What makes something "debunked"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joe Newman

Active Member
What exactly your point is.

Is it: "I think people should avoid using the word "debunked", because the meaning is unclear, and often varies by individual"?

No, but I do think it's bad form to start a post by lableling it "Debunked:____," as that seems presumptuous and misapplied.

I see a post labeled Debunked: Bruce Lipton and the Biology of Belief. That's quite the claim, but 79 posts and I don't recall seeing much of anything even investigated, let alone a person having been "debunked." And now, because the guy's been "debunked" on the basis of little actual investigation, he joins the ever lengthening list of stuff that's suspect and probably not worth investigating. That seems odd to me.

Then there's the People Debunked subgroup. Anyone who lands there is now suspect as a rule, so any time any info comes from that person, it's automatically downgraded because that person has been "debunked."

I've already seen this stuff happening and it seems counterproductive unless the idea is to identify the teams so that folks know who to dismiss out of hand and who is accepted as "one of us."

I saw a post asking about whether something was pseudoscience. The first question [Mick] asked who its proponents were. Someone said X, who worked in a completely different field. That led to someone saying that it was therefore suspect. Someone else then said that after a cursory glance it appeared to be pseudoscience. Which led to someone else saying they were perfectly happy to wait for science to confirm or deny it. Then the thread died.

I thought that was weird, given that the model being asked about would have major ramifications about the way the universe works. Still, because it was tagged as being connected to an unsavory debunkedee and was challenging the orthodox view, the curiosity level was nil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Folks that lie and continually post misinformation, and their opinions as facts can be eliminated as a creditable source of information. To me, that is what 'debunked' means. Maybe they will tell the truth sometime, that doesn't mean that I should ACCEPT their posts as factual.

Take idahopicker as a 'debunked' person. He lied about why he lost his real estate license, he lied about why he left the US. He tried to scam folks into sending him money, when he fled.

Many of his posts were full of nonsense and misinformation. WHY would someone consider ANYTHING else he said to be worth the time to read and to investigate?

naturalnews is another source that is so full of crap, that it is not worth considering. Then there is the Examiner. With it, it is who is the reporter, some are fine, others, like Deborah Dupree, have been shown to post so much bunk that they need to be discounted.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
well this from a previous post for example:

It makes no sense to me at all - why is asking someone to prove something "weak sauce"? What do you mean by "weak sauce" in the first place? Like Mick I prefer to use the term "evidence" rather than "proof" these days because a level of "proof" is often subjective whereas evidenced is what it is - is that what you mean?

"Weak sauce" means ineffective. I agree with you and Mick re proof v. evidence. Unfortunately, I've seen many discussions derailed over the semantic quibbling, so I pointed that out.

and "I figure it's nicer to point it out in the flow than pounce on it and "debunk" the person." - how do you debunk a person??o_O


I have no idea, that's why it's in quotes.

You can debunk evidence - remove "bunk" from it, and you can debunk what a person says or writes - but AFAIK the term "debunk(ing) a person" is nonsensical. Do you mean debunk the evidence??

No, I mean debunk the person. It makes no sense to me, either. But that's what a lot of folks think is happening, even to the point of there being a separate subgroup for it. I think that is really, er, weak sauce, and think it is a barrier builder because it closes down communication instead of facilitating it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Debunked" means you have removed some bunk. It does not mean you have removed all the bunk.

So if I debunk someone or something, then I've removed (generally just exposed and explained) some of they bunk around that person.

You are confusing "debunked" with "entirely debunked, discredited, and shown to be a load of hokum". It's an understandable confusion, but I'm fine with it because it does not really change what I'm actually communicating.

I'm not trying to communicate to someone the precise level of debunking that has been carried out. That should be quite clear from an examination of the actual debunking. And the actual debunking is what I'm trying to communicate.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Folks that lie and continually post misinformation, and their opinions as facts can be eliminated as a creditable source of information. To me, that is what 'debunked' means. Maybe they will tell the truth sometime, that doesn't mean that I should ACCEPT their posts as factual.

Take idahopicker as a 'debunked' person. He lied about why he lost his real estate license, he lied about why he left the US. He tried to scam folks into sending him money, when he fled.

Many of his posts were full of nonsense and misinformation. WHY would someone consider ANYTHING else he said to be worth the time to read and to investigate?

naturalnews is another source that is so full of crap, that it is not worth considering. Then there is the Examiner. With it, it is who is the reporter, some are fine, others, like Deborah Dupree, have been shown to post so much bunk that they need to be discounted.

