A Debunking site should open the possibility of debunking the paradigm

Marcus Mudd

Member
If a debunking site only debunks unaccepted theory, without research thereof, then it is not a debunking site. We must draw a distinction between pure debunk, which I am a great fan of, and statuo quo promotion. Metabunk MUST NOT be a pseudonym for paradigm proponent!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If it fits the posting guidelines, there's no distinction made between "unaccepted theory" and "accepted theory" or "status quo", or "paradigm". If you find some bunk, then debunk it.

However the posting guidelines define the site. There are many other sites on the internet if you do not wish to follow them.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 
Last edited:

Marcus Mudd

Member
Thanks for the heads up but this thread is meant specifically for those who promote only the paradigm. and your reply is a self indictment
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
Based on your obvious stance as the paradigm promoter, there must be an unbiased voice of reason that adds an objective stance in every debunking youve participated in. I look forward to investigating all of your 'debunks' and as an ardent researcher yourself im sure you look forward to the critique!
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Based on your obvious stance as the paradigm promoter, there must be an unbiased voice of reason that adds an objective stance in every debunking youve participated in. I look forward to investigating all of your 'debunks' and as an ardent researcher yourself im sure you look forward to the critique!
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
If a debunking site only debunks unaccepted theory, without research thereof, then it is not a debunking site. We must draw a distinction between pure debunk, which I am a great fan of, and statuo quo promotion. Metabunk MUST NOT be a pseudonym for paradigm proponent!
I agree to an extent but that is 'our' ideal and if 'we' felt there was a need for such a site there is nothing stopping someone from setting one up. Mick has his own ideas and as it's his site, guess its only right he calls the shots.

However, I think it does very clearly come across as a "pseudonym for paradigm proponent", (love the phrase BTW), which is somewhat redeemed by the presence of a few 'debunkers who will debunk anything', although some do get banned rather frequently...
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Thanks for the heads up but this thread is meant specifically for those who promote only the paradigm. and your reply is a self indictment
I don't follow your logic, can you walk us through it? What words in Mick's reply indicted himself?
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member
As an ex conspiracy theorist myself I used to think that alot of debunking was just as what is described by Mudd and Oxy (paradigm proponent, or whatever else you want to call it.) My feelings were essentially that people debunked conspiracies with the mindset of "It's a conspiracy so it just can't be true" so by way of confirmation bias debunkers would only evaluate and address evidence that supported their claims rather than evaluating evidence from both sides to reach a conclusion.

To be honest, I do think that mindset is present to an extent here, but that isn't to say that conspiracy theorists are any less guilty of this. As I've shifted my perspective, I notice alot of the confirmation bias within the conspiracy community, and to be honest, I think they are a great deal more biased than the debunking community. So many conspiracies and other bunk is very reliant on cherry picked facts, suggestive narration and distorted context.
What is inescapable about conspiracy theories and other bunk is that they are often deeply intertwined with political, religious, and superstitious views as most conspiracies generally involves one or more of the three categories. So as a debunker, you're not just dealing with facts and logic prove your case, you are also dealing with the deeply held convictions (and often times emotions) of another individual whose beliefs are not so easily swayed. And yes, skepticism is too a deeply held belief. I prefer to think of it as a rejection of claims not supported by evidence. Some of you might think if it as just a pompous term for A Doubting Thomas, and that's fine. If you see a flawed argument or have evidence to present I encourage you to present it, the people here are generally alot nicer than the rest of the internet, and I will be the first to admit that I do practice alot more restraint here than I do other forums to keep things friendly. We're all human beings, imperfect and biased. As I've shifted my views, I now try to view subject matters outside of a political or cultural context to try and gain a different perspective on things. For me, this the best that I can do to look at something outside of my personal American, Liberal, Sub-Urban, Atheist, Middle Class, world view. It's part of keeping an open perspective and being honest with myself to make sure that I'm not believing something simply because I want to believe it.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
If a debunking site only debunks unaccepted theory, without research thereof, then it is not a debunking site. We must draw a distinction between pure debunk, which I am a great fan of, and statuo quo promotion. Metabunk MUST NOT be a pseudonym for paradigm proponent!
AFAIK a debunking site debunks ideas that are presented as fact that lack supporting evidence to be accepted as fact.

Theories are debunked insofar as they do this.

"Promoting" the status quo is simply not debunking.

And certainly there is an element of it that goes on - but it is pretty easy to spot since it is relatively easy to ask of such a promotion by asking "what is it you are debunking, and what is your evidence?"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I try to keep the focus so it is on claims of evidence, not theories. You can't really have a productive discussion titled "9/11 debunked!", but you can have "WTC1 Free fall debunked", or you could try to have like "WTC7 Seat connection thermal expansion".

Threads that attempt to debunk broad topics like modern physics or evolution need to focus very narrowly on specific claims. Either a specific claim of evidence that is wrong, or (rather unlikely) a claim of evidence that seems right, that would prove everything else wrong.

I would LOVE to help debunk something "official", so if someone has got something specific, then go for it. Just follow the posting guidelines.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
As an ex conspiracy theorist myself I used to think that alot of debunking was just as what is described by Mudd and Oxy (paradigm proponent, or whatever else you want to call it.) My feelings were essentially that people debunked conspiracies with the mindset of "It's a conspiracy so it just can't be true" so by way of confirmation bias debunkers would only evaluate and address evidence that supported their claims rather than evaluating evidence from both sides to reach a conclusion.

