A guide to debunking

[SDuderstadt]

http://metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

[Make7]

1. Be polite.

 

Be polite.

Insulting people just polarizes them. Even perceived insults will have this effect. Telling someone they are “stupid”, “retarded”, or even that they “need to do more research”, is entirely unhelpful to progress. We are trying to get out the bunk, and if you insult people then they will just cling to their bunk tighter.

Of course there will be people who reject your ideas, no matter how you present them, polite or not. But always remember you have a greater audience than the person you are ostensibly discussing with. Part of that greater audience might be convinced, even if the individual is not.


http://metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

[SDuderstadt]

2. This would certainly be a lot easier to follow...

if conspiracists would do the same thing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Oh, the irony!

Anyone with a donor star can use the advanced search function and see for themselves:

Author ................. Keyword ................... Results

SDuduerstadt .......... bullshit ................... 364 topics match your criteria

zappaman .............. bullshit ................... 29 topics match your criteria

William Seger ......... bullshit ................... 67 topics match your criteria

AZCat ................. bullshit ................... 11 topics match your criteria

jberryhill ............ bullshit ................... 3 topics match your criteria

Bolo Boffin ........... bullshit ................... 64 topics match your criteria

apocalypsehow ......... bullshit ................... 1 topics match your criteria

Make7 ................. bullshit ................... 1 topics match your criteria

hack89 ................ bullshit ................... Your search criteria return no matched results. Please try again



Ghost in the Machine .. bullshit ................... 20 topics match your criteria

immune ................ bullshit ................... 6 topics match your criteria

BeFree ................ bullshit ................... 48 topics match your criteria

noise ................. bullshit ................... 11 topics match your criteria

Woody Box.............. bullshit ................... Your search criteria return no matched results. Please try again

deconstruct911 ........ bullshit ................... 7 topics match your criteria

reinvestigate911 ...... bullshit ................... 8 topics match your criteria

rschop ................ bullshit ................... 3 topics match your criteria

whatchamacallit........ bullshit ................... 44 topics match your criteria

DefendandProtect ...... bullshit ................... 2 topics match your criteria

spooked911 ............ bullshit ................... 16 topics match your criteria

What have we learned here? Apparently, Sduderstadt is the King of Bullshit. All hail the King! :-) Those nasty little conspiracists need to learn to be nicer, huh? :eyes:

[Gravel Democrat]

6. Busted! Nice Work!

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Thanks...

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

7. LOL!

I can't believe you did a search for a word, Ghost!

Kinda subjective, doncha think?

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. :-)

I think it points out some of the uncivil discourse, SDude... when you constantly say "oh bullshit!" or "more of your bullshit" and such, it takes an otherwise civil discussion off course, imho, especially when you don't try to refute what the "bullshit" is....

I have no problem with "spirited debate", as you well know.... we have been our rounds before. It's my personal opinion that you could be much more effective if you toned down a little bit, and if you backed up some of your assertions more. You have done that a few times in the past, and I actually saw something in a different light because of it. Most times, however, I'm just put off by the caustic remarks...

Hope all is well with you and yours, dude...

Peace!

[SDuderstadt]

11. Oh, bullshit!

Just kidding, Ghost!

[AZCat]

15. Apparently I'm only a mid-tier bullshitter.

I resolve to work harder.

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Hey, long time no see!

Hope all is well with you and yours, AZCat...

Peace,

Ghost

[AZCat]

17. Thanks, Ghost.

Been pretty busy lately and haven't had much time to stop by here.

How is everything on your end?

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Things are pretty good here...

I'm dealing with my daughter moving out, she got her first apartment... it's been a little rough trying to "let go", but I'll make it through it... she graduated last May, turned 18 a few months ago and has a decent job, so I shouldn't worry so much, but that's what dads do, I guess.

[AZCat]

20. Good for her!

It's tough getting that first job.

[deconstruct911]

19. heh

Damn ghost, now I have to be more careful knowing you might occasionally bust us with one of those....

[jakeXT]

3. hmmm

Debunking is NOT about taking one side of an argument, and then using whatever means possible to convince someone that you are correct. A good debunker is a good scientist. If there’s information that contradicts your position, then don’t ignore it, instead you should alter your position.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Do you believe scientists are more likely to be...

conspiracists or debunkers?

[jakeXT]

14. Looks like a majority is biased

That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

[apocalypsehow]

5. "Keep on Target" - I see gobs and gobs of this kind of diversionary tactic every time someone posts

facts that definitively disprove whatever bizarre CT is under discussion at the time:

"One thing at a time. It’s very important to not lose focus, as there are lots of topic out there that will suck the life out of any discussion. One can be having a perfectly reasonable discussion about why contrail cirrus can last for several hours, and then someone says “yeah, I suppose you believe that WTC7 fell down because of a little fire”, and all of a sudden it’s tangent city. Of course you could fully debunk any WTC7 myth they throw at you but don’t go there. It’s just a huge time sink. Don’t allow off-topic discussion if possible, and just ignore it if you can’t."


"tangent city" is the perfect phrase.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Edit

My original post was a bit critical and mean-spirited, so self-delete

[SDuderstadt]

13. Ouch, WMC!

Ouch!

Oh, wait...I don't care what you think.