bad. Either way, it's possible for there to be evidence both for AND against a claim.

How might we go about providing evidence that god ain't there?

The claimant should bear the full burden and cost of their claims.

"That which is asserted without evidence, well how bout that".

For Debate:
1. Is a skepticism that only seeks to debunk, a reasonable type of skepticism?

"Reasonable" is too subjective a term. As relates to our debates herein, I feel no responsibility for a claimants claims, I feel no responsibility to debunk those claims, even if I so often do.

If the claimant can't show they speak truth, that's on them, not me.

[Tcg]

I assume that we all agree that lack of evidence does not make a claim false. Are skeptics being consistent with this standard if or when they only consider evidence AGAINST something? In other words, is skepticism all about debunking? Or should it be about weeding out facts from non-facts in regards to either side (for and against the resurrection) of a matter?

I understand that it's good to have a standard where you have the ability to prove something false, but that is not the same thing as looking for evidence that would only point to its problems or falsehood. That's not healthy skepticism, imo. Looking for evidence that would only support a claim is just as bad. Either way, it's possible for there to be evidence both for AND against a claim.

For Debate:
1. Is a skepticism that only seeks to debunk, a reasonable type of skepticism?

Just a side note, if there is no second point, the first point does not need to be introduced with a "1."


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

delete please

[AgnosticBoy]

Now, as far as I know, as far as I have experienced, and as far as I have found, though I have of course doubted it, the scientific method is the strongest and best gateway to obtaining information. This means that once we have a hypothesis, we take a baseball bat, a crowbar, a blowtorch, and the kitchen sink to that hypothesis and try as hard as we can to tear it apart. Now, the weakness of this method is that it requires integrity, that people will not play with their pet hypothesis with kid gloves on, but I know of no method that does not require some sort of integrity. If you're truly disingenuous you'll just fudge your numbers, which can be done with any method.

This method of trying to tear the knowledge we think is true to pieces produces good results. The knowledge that turns out to be false falls by the wayside, leaving only the truth. So yes, it is in trying to debunk everything we know that yields the superior result. We know this.

So we should of course try to debunk it.

Good points! Your explanation convinces me that debunking can be a good thing. I can accept that it should be part of any testing just as long as the same testing could also be used to prove the claim, as well. My problem with many skeptics is when the focus is only to debunk. Some examples of this behavior is when skeptics only seek out information that would disprove a claim. I suppose that happens more with investigating than with experimenting or testing.

A few years ago, I was searching through a forum for skeptics. Someone brought up a story about an NDE. Instead of asking for evidence that would either support or disprove the story, the author only asked for information that would discredit it. If we dive deeper into the thinking of that author when it comes to asking only for discrediting info., I'm sure we'd find some ideological commitments (materialism, etc.).

I'll try to find that discussion.

[AgnosticBoy]

Continuing from my last post...

I finally found the forum discussion from the skeptics society forum. You can read the full discussion here.

A thread was started about the NDE of Reverend George Rodonaia. The author of this thread opened with this request:

I am having problems to find any skeptical information about this guy therefore I am posting this here:

Reverend George Rodonaia (died October 12, 2004) underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not "return to life" until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist. Yet after the experience, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of spirituality, taking a second doctorate in the psychology of religion. He then became an ordained priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church. He served as a pastor at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Baytown, Texas. Reverend Rodonaia is one of the NDE experiencers profiled on this page who was dead for days during his NDE.
Taken from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If someone knows any skeptical informations about this guy or how to debunk his story please let me know. I will also take a look at it.

The member doesn't ask about evidence FOR, but is simply interested in evidence against a claim. That's one sided, and this is an example of a skeptic who is only looking to debunk. Imagine someone launching an inquiry into the historical Jesus and only wanting to consort sources that go against Jesus's existence, like Richard Carrier's books.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

1. Is a skepticism that only seeks to debunk, a reasonable type of skepticism?

I think that depends on the person asked and their motive.
For me, being skeptic means open to possibility of [whatever] but not having enough to believe it true [or false]. While open to the possibility, that doesn't mean, for me, I must try to find out about [whatever]. In other words, from what I've seen, read and heard on bigfoot, it will take a personal experience for me to admit it does exist. Thus, I'm skeptical but open to possibilities.

[Purple Knight]

My problem with many skeptics is when the focus is only to debunk.

And it ought to be. And if they're honest, one of the things they should try to debunk is that the only path to knowledge is to debunk things.

I'm not sure you see what I did there. I entirely, entirely agreed with you. By agreeing with them.

Sometimes points converge. Perhaps better to think they converge on truth than lies.