I have seen several occasions where you have dismissed info out of hand because of where it came from. That's as bad as accepting without question, and when you shut out so many sources of info as a rule, you miss out of the bigger picture and everything starts sounding like an echo chamber.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Folks that lie and continually post misinformation, and their opinions as facts can be eliminated as a creditable source of information. To me, that is what 'debunked' means. Maybe they will tell the truth sometime, that doesn't mean that I should ACCEPT their posts as factual.

Take idahopicker as a 'debunked' person. He lied about why he lost his real estate license, he lied about why he left the US. He tried to scam folks into sending him money, when he fled.

Many of his posts were full of nonsense and misinformation. WHY would someone consider ANYTHING else he said to be worth the time to read and to investigate?

naturalnews is another source that is so full of crap, that it is not worth considering. Then there is the Examiner. With it, it is who is the reporter, some are fine, others, like Deborah Dupree, have been shown to post so much bunk that they need to be discounted.


It's a bit more complicated than that Cairenn. One should consider the source, of course. But there are many levels of trust, skill, and reliability that can be attributed to a source, and they can vary based on the domain. I'd include the source in an evaluation, but the amount of weight that contributes to the assessment can vary greatly. You want to avoid yes/no decisions in complex topics.

At simplest, anyone should be able to recognize that:

A lied about B
A said C
Therefore C is false

is a fallacy.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
and "I figure it's nicer to point it out in the flow than pounce on it and "debunk" the person." - how do you debunk a person??o_O

I have no idea, that's why it's in quotes.

If you don't know what it is you are writing how can you expect anyone else to do so? Perhaps this is one reason why people do not understand what you are talking about?

If you are going to use a term that you don't know the meaning of how about explaining the context, what you think it means, why it is wrong if you think it is wrong?

No, I mean debunk the person. It makes no sense to me, either. But that's what a lot of folks think is happening, even to the point of there being a separate subgroup for it. I think that is really, er, weak sauce, and think it is a barrier builder because it closes down communication instead of facilitating it.

IMO the "People debunked" is a simple mechanism that identifies people who propound particular ideas - it is a shorthand. While you may argue the semantics the "things" that do get debunked in it are still their ideas.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
"Debunked" means you have removed some bunk. It does not mean you have removed all the bunk.

So if I debunk someone or something, then I've removed (generally just exposed and explained) some of they bunk around that person.

You are confusing "debunked" with "entirely debunked, discredited, and shown to be a load of hokum". It's an understandable confusion, but I'm fine with it because it does not really change what I'm actually communicating.

I'm not trying to communicate to someone the precise level of debunking that has been carried out. That should be quite clear from an examination of the actual debunking. And the actual debunking is what I'm trying to communicate.

That's just it, Mick. You may not be trying to communicate a precise level, which is a good thing because there doesn't seem to be a lot of nuance along with the hammers, but the impression left is that certain topics and people are ok and others aren't and consensus seems to congeal rather quickly.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have seen several occasions where you have dismissed info out of hand because of where it came from. That's as bad as accepting without question, and when you shut out so many sources of info as a rule, you miss out of the bigger picture and everything starts sounding like an echo chamber.

indeed, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out when someone does it and keeping eth debunking on the "straight and narrow" of actual debunking and not just general mudslinging.....or at least making sure the 2 are appropriately identified.

"Debunkers" are humans too - who get angry, annoyed, like to use humour or sling insults, etc. None of that counts as debunking or detracts from actual debunking - debunking is about facts - the rest is window dressing.

so feel free to ask "so how is it you have debunked "xyz"? where you think it appropriate to gain clarity.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Debunking a person means exposing some bunk that that person is claiming to be true - something unique to that individual. Like Nick Begich claiming to be a doctor.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's just it, Mick. You may not be trying to communicate a precise level, which is a good thing because there doesn't seem to be a lot of nuance along with the hammers, but the impression left is that certain topics and people are ok and others aren't and consensus seems to congeal rather quickly.


But I AM trying to communicate on a precise level.

I'm just trying to communicate the debunk. The actual refutation of claims of evidence.

It does not really matter if I say "debunked" or "explained" or "errors pointed out in" - because those distinctions are not the issue.

The issue is the bunk.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
If you don't know what it is you are writing how can you expect anyone else to do so? Perhaps this is one reason why people do not understand what you are talking about?

If you are going to use a term that you don't know the meaning of how about explaining the context, what you think it means, why it is wrong if you think it is wrong?

