How Should Forums Handle Persistent Science Debunkers?

[arivero]

It seems to me that a lot of people around in the Forums are getting a role of "Science Debunkers". This is, their aim does not seem to be understanding nor researching, but just showing that science has irremediable(?) gaps. I do not know what to do of this.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by arivero
It seems to me that a lot of people around in the Forums are getting a role of "Science Debunkers". This is, their aim does not seem to be understanding nor researching, but just showing that science has irremediable(?) gaps. I do not know what to do of this.

well, after all that's why freedom of speech was invented...
I say just enjoy PF and ignore what it's obviously wrong

 

[mouseonmoon]

There's no end to 'Man's Pride'-whether 'irrational belief' or 'rational belief'--if either dominates and there is no "Love"--it's 'witch-hunts and heretic times' all over again--keep 'em humble--let's hear from the mystics and Common Sense.
just heard this today:
Knowledge is awareness, and to it there are many paths, not all of them paved with logic. But sometimes one is guided through the maze by intuition. One is led by something felt on the wind, something seen in the stars, something that calls from the wastelands to the spirit.

--Johannes Verne in The Lonesome Gods by Louis L'Amour

best-
Shine On!

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

yep, my point exactly...

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by arivero
It seems to me that a lot of people around in the Forums are getting a role of "Science Debunkers". This is, their aim does not seem to be understanding nor researching, but just showing that science has irremediable(?) gaps. I do not know what to do of this.

If it's a new 'gap' that hasn't been discussed before, why not? Keeps you on your toes. (and if the thread's got no discussion on something new or interesting, one doesn't need to even read it).

However, what you may be referring to is the same, tired old arguments regurgitated. Perhaps there could be a set of canned responses? something like "SR has been tested in over n {the actual number} experiments, reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Here {link} is a list of those experiments, with references to the literature. If you cannot find an experiment which addresses your specific challenge to SR in this list, please come back with a precise statement of what has not yet been tested. Note that many of the n experiments have been discussed here {a PF link or sixteen}. If you have genuine questions on an experiment, many PF members would be pleased to help you understand the experiment. OTOH, if you have a new idea in the domain of SR, please post that in Theory Development sub-forum." This puts the onus on the 'science debunker' to go do their homework (rather than having us do it for them).