To be honest, I do think that mindset is present to an extent here, but that isn't to say that conspiracy theorists are any less guilty of this. As I've shifted my perspective, I notice alot of the confirmation bias within the conspiracy community, and to be honest, I think they are a great deal more biased than the debunking community. So many conspiracies and other bunk is very reliant on cherry picked facts, suggestive narration and distorted context.
What is inescapable about conspiracy theories and other bunk is that they are often deeply intertwined with political, religious, and superstitious views as most conspiracies generally involves one or more of the three categories. So as a debunker, you're not just dealing with facts and logic prove your case, you are also dealing with the deeply held convictions (and often times emotions) of another individual whose beliefs are not so easily swayed. And yes, skepticism is too a deeply held belief. I prefer to think of it as a rejection of claims not supported by evidence. Some of you might think if it as just a pompous term for A Doubting Thomas, and that's fine. If you see a flawed argument or have evidence to present I encourage you to present it, the people here are generally alot nicer than the rest of the internet, and I will be the first to admit that I do practice alot more restraint here than I do other forums to keep things friendly. We're all human beings, imperfect and biased. As I've shifted my views, I now try to view subject matters outside of a political or cultural context to try and gain a different perspective on things. For me, this the best that I can do to look at something outside of my personal American, Liberal, Sub-Urban, Atheist, Middle Class, world view. It's part of keeping an open perspective and being honest with myself to make sure that I'm not believing something simply because I want to believe it.
I agree. it is very hard to be unbiased by personal veiws on science or culture. I dont think its unrealistic to incorporate culture and science into a personal belief and allowing oneself to become invested in a theory. The theories the scientific community invents have a knack for instantly becoming world veiw, and the human element must not be seperate from worldveiw. On both sides one must be able to weight their own investment against the evidence and if ideas change (or evolve) then THAT growth must be considered as well. Hopefully a world view that is encompassing instead of exclusive can be embraced where cuture and science are complimentary, instead of exchanging one for the other. it is a delicate balance
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I agree. it is very hard to be unbiased by personal veiws on science or culture. I dont think its unrealistic to incorporate culture and science into a personal belief and allowing oneself to become invested in a theory. The theories the scientific community invents have a knack for instantly becoming world veiw, and the human element must not be seperate from worldveiw. On both sides one must be able to weight their own investment against the evidence and if ideas change (or evolve) then THAT growth must be considered as well. Hopefully a world view that is encompassing instead of exclusive can be embraced where cuture and science are complimentary, instead of exchanging one for the other. it is a delicate balance
There is no delicate balance. This site is about removing bunk. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise post it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is no delicate balance. This site is about removing bunk. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise post it.
It depends how you look at it. I see it that we are all debunkers on here... some of us will debunk anything and are termed CT'ists by the ones who will steadfastly defend any mainstream view. As you say, this site should be about removing bunk... mainstream bunk and CT bunk alike but it is definitely polarised here.

Can you honestly say there is no bunk in the mainstream or government paradigm?

When was the last time you publicly questioned or debunked a government statement/policy or a multinational corporation?

I know Mick has questioned the financing of political parties and 'the revolving door' of members of big business being involved in writing policy and law... but that did not go down well here on either side... which I think is a shame.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
It depends how you look at it. I see it that we are all debunkers on here... some of us will debunk anything and are termed CT'ists by the ones who will steadfastly defend any mainstream view. As you say, this site should be about removing bunk... mainstream bunk and CT bunk alike but it is definitely polarised here.

Can you honestly say there is no bunk in the mainstream or government paradigm?

When was the last time you publicly questioned or debunked a government statement/policy or a multinational corporation?

I know Mick has questioned the financing of political parties and 'the revolving door' of members of big business being involved in writing policy and law... but that did not go down well here on either side... which I think is a shame.
The fracking thread.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you honestly say there is no bunk in the mainstream or government paradigm?
Nobody is saying that. Nobody is using the words "government paradigm" either, because it's pretty meaningless.

The thing is, when people say "why don't you debunk the government", they generally can't give very good examples of something that needs debunking. I ask people to point out things that are wrong in the NIST report for example, and I get only vague generalities like "no other building collapsed like that" or nonsense like "what are the odds that three buildings would collapse in the same way".

And too often you just get Gish gallop.

If someone wants to debunk an official claim of evidence, then they are free to do so. They just have to do it with rigor.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
what too often happens is an idea is posted as debunked to invalidate a grand idea. More often a debunk is incomplete and titled as debunked, when it is not. I have ye to come across a complete debunk from this debunking site, just misguided and one dimensional investigation. All the debunks on this site are under reveiw
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
what too often happens is an idea is posted as debunked to invalidate a grand idea. More often a debunk is incomplete and titled as debunked, when it is not. I have ye to come across a complete debunk from this debunking site, just misguided and one dimensional investigation. All the debunks on this site are under reveiw
Please provide one example. Otherwise you're just trolling.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I am not beholden to you or your opinion. also id like to suggest you refrain from name calling and read the politeness guidelines. thanks for your concern however.
I did not call you a troll. If you continue to post without providing any evidence then you are trolling. Read the posting guidelines.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Some might think you can't... especially as you are known for asking "do you have any evidence for that". :)
Right. I asked Grieves to post evidence, he did and I accepted it. We also agreed that the anti tracking crowd did not amount to a CT. I'm on a phone so it's hard to paste links. If you can't read the thread that's your problem.
 
Top