I know the meaning of the term. I don't agree with the usage. That's why it's in quotes. You do know how that works, don't ya?

IMO the "People debunked" is a simple mechanism that identifies people who propound particular ideas - it is a shorthand. While you may argue the semantics the "things" that do get debunked in it are still their ideas.

I know it's a shorthand. That's my point. It's a shorthand that someone has been tagged as "damaged goods" because they propound particular ideas. Therefore, they are on the shitlist and anything they say about anything is able to then be dismissed out of hand.

It's how you get the echo chamber and the monological culture. It doesn't take long to see where the lines are drawn. This comes through by seeing what's debunked and what isn't. Our team good, their team bad.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Am I understanding you, that you came here, to a site called metabunk, for the basic reason that you do not like the term 'debunk'?

I came here to LEARN about things, not to argue about the title of the site.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I know the meaning of the term. I don't agree with the usage. That's why it's in quotes. You do know how that works, don't ya?



I know it's a shorthand. That's my point. It's a shorthand that someone has been tagged as "damaged goods" because they propound particular ideas. Therefore, they are on the shitlist and anything they say about anything is able to then be dismissed out of hand.

It's how you get the echo chamber and the monological culture. It doesn't take long to see where the lines are drawn. This comes through by seeing what's debunked and what isn't. Our team good, their team bad.


If you feel someone has been labeled "damaged goods" by a debunker here, please point out where that debunker is wrong, preferably with some sort of linkable evidence to back up your claims. You will find it much easier to have your views looked at more seriously if you first provide some counter evidence to what is labeled as debunked here that you feel doesn't have enough evidence to deem it debunked.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
It's a shorthand that someone has been tagged as "damaged goods" because they propound particular ideas. Therefore, they are on the shitlist and anything they say about anything is able to then be dismissed out of hand.

Can you provide an example of this occurring on Metabunk to help illustrate your point?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
But I AM trying to communicate on a precise level

Perhaps, but it isn't happening. That's what I'm trying to tell ya, but instead of hearing anything, you are just dismissing everything I say out of hand.

I'm just trying to communicate the debunk. The actual refutation of claims of evidence.

It does not really matter if I say "debunked" or "explained" or "errors pointed out in" - because those distinctions are not the issue.

The issue is the bunk.

Look, Mick, this is your board and you are free to run it any way you choose. If you want an echo chamber then you can have it. If you want the board to grow, you can have that as well. But I'm not sure you can have both.

I'm not bringing any of this stuff up to attack you, but to give you the perspective of someone who just walked in the door and who would love to discuss stuff.

I told you I landed here by accident. But when I did, I thought it was an incredible boon because it appeared to be just what I was looking for. So I lurked for a few days to see how it rolled. It didn't take long for the bloom to fade and I almost just walked out before even posting because it seemed like it would be the same ol' shit, just lining up the teams and yelling past each other, rinse and repeat.

So here you have someone who has a great interest in many topics on your site, has been hoping beyond hope for just such a site, and feeling like they just hit the jackpot in finding your site, yet wants to walk away upon a few days lurking, without even posting. Bit the bullet anyway and stayed, but will probably be chased off before long, which is not really what I was looking for.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps, but it isn't happening. That's what I'm trying to tell ya, but instead of hearing anything, you are just dismissing everything I say out of hand.


Where is it not happening? I'm writing (hopefully clear and understandable) articles debunking things. I often title them "debunked: ....". People read them. Often people disagree that I've "debunked" the topic, and conversation follows.

What's the problem?

What would you suggest instead?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
You know what doesn't debunk a debunker? Giving your opinion on why you THINK a debunker is wrong. Instead you should be pointing out, with evidence, where the debunker got it wrong.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I know the meaning of the term. I don't agree with the usage. That's why it's in quotes. You do know how that works, don't ya?

I know that if I don't agree with the usage of something I do not put in a sentence with no explanation that I actually disagree with the usage or further commentary on why I disagree.

So I guess I do not know how "that" works at all. And I did not put "that" in quotes because I disagreed with the usage - I did it because I wanted to highlight the term as applying to your definition, in case anyone might be unsure - do you see how that works (note lack of quotes)?

I know it's a shorthand. That's my point. It's a shorthand that someone has been tagged as "damaged goods" because they propound particular ideas. Therefore, they are on the shitlist and anything they say about anything is able to then be dismissed out of hand.

So why not explain that in the first instance instead of going all obscure?

