Thread: Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery

That...was......f'kin....AWESOME.

Imagine...having in one place...all of the Completely Universal examples of psuedo-skeptic rhetoric and smear-campaign tactics catalogued on a single page. Damn Damn Damn, I was smiling through the entire read because I kept going "Yup, I've noticed that." "Yup, I've noticed That too." lol. It doesn't matter what the subject is, these are the quintessential pseudo-skeptic back-doors and hypocrisies that, sadly, seem to work on almost Anyone who isn't aware of them for what they are. It's almost like they give out a handbook: "Debunking for Dummies" and damn near Everyone who self-brands themselves "Intellectuals" has one! lol.

A few of my favorite excerpts:

<> 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.[/b]

<> 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.[/b]

<> 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.[/b]

<> 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.[/b]

And my personal favorite:

<> 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.[/b]

Lol. Priceless.

Though there was one little gem pseudo-skeptics use that I think definitely had a place up there, but went unaccounted for:

"The bad thing about having an open mind is that everything falls out!"

Heh. Riiiiiiight. And the good thing about having a closed mind is that it sets the stage for bias and prejudices, including (but not limited to) sexism, racism, materialism, ignorance, and self-righteousness.

I think I'm going to post the link to this on my Sig because it is definitely a message that needs to spread. And the fact that the entire thing is written sarcastically is Genius. Compliments to the author!

World's Within, this is one of the single most IMPORTANT threads I've seen on Dream Views, yet. (not to mention any OTHER arenas for discussing "paranormal" possibilities.)

Props, man. Props! 8)

Hehe...glad you enjoyed it.

It doesn't matter what the subject is, these are the quintessential pseudo-skeptic back-doors and hypocrisies that, sadly, seem to work on almost Anyone who isn't aware of them for what they are. It's almost like they give out a handbook: \"Debunking for Dummies\" and damn near Everyone who self-brands themselves \"Intellectuals\" has one![/b]

Well said, my friend...

a critical read. If you'd like to see these tactics in use just watch the National Geographic Channel.

Originally posted by Worlds Within
Hehe...glad you enjoyed it.

Well said, my friend...

Thankya.

Did anyone happen to see Psychics vs Skeptics on Larry King Live, last night? MANY of these tactics were out in full force, to no surprise.

Here's some direction to the video, for anyone who's interested.
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....4499&highlight=

While that was fairly humorous, I don't think that it is justified. It seems the author has spent more time watching Crossfire-esque "debates" between True Believers and Disbelievers than speaking with working scientists. Those tactics described are widely employed by both sides when information and understanding are lacking. True scientists are by nature curious and willing to investigate and discuss new areas of inquiry if sufficient evidence is available to warrant such investigations (e.g. you can't write in to the National Science Foundation stating that when you were a kid, your grandfather used to tell you that bigfoot lived in his back yard and expect to get a million dollar research grant).

There may indeed be a "culture of science" in which certain topics are regarded as of questionable merit by many in the scientific community. This is primarily due to the prominence of disreputable people advocating such topics. If you've got a thousand frauds claiming that when they build little tinfoil pyramid hats with pointy crystals at the apex, they can channel the voices of dead Atlantians, it makes it somewhat difficult to take any related areas of inquiry seriously. The result of course is that potentially valid claims are tainted by association and therefore face a reduced likelihood of being seriously investigated.

Well said. I think, though, that the author did take care to identify the attitude he was displaying as "pseudo-science" in the beginning of the text, so, hopefully, he does recognize that this is not the fundamental scientific mindframe that he is dogging.

EDIT: Just to show how advanced I am at this amazing art of Debunkery, may I bold the parts of this post to emphasize the jucier tidbits. I oughta go pro!

Yeah, I definitely know the type the site was talking about. There's more than a few on DV, as well. Honestly, though, those are the types who go AGAINST science a lot of the time (EDIT: Refute their position! Make THEM the enemy!). I've run into a million situations online and in the real world where people try to justify a completely obscure hypothesis (BAM! Check that out! Fits right in here:

<> 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. )

with a lot of big words. Like here: Generic 2012 Thread
Both sides threw a lot of insults, and honestly that made up most of the discussion. But then you'd get folks like Blu who make claims, then, as 'verification' (EDIT: Note the skilled use of 'quotation marks' to make their verification seem lacking!) just say that it's possible because of QUANTUM PHYSICS, which, as everybody knows, is a Get-Out-Of-Jail free card (EDIT: Did you just see that belittlement! AMAZING!). No explanation of how or why quantum physics applies to their theory, they just say it does and pray that the people they're trying to convince know less than they do. (EDIT: BAM! And I follow it up with a sucker-punch! They're gonna feel that in the morning! Makes 'em look like they've got NO clue!)

Originally posted by Tsen
No explanation of how or why quantum physics applies to their theory, they just say it does and pray that the people they're trying to convince know less than they do.

Bingo. Until you've suffered through three pages of tedious linear algebra just to calculate the probability density of an electron in a complex harmonic oscillator, you have no right to use quantum mechanics to justify anything

Somethin' like that, yeah.