How to debunk anything. Hilarious.

[skids]

Ran across this article. The page is from a paranormal site, a subject which I take no position either way on. Ignore that, or not, and read the section "Part 1: general debunking" -- some of the bullet points are sooooo dead on about all the self-impressed closed-minded skeptics inhabiting the web these days. Not that healthy skepticism is bad, but more often than not, I find people take it way to far and resort to the listed tactics instead of providing a quality argument. The world needs more meta-skeptics to put them in their place.

http://www.planetarymysteries.com/debunkery.html

[Minstrel Boy]

1. this is bang on:

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!"

.

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Oh yeah, that's got to be in the Secret Neocon Mouthpiece Handbook

You're right - it's bang on.

[longship]

2. The Ne Plus Ultra -- The Baloney Detection Kit.

I prefer a more rigorous methodology.

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

[spuddonna]

6. I love the Baloney Detection Kit!

"The Demon Haunted World" is an excellent book... I look at that list of 'Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric' and can see so many rw arguments littered with them...

Our country needs a lesson in 'baloney detection'... it would make them better voters.

Wonder if we could promote that at a grassroots level? Put a list of items together to pass out to people door to door to help educate them on how to spot arguments that are weak?

Or am I just a big liberal elite egghead? lol Excuse me, I need to get more tape for my glasses now...

[Dogmudgeon]

8. That's an excellent idea

Now if only the Skeptics would follow it, as well.

Especially that part about ad hominem arguments.

--p!

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Maybe we should send that too

our democratic reps who go on shows like O'Reilly and all the others on fox. Or maybe have a website available that can give tips and all that. These people need to have their butts handed to them.

[omega minimo]

3. Methinks debunkers doth protest too much

What the hell are they afraid of?

:yoiks: :hide: :woohoo:

[greyl]

5. rampant ignorance nt

[omega minimo]

12. Debunkers are afraid

of the monsters under the bed and the ghosts/aliens in the closet

[JaneGat]

4. This one's too familiar...

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.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Skids, this is just so UNFAIR!

You're not supposed to question the Skeptics.

Not ever.

Never.

And fighting back? That's ... that's ... unscientific!

Don't you know that they're ridding the universe of Engrams -- I mean, of Ignorance?

You are a "Woo-Woo". Just ask any Skeptic what that means. It means hang your head in shame. You have troubled the sleep of the Men of Science, and for that, you must pay the price for your disobedience.

--p!

[ixion]

10. wow... that's one pissed off science guy...what a great list

I'll have to save that one.

Here's one of my favs:



# 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.



This is the heart of so many rethug attacks, and the fact that it works is disturbing.

[Callalily]

11. Thanks skids for your post

I'm definately bookmarking that link. My favorite is:
"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." I never take anything at face value, I'm always researching for facts. Never was one for ambiguity.