I have always found on here that the more direct and more obvious the wording the easier it is for people to understand - there are folks on here from all around the world, and yes to some degree a shared understanding of some things regardless of which "side" you are on - but hat is just the human condition and changing it is not a fight you can possibly win.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Where is it not happening? I'm writing (hopefully clear and understandable) articles debunking things. I often title them "debunked: ....". People read them. Often people disagree that I've "debunked" the topic, and conversation follows.

What's the problem?

What would you suggest instead?

Ah, never mind, Mick. No problem.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
I saw a post asking about whether something was pseudoscience. The first question asked who its proponents were. Someone [Mick] said X, who worked in a completely different field.

As soon as I read this, I heard Inigo Montoya's voice, saying: I do not think it means what you think it means. (With my apologies for the hopefully-not-too-obscure reference.)

The OP in that thread specifically stated that the "EU model" was "gaining proponents" (never mind the ad populum), and Mick then asked who those were. It's interesting to note that the OP then linked a list of speakers at their own conference, but that's not in any way indicative of "new proponents". Those are mostly familiar supporters of EU claims and speakers who attend fringe cosmology conferences. I'm not seeing an attempt to discredit or poison the well based upon who's associated with those ideas, which is what you're trying to suggest.

(And as for the OP in that thread, it would be dishonest to suggest there's growing academic support for a collection of ideas so scattered that it doesn't even meet the criteria to be called a model in the first place. In the interest of brevity I'll knock it off there.)

That led to someone saying that it was therefore suspect.

I can't fault anyone for seeing a name which raises red flags due to familiarity, especially if the association is justifiably negative (Sheldrake being an apt example). We also can't expect that participants in a general discussion forum are going to be familiar with (let alone interested in) the claims or histories of fringe cosmology. In contrast, those topics on large fora like JREF and CosmoQuest get a lot of play, and frequently involve actively publishing physicists and cosmologists.

Someone else then said that after a cursory glance it appeared to be pseudoscience. Which led to someone else saying they were perfectly happy to wait for science to confirm or deny it. Then the thread died.

I think that's actually rather charitable, certainly in comparison to what I'd express about the topic.

I thought that was weird, given that the model being asked about would have major ramifications about the way the universe works. Still, because it was tagged as being connected to an unsavory debunkedee and was challenging the orthodox view, the curiosity level was nil.

That's not a prudent assumption, though: the curiosity level might have been nil either way. If it's any consolation, I'd present arguments that EU is pseudoscience. I'm also still happy to discuss Apollo footage with you. Just putting it out there, and apologies if I've strayed too far from the larger topic at hand.

Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It's a bit more complicated than that Cairenn. One should consider the source, of course. But there are many levels of trust, skill, and reliability that can be attributed to a source, and they can vary based on the domain. I'd include the source in an evaluation, but the amount of weight that contributes to the assessment can vary greatly. You want to avoid yes/no decisions in complex topics.

At simplest, anyone should be able to recognize that:

A lied about B
A said C
Therefore C is false

is a fallacy.

It's the same one used by proponents of government conspiracies - they lied in the past, therefore this is a lie.

I'm a little confused though when you say we should avoid yes/no questions, as ambiguity and insinuation, and free-form 'connecting the dots' that disregards original context, and avoids simple 'is this true or not?' questions is what a lot of conspiracy thinking thrives on - if a simple fact can be answered yes or no, then the edifice of false reasoning should fall, eg, the energy HAARP can physically produce versus what is claimed it can, which then leads to the claimed effects being impossible; or the amount of physical wiring and explosives that would be required to produce the claimed WTC demolition effect - that is a yes/no situation that should leave no room for ambiguity if one is honest about it.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If A has lied about B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, Q and told half truths about I, J, M and P, I have little reason to think that they are telling the truth about R.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Maybe not - but it is also true that you can determine that "R" is definitively untrue by examining its actual content, and therefore not have to presume/assume the case.

that said it is completely human nature to have an expectation based upon previous performance, and to anticipate that examining it will be a waste of time and therefore not want to do so!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's the same one used by proponents of government conspiracies - they lied in the past, therefore this is a lie.

I'm a little confused though when you say we should avoid yes/no questions, as ambiguity and insinuation, and free-form 'connecting the dots' that disregards original context, and avoids simple 'is this true or not?' questions is what a lot of conspiracy thinking thrives on - if a simple fact can be answered yes or no, then the edifice of false reasoning should fall, eg, the energy HAARP can physically produce versus what is claimed it can, which then leads to the claimed effects being impossible; or the amount of physical wiring and explosives that would be required to produce the claimed WTC demolition effect - that is a yes/no situation that should leave no room for ambiguity if one is honest about it.


