The Debunkers Checklist!!

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...sm/drasin.html

INTRODUCTION
skip intro and go straight to debunking manual.
So you've had a close encounter with a UFO. Or a serious interest in
the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for following clues
that seem to point toward the existence of a greater reality. Mention
any of these things to most working scientists and be prepared for
anything from patronizing skepticism to merciless ridicule. After all,
science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little
patience for "expanded" notions of reality. Right?

Wrong.

Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a
profoundly expansive, liberating impulse at its core. This "Zen" in
the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the
nature of things with "beginner's mind". When this is done, reality
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly.
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, must--come
later.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point
of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific
enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization,
hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied
itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and
ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from
the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard
entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of
life and consciousness to a dead physics.

As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in many ways
to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace.
Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high
in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth". As anomalies
mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the
Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a
sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt
of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a
kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the
absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many
promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition,
ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.

What is "debunkery"? Essentially it is the attempt to debunk
(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scientistic
propaganda for the scientific method.

To throw this kind of pseudoscientific behavior into bold--if somewhat
comic--relief, I have composed a useful "how-to" guide for aspiring
debunkers. As will be obvious to the reader, I have carried a few of
these debunking strategies over the threshold of absurdity for the
sake of making a point. As for the rest, their inherently fallacious
reasoning, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly
familar to those who have dared explore beneath the ocean of denial
and attempted in good faith to report back about what they found
there.

So without further ado . . .




HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed:
one armchair.


Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests
that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of
God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous"
or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of
scientific authority.


Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a
holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping infidels. Since
in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate
the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of
defending the scientific method.


Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will
"send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence
that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth
examining.


Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the
process of science with the content of science. (Someone may, of
course, object that since science is a universal approach to
truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the
investigative process can be scientifically responsible or
irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method
employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure
everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")


Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The
degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to
the prestige of your mouthpiece.


Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims", which are "touted",
and to your own assertions as "facts", which are "stated".


Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with
impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test
of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and
clear!)


If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there
is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence
that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being
"too pat".


Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with all of
science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical
elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration,
exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing
science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.


Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown
in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism.
You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding
more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally
be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.


Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a
normal part of science.


Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced
reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only
those presentations whose time constraints and a priori bias preclude
such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.


At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is
necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and
consequently inadmissible as evidence.


State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at
best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.


Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers". Summarily
dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief,
albeit in the status quo.


Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single
flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may
sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and
human beings are imperfect".


"Occam's Razor", or the "principle of parsimony", says the correct
explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental
principles. Insist, therefore, that the standard explanation is the
correct one, since it involves no additional assumptions! Imply
strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of
thumb but an immutable law.


Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as
yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical,
philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.


Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between
evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If
absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no
evidence!"


If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone
proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not
supposed to prove anything.


In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate
the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of
investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been
established for the phenomenon in question.


Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for
phenomena that do not exist.


Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged
by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by
declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"--
but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the
"extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an
infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define
"extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any
point in time.


In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible
to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may
be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to
strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties.
Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy,
for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets,
stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with
hammers.


Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena
popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and
researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one
case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a
claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been
(or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it
as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile,
lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case".


Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing
what's not there, and not to denying what is there.


If a significant number of people agree that they have observed
something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to
"mass hallucination". Avoid addressing the possibility that the
consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.


Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most
chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and
innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually
any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to
sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to
buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.


By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes
an essential feature of the scientific method that can raise the level
of objectivity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is
conducted.


If pressed about your novel interpretations of the scientific method,
declare that "intellectual integrity is a subtle issue".


Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that
in order to investigate the existence of something one must first
believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers"
know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete
detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by
reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these
fantastic phenomena". Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not
about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.


Use "smoke and mirrors", i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget
that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context
information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the
time. As little as one part fact to ten parts b***t will usually do
the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact
with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth
between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation
of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of
opinion.


Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if
someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond
immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because
your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did
not really refute the original remark.


Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question.
Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and
time-consuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so
insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids.
If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!"
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or
"freak", or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for
"bogus".


Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for
careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an
unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to
discredit part of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case
completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that
hypothetically could explain it; c) declare therefore that that one
element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to
the world that the entire case has been explained!


Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the
phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation.
This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses
to such phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by)
talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in
precisely the same way.


Find a prosaic phenomenon that, to the uninitiated, resembles the
claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace
look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For
example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and

esotericmaster wrote:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...sm/drasin.html

INTRODUCTION
skip intro and go straight to debunking manual.
So you've had a close encounter with a UFO. Or a serious interest in
the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for following clues
that seem to point toward the existence of a greater reality. Mention
any of these things to most working scientists and be prepared for
anything from patronizing skepticism to merciless ridicule. After all,
science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little
patience for "expanded" notions of reality. Right?

