Talk:Debunker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

merge with scientific scepticism[edit]

both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollj (talk • contribs)

Maybe. Some people seem to consider them to be different, though. Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly are different. Two separate definitions of the word "skeptic" are in widespread general use, and the terms "scientific skeptic" and "debunker" are shorthand for these two definitions. We can use the word "skeptic" to refer to people who only adopt beliefs which are supported by sufficient evidence. Scientists are good examples of these. We can also use the word "skeptic" to mean "skeptic-activist;" those people who make it their business to expose scam artists and dishonest religous promotors, and who teach the public the basics of rational thinking via authoring books and giving lectures. Good examples of the second type of skeptic are the many members of groups like JREF and CSICOP. There is some overlap between the two meanings of "skeptic" of course. Some scientists are debunkers. And most (but not all) debunkers are faithful practitioners of Scientific Skepticism. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific skepticism practitioners never spend time engaging creationists in public debates, or trying to expose the tricks that scam artists use to take money from the gullible. --Wjbeaty 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. You can be a scientific skeptic without being a debunker. A debunker takes an active role. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worse than that. Some debunkers have a POV that is not scientific or objective, and have often been accused of insincerity or ulterior motives, e.g. financial ones. I think "sock puppets" is the term used here on Wikipedia for such people. Don't merge; in fact the article should note that "debunking" is not always justified or done in good faith. In some circles the term "skeptibunker" is used to deride so-called skeptics and debunkers who do not stick to facts and objectivity but use every political trick in the book to try to discredit ideas they find inconvenient. Definitely don't merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.0.4 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, Dont't merge. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wise decision. All debunkers are skeptics, but not all skeptics are debunkers. Debunkers are activists. -- Fyslee/talk 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as well debunkers stop people from taking money from people by exploiting dreams and hopes and beliefs--Kr4ft (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate External Link?[edit]

The author of this link, http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm, appears to be trying to debunk or discredit scientific skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. Should this link be kept? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely debunking pseudoskepticism. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But almost all pseudoskeptics call themselves skeptics. No one calls themself a pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic is defined by their actions and beliefs, not by what they call themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.66.47 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 May 2011
No. The person writing it is not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that under "parity of sources" in WP:FRINGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 April 2008

Martinphi's apparent double standard[edit]

Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call Sylvia Browne a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. But we have to characterise what they debunk somehow. The way you would have it, it's as if the claims debunked are always "false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious" in fact. Whereas a psychic is a cultural artefact, not necessarily one who has powers. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus effing Christ on a bicyclye, it's "artifact" not "artefact". Just say "a true debunker is one who _attempts_ to debunk false claims." You could say "attempts to debunk claims" but it wouldn't sound as good. If he fails, the claim wasn't provably false.
"I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant." Wrong. You may not believe the thing to be false until you have debunked it. MartinPHI is also wrong, "purported psychic" isn't redundant, according to his own argument ("Whereas...." which isn't even a complete sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition at dictionary.com does not include "unscientific". The list of debunkes includes photographers, magicians, medicians, etc. I also removed "generally in an academic or scientific sense.", as in the context of academy you don't "debunk", you either proof (confirm) or you disproof something, similar for science. Also, the disproofing in an academical or scientific sense uses to be by publishing papers, while debunking can use more pedestrian means like suddenly switching on the lights on the middle of a spiritism session, and might be done by people who are neither scholar nor academics. Surely the sentence intended to mean "generally using the scientific method" or "using methods that follow the spirit of the scientific method"? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the same contentious spirit that is displayed in the above entries, may I add a much-belated note that "artefact" is a well-respected variant of "artifact"; it would be good if we checked the dictionary before going all effing on Wikipedia. Thanks!--Spray787 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for "Debunking"[edit]

In the list of "debunkers", there's a lot o debunking claims. As this article currently defines debunking as "the act of disproving a proposal or hypothesis", I assume by debunking we mean a "successful disproving", and not just and attempted (sometimes self-published) disproving, that may be recognized in the some groups while still refuted (or even ignored) in others.

What's our criteria for saying "Mr. M debunked Theory X"? That he published a paper on a scientific journal disproving X? That he published a paper on a journal specialized on skepticism? That he published it on his web page? That the "debunked person" recognized his/her mistake?

What's the difference between debunking something and claiming to have debunked something?

Without this answers, I'm worried about the future of the (POV-titled) Well-known debunkers section. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed down[edit]

I've taken a lot of weird stuff out of the article and stubbed it down. Please try to expand with reliably sourced material. --TS 15:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"derides"[edit]

I've removed the verb "derides" which was recently added to the lead. The essence of a debunker's function is to expose poor thinking. Derision isn't part of that function. --TS 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. However, I have seen more than a few cases where a debunker takes advantage of the 'giggle factor' and uses subtle or blatant ad hominem statements in their argument. I believe it was J. Allen Hynek who stated "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is." (Hynek, Josef Allen (April 1953). "Unusual Aerial Phenomena". Journal of the Optical Society of America 43 (4): 311–314.)Tonybaldacci (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage as a pejorative term[edit]

Moved from Talk:Cold_fusion#There_is_no_.22most_vs_small_group.22.

