Part of being open-minded objective good researcher of course, is to investigate both sides to try to get to the bottom of all the biases and prejudices. That's why we advocate it. But in doing so though, one should keep in mind certain prevailing patterns we've found in the skeptical literature. SCEPCOP member Travis Basinger, who has studied both sides extensively and examined the real data in question, explains what we should be wary of and watch out for when researching skeptical literature and sources.
Why You Should be Wary of Skeptical Sources and Literature
"Anyone can claim to have "debunked" something. You start talking about *ANY* paranormal topic or paranormal case or paranormal study, and a Skeptic will speak up and say that it's been "totally debunked by someone much more experienced than me", then they will link to this "debunking", and it's generally a Skeptic article that sounds very convincing to anyone who *hasn't actually read and examined the data and research* of the topic in question, but to those who are familiar with it, is clearly seen as being full of factual errors, distortions, exaggerations, and omissions of data, and lots of clever talk to make it look like there is "nothing there".
If you read just Skeptic Articles and not the actual data and research of what they are discussing, you will be bamboozled quite easily, not being able to fact check what the Skeptics are saying with what the data actually suggests.
You can't suggest someone like me of being one-sided, because I read Csicop, Skepdic Dictionary, Skeptico, and other Skeptic Websites and Skeptic Articles to see what they have to say about X and Y, and then re-examine the data, and boy oh boy, factual errors, distortions, and omitting dazzle shot veridical details in particular cases is rampant.
The thing is, many Skeptic Sources love to leave out important veridical details in particular cases in an attempt to make a case look far less spectacular than it actually is. You wouldn't know the full story unless you read the actual data and research in question.
You need to go back and forth, back and forth, comparing what the Skeptic Sources say against the actual Data and Research in question, and the Arguments of the Skeptics against the Counter-Arguments of the Proponents, in order to filter out the crap and bias, and get to the bottom of things. To not do that is confirmation bias, where you only read and consider sources that agree with you, which would make you no different than a religious fundamentalist.
If you are in a position to criticize research and data, you should not do a half-assed job, like many sources critical of it do, is what it boils down to.
Here's what happens when you critically examine the actual data and research in question, and then go read the skeptic sources on the topic at hand, and then compare what the skeptics are saying (their best arguments) with what the actual data and research shows, and then write about it. What happens? You get Etepwned ...