Wrong.

Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a
profoundly expansive, liberating impulse at its core. This "Zen" in
the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the
nature of things with "beginner's mind". When this is done, reality
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly.
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, must--come
later.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point
of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific
enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization,
hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied
itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and
ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from
the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard
entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of
life and consciousness to a dead physics.

As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in many ways
to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace.
Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high
in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth". As anomalies
mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the
Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a
sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt
of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a
kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the
absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many
promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition,
ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.

What is "debunkery"? Essentially it is the attempt to debunk
(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scientistic
propaganda for the scientific method.

To throw this kind of pseudoscientific behavior into bold--if somewhat
comic--relief, I have composed a useful "how-to" guide for aspiring
debunkers. As will be obvious to the reader, I have carried a few of
these debunking strategies over the threshold of absurdity for the
sake of making a point. As for the rest, their inherently fallacious
reasoning, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly
familar to those who have dared explore beneath the ocean of denial
and attempted in good faith to report back about what they found
there.

So without further ado . . .




HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed:
one armchair.


Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests
that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of
God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous"
or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of
scientific authority.


Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a
holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping infidels. Since
in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate
the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of
defending the scientific method.


Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will
"send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence
that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth
examining.


Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the
process of science with the content of science. (Someone may, of
course, object that since science is a universal approach to
truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the
investigative process can be scientifically responsible or
irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method
employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure
everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")


Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The
degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to
the prestige of your mouthpiece.


Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims", which are "touted",
and to your own assertions as "facts", which are "stated".


Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with
impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test
of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and
clear!)


If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there
is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence
that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being
"too pat".


Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with all of
science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical
elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration,
exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing
science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.


Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown
in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism.
You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding
more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally
be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.


Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a
normal part of science.


Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced
reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only
those presentations whose time constraints and a priori bias preclude
such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.


At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is
necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and
consequently inadmissible as evidence.


State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at
best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.


Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers". Summarily
dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief,
albeit in the status quo.


Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single
flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may
sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and
human beings are imperfect".


"Occam's Razor", or the "principle of parsimony", says the correct
explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental
principles. Insist, therefore, that the standard explanation is the
correct one, since it involves no additional assumptions! Imply
strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of
thumb but an immutable law.


Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as
yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical,
philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.


Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between
evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If
absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no
evidence!"


If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone
proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not
supposed to prove anything.


In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate
the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of
investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been
established for the phenomenon in question.


Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for
phenomena that do not exist.


Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged
by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by
declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"--
but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the
"extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an
infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define
"extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any
point in time.


In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible
to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may
be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to
strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties.
Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy,
for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets,
stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with
hammers.


Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena
popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and
researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one
case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a
claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been
(or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it
as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile,
lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case".


Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing
what's not there, and not to denying what is there.


If a significant number of people agree that they have observed
something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to
"mass hallucination". Avoid addressing the possibility that the
consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.


Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most
chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and
innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually
any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to
sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to
buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.


By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes
an essential feature of the scientific method that can raise the level
of objectivity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is
conducted.


If pressed about your novel interpretations of the scientific method,
declare that "intellectual integrity is a subtle issue".


Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that
in order to investigate the existence of something one must first
believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers"
know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete
detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by
reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these
fantastic phenomena". Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not
about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.


Use "smoke and mirrors", i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget
that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context
information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the
time. As little as one part fact to ten parts b***t will usually do
the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact
with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth
between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation
of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of
opinion.


Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if
someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond
immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because
your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did
not really refute the original remark.


Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question.
Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and
time-consuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so
insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids.
If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!"
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or
"freak", or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for
"bogus".


Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for
careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an
unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to
discredit part of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case
completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that
hypothetically could explain it; c) declare therefore that that one
element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to
the world that the entire case has been explained!


Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the
phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation.
This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses
to such phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by)
talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in
precisely the same way.


Find a prosaic phenomenon that, to the uninitiated, resembles the
claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace
look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For
example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and

Awww, where's the rest?
Al stole it! That SOB!

"esotericmaster" wrote in message
om...
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...sm/drasin.html

What is "debunkery"? Essentially it is the attempt to debunk
(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scientistic
propaganda for the scientific method.


Wrong!

The word "debunk" despite your attempt to spin it, actually means: To expose
or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.

Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the
prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin
of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came
from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress.
During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from
western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on
with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later
explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a
masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the
language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in
1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The
response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not
recorded until 1923.

"esotericmaster" wrote in message
om...

What is "debunkery"? Essentially it is the attempt to debunk
(invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scientistic
propaganda for the scientific method.

That is quite incorrect.

When one debunks something, one exposes the false, misleading, or
exaggerated content therein. Sort of like what I just did with
your invalid definition for "debunkery".