skephu
Senior Member.
Of course. They only debunk people who don't hang out with them.I say alot of things and hang out with debunkers all the time and they only rarely debunk me.
Of course. They only debunk people who don't hang out with them.I say alot of things and hang out with debunkers all the time and they only rarely debunk me.
If you have cherry picked facts, and ignored evidence that supports the supposition, then you have NOT DEBUNKED something.That would be true in an idealized world, but it's not true in reality. "Debunkers" are subject to cognitive biases just like everyone else. They can cherry-pick facts, give more weight to evidence supporting their opinion, etc. Humans are extremely good at convincing themselves that they are right.
If you approach a question with the intent to debunk it, then you will probably manage to debunk it, whatever the question.
That's why the "debunker" mindset is dangerous.
Dangerous as it encourages a biased way of investigating things.In what way is it dangerous?
Actually, in general it's more important to seek evidence to refute your point than to support it.you are ENCOURAGED to bring evidence to support your point
It's only dangerous to your ego.Dangerous as it encourages a biased way of investigating things.
What, you mean like debunking? But isn't that dangerous?Actually, in general it's more important to seek evidence to refute your point than to support it.
Hi everyone. I'm from the Hungarian Skeptics and we find this site and contrailscience.com incredibly useful for our activities. Chemtrail belief is spreading in Hungary, and we have set up a web site, chemtrail.hu, to debunk it in Hungarian. I'm happy to join you.
No, debunking yourself is not dangerous. In fact that's what you should try to do often.
What, you mean like debunking? But isn't that dangerous?
Looks like some people have fallen in love with the word "debunking".
It carries the wrong message.
Of course you can attach explanations to it like "by debunking I don't mean this but that" etc. but it's useless. To most people it will mean that you are out to refute whatever is thrown at you. And to some extent you will indeed assume that mindset--which is wrong.
That would be true in an idealized world, but it's not true in reality. "Debunkers" are subject to cognitive biases just like everyone else. They can cherry-pick facts, give more weight to evidence supporting their opinion, etc. Humans are extremely good at convincing themselves that they are right.
If you approach a question with the intent to debunk it, then you will probably manage to debunk it, whatever the question.
That's why the "debunker" mindset is dangerous.
That's true but the use of a word may attract and encourage a certain mindset, which is not necessarily a good mindset.Use of a word and a particular mindset are not the same thing.
I don't see a problem here. People have not redefined the term. Actually, it's you guys who try to define it in a particular way, narrowing its meaning to a certain interpretation.There is nothing which can be done to keep people from re-defining terms.
There is no perfect term. But I'm with Joe Nickell that investigate is better.have you offered an alternate term you think would be better to use
No. I object to approaching claims with a bias; i.e. the expectation that the claim will be proven false.From this post you seem to object to the activity of challenging the veracity of claims even more than you object to the title "debunker".
That's true but the use of a word may attract and encourage a certain mindset, which is not necessarily a good mindset.
This forum is all about debunking. Debunk this, debunk that, etc. Visitors easily get the impression that the people here are set out to refute everything, approaching everything with the intention to prove it wrong.
I don't see a problem here. People have not redefined the term. Actually, it's you guys who try to define it in a particular way, narrowing its meaning to a certain interpretation.
de·bunk
verb \(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\
: to show that something (such as a belief or theory) is not true : to show the falseness of (a story, idea, statement, etc.)
See debunk defined for English-language learners »
See debunk defined for kids »
Examples of DEBUNK
First Known Use of DEBUNK
- The article debunks the notion that life exists on Mars.
- The results of the study debunk his theory.
1923
There is no perfect term. But I'm with Joe Nickell that investigate is better.
No. I object to approaching claims with a bias; i.e. the expectation that the claim will be proven false.
Whenever someone comes here asking "please help me debunk this", they indicate that they have already decided the claim is false, and they request evidence to support their decision.
The correct request would be "please help me investigate/explain this" or "please help me find out whether this is true".
People are becoming more and more aware of the term bunk as it is being used more often in tv shows, articles, news stories. If people know what bunk is then they know what debunk is. You cant debunk something that isn't bunk.Visitors easily get the impression that the people here are set out to refute everything, approaching everything with the intention to prove it wrong
i disagree. "investigate" to me is open ended. Perhaps it depends on where you reside geographically. When I'm looking for answers I'm often not interested in people investigating the issue. I want to hear from people that have the answer already.There is no perfect term. But I'm with Joe Nickell that investigate is better.
What about: "solve"?"investigate" to me is open ended.
i'll never like the term investigator unless its the police, irs or an insurance guy investigating false claims. at least they have training in evidence, criteria, the law. to me laymen using 'investigator' or 'researcher' is like the term 'therapist'. it makes people sound more knowledgeable then most of them are. at least debunker has the connotation of "comes with evidence attached".What about: "solve"?
What if the forum thread titles would look like:
Solved: this
Solved: that
etc.
how about this example. a mathematician solves problems. but the problems they solve are math related so we call them mathematicians.What about: "solve"?
What if the forum thread titles would look like:
Solved: this
Solved: that
etc.
What about: "solve"?
What if the forum thread titles would look like:
Solved: this
Solved: that
etc.
You don't say? ...This is metabunk, not metasolve.
What about: "solve"?
What if the forum thread titles would look like:
Solved: this
Solved: that
etc.
Pete, I was asked to make suggestions and name alternatives. That's what I did.Then why would threads be titled 'solved' instead of 'debunked' because of a vague perception it might make some people think it's biased? Those people don't understand the definition of the word and it's not metabunk's problem.
I was meaning that peopel who post things are encouraged to come with evidence.Actually, in general it's more important to seek evidence to refute your point than to support it.
Obviously nothing will be changed because Metabunk is a brand name and will stick to "debunking".
While that quote primarily deals with being offended, the emotional value behind being offended is still the same.. it conjures the same types of emotions. How those emotions are handled, is completely up to the individual.It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?
--I saw hate in a graveyard - Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 2005.
PhACT: An Interview with Joe Nickellit is the investigator rather than the debunker who is apt to know something. Debunkers are quick to be dismissive, or to suggest (antecedent to inquiry) that a claim is a hoax or to offer one or more off-the-shelf explanations (usually based on some investigator’s work—certainly not the debunker’s).
Other people also have the same objection against the word debunking, e.g. a commenter from Skepticblog.org:Joe (like Randi) is quick to reject the appellation "debunker" for the more palatable title of "investigator". A debunker would just tend to start with an assumption and line up information to support such a conclusion (the mere flip side of a disingenuous true believer) - where as a investigator, no matter how jaded by experience, is after the facts and could be persuaded by valid evidence of a claim.
Scientists and (good) researchers don’t debunk, they test. Debunking ASSUMES an answer ahead of time and works toward proving it.
Content from external source
it is the investigator rather than the debunker who is apt to know something. Debunkers are quick to be dismissive, or to suggest (antecedent to inquiry) that a claim is a hoax or to offer one or more off-the-shelf explanations (usually based on some investigator’s work—certainly not the debunker’s).
Except that it just isn't true that researchers don't debunk. If you are looking for what is true, you are looking to remove bunk. PROPER debunking does NOT assume anything.Scientists and (good) researchers don’t debunk, they test. Debunking ASSUMES an answer ahead of time and works toward proving it.