You can view the page at http://metabunk.org/content.php?129-...e-to-Debunking
You can view the page at http://metabunk.org/content.php?129-...e-to-Debunking
I wish people would follow this advice. Many comments by debunkers are very rude and they NEVER admit when someone else proves a point. This takes away from your credibility and is harassment. I think you should remove people from your site who violate your basic philosophy of being rude.
Your approach sounds good on the surface, but the message sent to everyone is not the same. I'm all about science and hypothesis, but when someone is just interfering with a logical conversation and ignoring fact in light of overwhelming evidence, I'm all for blocking and ignoring the childish noise.
I try to steer people towards discussing the facts, rather than personalities. Banning someone is a last resort. I will edit their posts to remove insults, and I'll give them warnings.
I guess that is a more.. step by step approach.. because really everyone has a right to their opinion even if we don't agree.
Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion and to express it.
However, most chemtrail believers express their opinions in such a way that they are presented as facts. Now, when those apparent facts are challenged, say by a debunker, the response is often personal attack, incredulity, ridicule or a re-statement of the (false) fact in a different way, or the presentation of a new opinion in the guise of a fact.
Chemtrails is a hoax only cuz there are no airplanes dumping chemicals on us. Instead, there are holograms of what looks like like airplanes somehow making lines in the sky. I don't know WHAT they are... or how or who... but I am positive they aren't airplanes! Airplanes can't make 90 degree turns, there is not enough money to operate such a budget (paying for massive amts of chemicals and pilots...), the things up there are almost completely silent.... They are transparent... crazy stuff you guys. Look up and notice what's really going on.
Holograms can't make lines either, as they have no mass. So it seems we are at something of an impasse.
I read this amazing article on Daniel Ficke's excellent Atheist philosophy blog Camels with Hammers, and figured [with the 'politeness' sticky locked] that this was probably the next best place to post it.
It talks about politeness as the best policy in argument, and seems to exhaustively explore the reasons and consequences with admirable clarity. It is obviously written concerning discussions of Atheism, but the same reasoning can be easily applied across debunking as a whole, especially sections like these:
If you have the time, it's well worth a few readings.The argument that “they’ll just say we called them stupid anyway” even when all we have done is reasonable is bogus. Yes, they will make that claim. But if we don’t actually call them stupid, we can actually tell them, “No, we didn’t call you stupid, we explained why you made errors. It’s common to make errors based on ignorance and cognitive bias and as influenced by longstanding cultural and intellectual traditions. But, nonetheless, they are errors. Here are our reasons. Please address them or admit we won the argument.” But if we actually called them stupid, we then legitimately gave them the morally defensible excuse to say, “you’re abusive bigots, we refuse to listen”.
But “they should listen to our arguments even if we pepper them with gratuitous insults”, you say? No, not really. If I punch you in the face and then say, “Now that I have your attention, here is my rational disquisition on why you are wrong and deserved to be punched”, I’d say you have every right to ignore me, I waved my right to be heard. You’re not just a whiner when “all you focus on” later is the fact that I punched you and tried to bully you. You’re right to say, I don’t talk to bullies. That’s not you being prissy about tone. It’s about you refusing to sink the discourse into the sewer with people who resort to emotional appeals instead of targeted rational appeals.
Last edited by tryblinking; April 6th, 2012 at 11:33 PM.
"at the length truth will out"
Bill Shakespeare, 'The Merchant of Venice'
That is an excellent article. It address what is a fundamental problem in the skeptical and debunking communities.
Mocking people is counterproductive.
I also like his top ten. Most of which is very applicable to more general debunking.
Top Ten Tips For Reaching Out To Religious Believers
1. Don’t Call Religious Believers Stupid.
2. Make Believers Stay on Topic During Debates.
3. Don’t Tell Religious Believers What They “Really Believe”.
4. Clarify What Kinds of Evidence Warrant What Kinds of Beliefs.
5. Help Break The Spell Of Religious Reverence.
6. Don’t Demonize Religious People’s Motives, Focus On Their Objective Harms.
7. Take Philosophy Seriously.
8. Both Refute The Best Counter-Arguments You Can Think Of And Create Gestalt Shifts.
9. Be Unapologetic, Rigorous, Patient, And Gracious With Religious Believers.
10. Love Religious People.
Mick, What a great site. Glad I found it.Originally Posted by Mick
This is a very general and summary comment. Debunking was very big 75 years ago; then the academics came up with the word "deconstructing." That's what I do. For several years I've been writing almost exclusively about education. And I just want to sum up the entire field by saying it's very much like a crime scene. Figuring out what went on there is a full-time job. The people at the top almost never tell the truth. They are all brilliant sophists. If they use a phrase such as a "life-long learners," you can be pretty sure their students don't know anything and will never know anything. I could not write anything for this site without breaking half of your rules. The Education Establishment is huge and massively funded; they are also shameless. To fight them, I find I'm becoming an Alinsky on the right. I am sarcastic. I am trying to win. I want to be as much an expert as possible. Did you know this country has 50 million functional illiterates? Few can explain this. I can. Ditto through all the bogus theories and methods that our elite educators love so dearly. I say all this on the off-chance that a few visitors will be interested in the esoterica of education. I invite them to visit http://Improve-Education.org where I try to deconstruct some of the cleverest sophistries loose in the land.
Bruce Deitrick Price
PS I have hundreds of articles on the internet. If you want to use one of them to start a brawl, please do.
Deconstructing is not the same as debunking.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks