How 'Debunkers' and 'True Believers' discourage serious paranormal researc

/Home/Paranormal investigation/Paranormal Investigation Articles

How 'Debunkers' and 'True Believers' discourage serious paranormal researc
July 21, 2009
Pamela Grundy
Examiner.com

Have you ever noticed that when it comes to a reported haunting, a UFO sighting, or a cryptid sighting ( for example, Bigfoot, the Michigan Dogman, Ogo Pogo), most people tend to quickly separate into the opposing camps of Debunkers or True Believers?

In fact, reports of paranormal evens are frequently framed in terms of opposing belief systems, as in, "I believe in UFOs," or "I don't believe in UFOs."

Everybody has their beliefs, and healthy skepticism is definitely called for when it comes to extraordinary claims. Yet the tendency to reduce all paranormal claims and sightings to an instant yes/no answer before any serious investigation is conducted, is a major roadblock to understanding what is actually going on. It can even discourage or prevent good research from ever taking place.

True Believers tend to look only for evidence that shows that the phenomena they are researching are absolutely real. By taking this approach and not testing their assumptions, they can easily discard evidence that shows that what they believe is incorrect and ignore better explanations.

In a similar way, Debunkers start with the assumption the paranormal phenomena cannot possibly be real. They look to disprove claims and offer rational explanations instead. Debunkers easily discard anything they can't explain. They don't really test their prior assumptions either, they only look to confirm them.

Debunkers often do come up with persuasive rational explanations for paranormal claims, but those explanations may or may not be backed up by any more evidence than paranormal explanations. In other cases, the 'rational' explanations offered up by Debunkers are so tortured and convoluted they end up actually being less credible than the simpler paranormal ideas they set out to debunk.

The basic problem is that both Debunkers and True Believers start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe. Science doesn't proceed this way. Science starts with a hypothesis, and then looks for evidence to disprove it. If none can be found, over time the hypothesis becomes accepted theory.

Even after a theory is accepted by science, that theory can still be challenged if evidence ever emerges that suggests it might be incorrect or inadequate.

The best paranormal researchers understand mainstream scientific explanations of phenomena and look for compelling evidence that those explanations are inadequate or even wrong. The best skeptics understand current paranormal explanations and look for compelling evidence that those explanation are inadequate or misguided. Skepticism and paranormal research do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The most interesting outcomes of paranormal investigations are of course the ones which are unexplainable even after rigorous investigation by all camps, and which require more research to be explained at all. Scientists live for this kind of outcome. It's what makes science exciting.

The most damaging effect of the Debunker/True Believer opposition is that it discourages real scientists from collecting and analyzing evidence regarding any claims of the paranormal. Science is very political and scientists don't want to be ridiculed. They worry about their careers and about future funding.

We don't have to decide in advance whether people are actually seeing Bigfoot or making it all up or misidentifying some other animal, we can just take an interest in the fact that such reports continue with a tantalizing frequency, and collect as much data as possible, then analyze it and see where such analysis leads.

We can also maintain a healthy skepticism and adopt scientific methods to the degree that we are able, so that when we do approach the scientific community with evidence, it truly tantalizes and engages serious research and thought. The more we find evidence of that nature, the more mainstream science perks up its ears.