I didn't revert your edit for fun, but because you were introducing a mistake (debunker is not a pejorative term or at least the majority of uses are not pejorative), and the reference you were citing didn't support your change. (Also, are you sure that Woodward was using it as a pejorative in his book? I just ordered the book from Amazon so I can check that) I should have left an edit summary explaining the reversion, like Connolley did later[1], my bad.... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Wiki entry needs major work. The dictionary description of contemporary usage says that debunking is "esp. by ridicule" which is wrong, modern debunking of an organized sense specifically refrains from ridicule. Indeed, the Skeptics Society chaired by Mr. Michael Shermer the Professor of History out of CalTech specifically notes David Hume skepticism which does not employ ridicule, only cool logic and science.
I received a lengthy, disjointed, highly illiterate email at The Skeptic Tank proclaiming "debunking" as being specifically unscientific because it presumes claims to be false which is what prompted me to see what Wikipedia suggests. This claim by the uneducated, uninformed individual who sent the email (which I will post to my web site with a suitable response) does indicate that some believers in occult or superstitious nonsense consider the word to be derogatory. Damotclese (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-existent physics degrees[edit]

adam savage and jamie hyneman are listed as physics majors but i cannot find a source that confirms this and their approach to the shows is more indicative of a special effects background rather than that of an academic and exhaustive experimenter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine Does Not Exist[edit]

I see that Wikipedia contains a classification for articles which is "Alternative Medicine" which the talk page notes this article carries.

This is part of the problem facing scientists and educators. There is no such thing as alternative medicine, there is only medicine and claptrap. If something actually works beyond the well known placebo effect it gets adopted as a medical procedure, compound, or process and it is scientifically studied. "Alternative" beliefs, notions, occultism, superstition, and wishful thinking are not medicine, ergo harboring an article classification as "Alternative Medicine" is a major flaw in Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Inclusion of Lewandowsky/Cook, Debunking Handbook[edit]

Half the body of the article concerns so-called "backfire effects" as written about in the Debunking Handbook. So what is this handbook? Well, it doesn't appear on Amazon, at all. The link is a free PDF file which contains all of 7 numbered pages. (Is it a book or a pamphlet?) In an article where the focus should be on such great names as Sagan, Randi and Houdini we find this material - pseudo-science itself! - invented by a couple of present day tourists. This is a travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.6.91 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very troubled by this section. It is longer than the rest of the article, yet covers a minor, arguably tangential aspect of debunking. Looks like someone trying promote the Debunkers Handbook. I'm not sure it could be justified as a See Also link, much less a major section of this article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Handbook itself doesn't present a problem, but the article certainly can use expansion. In doing so, the WP:UNDUE to backfire effect would be balanced out. (Note, the reference would not be a "See also" which means see other articles in WP. I bet you were thinking of an WP:EL section.)--S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC) PS: My previous edit also did a reassessment on the quality scales.20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud exposer or not a fraud exposer?[edit]

So "debunking" can mean anything from "exposing the falseness of" to "exposing a sham". According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary: ""Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham"". So that means there is the accusation of being a "fraud exposer" but that is not the case when someone "just happens to render invalid" some claim by doing the actual research (for example Joe Nickell and his paranormal investigations). It simply can't be the case that every person just happening to have different conclusion is automatically a "debunker" if he says that conclusion to the public. For example Nickell is not a fraud exposer, he merely states humans have limitations. "Sham: To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoldhin (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration that isn't necessarily about debunking[edit]

In the section "Backfire effects." At present, the illustration's heading reads:

The authors of the Debunking Handbook warn that a failed debunking can actually worsen misconceptions. They recommend simple, positive, and emotionally sensitive education (e.g., bolstering the learner's ego, or avoiding threatening words).

But this is accompanied by a painting. The painting is about an argument, but I doubt that the issue in that argument is among the issues that debunkers focus on. The painting is "A Nautical Argument" by Hemy. It's a fine painting. I would guess that the argument is between two ship captains, about the best route to bring a ship into a harbor, under some particular condition of tides or storms; or maybe there was a shipwreck and a lawyer is trying to understand what arguments could be raised in court, regarding the loss from that shipwreck. I recognize that beliefs exist among sailors, and perhaps some scholar has shown that the captains are arguing about something that isn't easily proven one way or the other. Can someone verify that this particular painting was about "debunking"? Oaklandguy (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Mick West?[edit]

Can Mick West be added as a debunker, for is work in the Navy UAP videos and other things? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debunker&oldid=1195531077"