I put that badly, I meant you should try to avoid condensing complex topic to single yes/no decisions. You need to reduce it to its component individual points which are not complex, which can be answered yes/no, or with a number.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Can you provide an example of this occurring on Metabunk to help illustrate your point?
But I AM trying to communicate on a precise level.

I'm just trying to communicate the debunk. The actual refutation of claims of evidence.

It does not really matter if I say "debunked" or "explained" or "errors pointed out in" - because those distinctions are not the issue.

The issue is the bunk.

Actually, no it's not. It's the residue.

Those who have been debunked have the Scarlet D upon their brow. Thus marked, they are now disqualified as a legitimate source for anything. This totally sucks and in real time, Mick.

It's a pain in the ass always having to time find a "suitable" source for a fully documented piece of history or well-established bit of scientific data, or otherwise validated piece of information?

It's crazy making because it stifles information flow and stacks the deck because for reasons beyond logic, the same exact fact or piece of verified information is given weight depending on whose mouth it comes out or who can be connected to it. Guilt by association or proximity or whatever, but the taint is there.

A wire story sourced by the NY Times will meet with a different reaction than the same wire story sourced by Infowars. Once folks see the label on the bag, whatever is inside is graded accordingly. If the fact comes out of the wrong mouth it ain't as true.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Usually because inforwars will spin the base wire story into evidence of something sinister - they know exactly what their audience wants and expects. The base fact is used a jumping point for speculation presented as 'may as well be true'.
At least a NY times piece will qualify their speculation by admitting it is such (I presume).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, no it's not. It's the residue.

Those who have been debunked have the Scarlet D upon their brow. Thus marked, they are now disqualified as a legitimate source for anything. This totally sucks and in real time, Mick.

It's a pain in the ass always having to time find a "suitable" source for a fully documented piece of history or well-established bit of scientific data, or otherwise validated piece of information?

It's crazy making because it stifles information flow and stacks the deck because for reasons beyond logic, the same exact fact or piece of verified information is given weight depending on whose mouth it comes out or who can be connected to it. Guilt by association or proximity or whatever, but the taint is there.

A wire story sourced by the NY Times will meet with a different reaction than the same wire story sourced by Infowars. Once folks see the label on the bag, whatever is inside is graded accordingly. If the fact comes out of the wrong mouth it ain't as true.


What do you suggest I do instead of what I am doing?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
If A has lied about B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, Q and told half truths about I, J, M and P, I have little reason to think that they are telling the truth about R.

So please tell me why you are so trusting of government or corporations? No matter what side of any issue anyone is on, nobody could in any way deny that those in office or the boardroom have lied more times than letters in all the alphabets in the world. Yet time after time, I've heard you brush off any and all ideas contrary to whatever the party line is on any issue.

You said earlier that it made sense and was intelligent for Monsanto to hire Blackwater to infiltrate anti-gmo groups because DHS was focusing on external terrorists.

You just can't make this stuff up.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
What do you suggest I do instead of what I am doing?

Quit with the mission accomplished shit when you are putting forth something for the first time. If something hasn't had a chance to be rebutted, in no way has it been debunked.

I saw Debunked: Nicolas Tesla and almost walked right back out the door because it was obviously a loony bin.

That's the point, Mick. You want to grow the place, I'm all for it. But you have to consider what you want to grow it into, an echo chamber or a place for real discussion. It's natural selection in real time. There's a great potential for losing a lot of traffic at the door because it's not about any of the nuance or proper usage of terms at that point. It's gut reaction. You guys don't notice because it's home. You don't even see shit because it blends into the wallpaper. Newbies see a whole different picture.

I open a page and see a schmeer of posts labeled debunked: and I either stay or go right there. It's a point of purchase sale far more than it's a considered decision.

There are no posts labeled Debunked: Neo-Darwinism. That would be laughed out of the joint. Yet, by the same specs you use when you throw the term around, it has been debunked over and over. You may disagree, but hey, it's still true by any yardstick you apply to whatever you are targeting.

Same for the people, sources, and stances you take. Every single one of them has been debunked on many levels, just like any one I might use or anyone else. That's because by the loose rules of the road observed around here for the home team alone, everything under the sun has been debunked in some way.

But only certain subjects and sources get the Scarlet D.

There's something eminently fucked up about that. But it is what it is and it surely is. Anyone not singing from the same sheet music will soon wander off and gene pool shrinks.

Natural selection.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Actually, no it's not. It's the residue.

