The modern conception of science, which the debunker holds so dear, is based upon a particular branch of science which has become dominant over the past four centuries. To grossly simplify historical developments, the physics of Newton and the philosophy of Descartes combined with other factors during the 'Enlightenment', to give central importance of one strand of science - modern science, as we know it. This science is basically physicalism - "the belief that reality is reducible to certain kinds of physical entities"2 (and if you want illustration of this, ask a group of physicists and chemists whether psychology is a science). With this newly dominant science came 'the scientific method'. Many people are surprised to learn that the scientific method is not a gift from god which determines whether something is 'scientific' - it is actually one method of gaining results, amongst a number of possible others (put forward throughout history, from the Gnostics through to Karl Popper). The fact cannot be overstated - the modern scientific method which the pseudo-skeptic virtually deifies, is simply one particular method of revealing information about one particular type of knowledge.Taylor goes on to discuss Thomas Kuhn and "changing paradigms." As to the debunker mind-set, Taylor writes:
So what is the underlying reason for the debunkers position? Why do they feel the need to "portray science not as an open-minded process of discovery, but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery" 14? The obvious conclusion is that behind this behaviour lies a large amount of insecurity. In particular, anxiety that a carefully constructed world-view, which helps them to make sense of the world and also often bestows upon them a position of power, may be dismantled at any moment.Much more, visit the site and read the entire article for yourself.