The Art of DEBUNKING
Leo Sgouros
Aaron LeClair wrote in message <36C02B2B...@bellsouth.net>...
> Yeh, I like it too. I've printed it out, and have a person or 2 in mind
to
>give it to.
>
>Robert ASF. wrote:
>
>> This is a great post! Really read it! Think of the time it took
to
>> write it.... Yes I have also cross posted this AAV, just to stir the
water
>> with blood for the sharks!
>> Thanks for posting! I loved it!
>>
>> On 1 Feb 1999 17:49:01 -0600, ThE gUy <ThE...@nobodyKn.ows> wrote:
>> > HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
>> >
>> > PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY
>> >
>> > 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
>> > scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending
>> > 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 science must be neutral to subject matter and that 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, legitimate disagreement and
>> > respectful debate are a normal part of science.
>> >
>> > 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 arises exclusively from
the
>> > "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest
>> > misinterpretation of the conventional.
>> >
>> > 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 most familiar explanation is by
>> > definition the simplest! 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.
>> >
>> > 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, which is routinely observed by millions, 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 scientific method that can raise the level of
>> > objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any
>> > investigation is conducted.
>> >
>> > 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.S. 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 timeconsuming,
>> > 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 that therefore 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 resembles, no matter how superficially,
>> > 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 clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion
>> > and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.
>> >
>> > When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence
>> > (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively
>> > on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the intelligence
rather
>> > than the intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism. The
>> > more attention you devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can
>> > distract people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or
>> > nonterrestrial intelligence.
>> >
>> > Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible
>> > forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the
>> > physical sciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces and
>> > extrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with
>> > a
>> > condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the
>> > facts."
>> >
>> > Insist that western science is completely objective, and is based on
no
>> > untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or ideological interests. If an
>> > unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens to be considered true
>> > and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditional society, you may
>> > therefore dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval
>> > superstition" or "fairy lore."
>> >
>> > Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal,"
>> > "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most
>> > mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional
>> > grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation
>> > of
>> > such phenomena by decades or even centuries!
>> >
>> > Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that
>> > supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers,
>> > military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?"
>> > (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be
>> > mentally unstable.)
>> >
>> > Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For
>> > example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or
>> > "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all
>> > such questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed
>> > on the
>> > White House lawn?"
>> >
>> > Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by
>> > building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote
>> > them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by
>> > acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've
>> > taken.
>> > Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to
>> > misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on
>> > grounds that to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless. To make the
>> > whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to
>> > their
>> > claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.
>> >
>> > Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not scientifically
>> > testable because no self-respecting grantmaking organization would fund
>> > such ridiculous tests.
>> >
>> > Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has failed
>> > to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it worthless,
>> > while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the shortcomings of
>> > conventional medicine.
>> >
>> > Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial
>> > policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual
>> > or
>> > inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this
as
>> > proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.
>> >
>> > When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is
>> > scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at
>> > all. If the
>> > claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her
>> > perceptions cannot possibly be objective.
>> >
>> > If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
>> > participants--or the journalists who reported the case. Ad-hominem
>> > arguments, or
>> > personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the
>> > public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the
>> > unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with
>> > their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities
>> > connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking
>> > tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means
>> > of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being
>> > realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public
>> > recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as
>> > "publicity seekers."
>> >
>> > Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of
>> > those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge.
>> > Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the UFO
>> > question, although course credits in ufology have never been a
>> > prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.
>> >
>> > Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to go away,
>> > set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they hoaxed it. The
>> > press and the public will always tend to view confessions as sincerely
>> > motivated, and will promptly abandon their critical faculties. After
>> > all, nobody wants to appear to lack compassion for self-confessed
>> > sinners.
>> >
>> > Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found the
>> > person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!"
>> >
>> > Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have
>> > been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this
>> > whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or,
>> > for that matter, even exist.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > PART 2: DEBUNKING THE UFO
>> >
>> > Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and
cannot
>> > be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not
>> > anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
>> >
>> > Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws.
>> > Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional
>> > mobility as mere flights of fancy "because obviously they would violate
>> > nature's laws." Then if a UFO is reported to have hovered silently,
>> > made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared
>> > instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.
>> >
>> > Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space.
>> > Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the
>> > universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already
in
>> > outer space, has abundant life.
>> >
>> > Point out that the government-sponsored SETI program assumes in
advance
>> > that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away
>> > from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then
>> > insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.
>> >
>> > When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology,
>> > point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was
>> > extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly
>> > ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception
>> > would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn-the
>> > sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of
>> > skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
>> >
>> > If photographs or other visual media depicting a UFO have been
>> > presented, argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated
they
>> >
>> > prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or
>> > the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the
quality
>> > of a
>> > UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed
>> > every known test may therefore be held to be the most perfectly
>> > fraudulent of all!
>> >
>> > If you can't otherwise destroy the credibility of a UFO photo, plant a
>> > small model of the alleged craft near the photographer's home where it
>> > can be conveniently discovered and whisked off to the local media. The
>> > model need not resemble the original too closely; as long as the
>> > press says it's a dead ringer nobody will question the implication of
>> > fraud.
>> >
>> > Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus
>> > because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an
>> > infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment.
>> > Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar
>> > visitations
>> > have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the
>> > first place.
>> >
>> > Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't,
>> > can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or
>> > wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials
>> > would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of
ways
>> >
>> > you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.
>> >
>> > Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already
>> > well established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET
contact
>> >
>> > appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the
>> > claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to
>> > magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have
>> > been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic
>> > case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential humanness and
>> > limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why haven't
>> > these
>> > omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"
>> >
>> > Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien
>> > infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting
>> > that
>> > such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science-fiction"
the
>> > notion that alien understandings of immunology might be in advance
>> > of our own, or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited
>> > in their ability to interact with our biological systems.
>> >
>> > Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual
investigation
>> > of the matter.
>> >
>> > Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there told me
>> > they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs are
>> > reported outside countries whose populations are overexposed to science
>> > fiction.
>> >
>> > Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee testimony
in
>> > widespread and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis
>> > is probably unreliable, and is always worthless in the hands of
>> > non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must
>> > have
>> > been steeped in the UFO literature, and that, whatever their
>> > credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading
>> > questions.
>> >
>> > If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact
>> > experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions.
>> > Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.
>> >
>> > Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government UFO coverup, but
>> > that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!
>> >
>> > Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of
>> > believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* theories
can
>> >
>> > possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression,
denial
>> > and disinformational activity.
>> >
>> > Argue that since theoretically there can be no press censorship in the
>> > United States, there is no press censorship in the United States.
>> >
>> > In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in which the
>> > UFO is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial
>> > proportions--just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply
>> > say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally
>> > significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been
>> > remarking on it for years!"
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Just Thought I Should Mention It
>
>
>
Clark Wilkins
Sashay (tm)!
.Clark