Those who have been debunked have the Scarlet D upon their brow. Thus marked, they are now disqualified as a legitimate source for anything. This totally sucks and in real time, Mick.

Is your position that someone who has been proven to lie about something should still be considered credible? Why, because their story is interesting?
It's a pain in the ass always having to time find a "suitable" source for a fully documented piece of history or well-established bit of scientific data, or otherwise validated piece of information?

Well that's what it takes to properly verify something, most people don't bother and believe whatever they like the sound of. Sure it's a drag if you don't care what the truth is.
To some, reality is not as interesting as what people can simply make up.


It's crazy making because it stifles information flow and stacks the deck because for reasons beyond logic, the same exact fact or piece of verified information is given weight depending on whose mouth it comes out or who can be connected to it. Guilt by association or proximity or whatever, but the taint is there.

A wire story sourced by the NY Times will meet with a different reaction than the same wire story sourced by Infowars. Once folks see the label on the bag, whatever is inside is graded accordingly. If the fact comes out of the wrong mouth it ain't as true.

Well that would be a provable piece of bunk then (if they dispute a proven fact because of who said it).
It also matters what they are implying by using that fact - is it used out of context to justify a view that is not factual?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My, you sure have a problem with the word "debunked".

I use it to indicate what the post is about, and so it may be more easily found. There's plenty of room for discussion.

I know some people don't like the word, but I think on balance it communicates my intent quite well, and that's more important than a few people who have some knee-jerk reaction to it.

And this is far from an echo-chamber. Right now the non-debunkers fairly evenly balance the debunkers in the top posters. The ten after me have five debunkers, and five more conspiracy oriented:
https://www.metabunk.org/members/?sort=Message+Count&dir=DESC

(conspiricists/theorists highlighted, apologies to (original) Joe, who is only half, and Grieves, who dislikes labels))

So fostering conversation is not that huge an issue.

You can't please all of the people. I don't want to grow for growth's sake. This is something specific. Polite focussed debunking, labeled as such. If that makes you mad, then that just means it's not for you.
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Joe Newman, are you going to offer anything [...] as a counter to why you think people here are wrong?


Edit by Mick: [Politeness Snip]
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Usually because inforwars will spin the base wire story into evidence of something sinister - they know exactly what their audience wants and expects. The base fact is used a jumping point for speculation presented as 'may as well be true'.
At least a NY times piece will qualify their speculation by admitting it is such (I presume).

This is a perfect example of just what I am talking about, Pete. I didn't say anything about spinning anything. I said sourcing. If I pull a wire story off Drudge and you pull the same damn wire story from the Times, even though the text is precisely the same, your version of that text is more acceptable than mine.

You aren't saying that the Grayed Lady does not know exactly what her audience wants and expects every bit as much as Infowars does, are you? How can this be? She didn't get to be the paper of record by random mutations, Pete.

It used to be that spin was denied as a matter of routine. Not this type of spin or that type, but the very idea of spinning itself. Everyone who was involved may have known about the way Spin Alley operated, but it was as officially non-existent as aliens and the mafia used to be.

I don't know exactly when it happened, but happen it did and things are different now. I first started picking up the changing pattern in the early 90's, when it was still novel. You would start to see the idea of spin come into play out front. It was just little mentions that something was massaged this way or that. It was nothing big, but it was noticeable that things had shifted.

Well, you know what happened. Now the idea of spinning is completely accepted as part of the package to the point that how something will be spun becomes a story in itself. How do you think Obama is going to spin this one, Pete? Do you really think Rubio will be able to turn this recent dip into a gain if he gets back on message? How is Putin going to use this Abominable Snowden to further his push back against the encroachment of NATO?

None of that kind of questioning raises any eyebrows at all. It's just the way things roll.

Everything is spun. When folks bitch about this or that source being biased, what the are really saying is that the source is biased in a way they don't agree with.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Is your position that someone who has been proven to lie about something should still be considered credible? Why, because their story is interesting?

No, but if it was then you guys would lose all your sources because all of them have been proven to have lied often enough along the way. As for any "official story," sorry, but that's out the window as a default going by your standards because them that spin such do so with the full and formal assistance of those who specialize in such. It isn't a secret and either are the folks that do the do. You can hire them yourself if you have the scratch. These guys look pretty good for the more moderate price range:

How do you plan to protect your brand if your company was legitimately called out for wrong doing or error, or a customer received bad service and did not hesitate to share the adverse news with all of their friends? Do you have a damage control plan in place?

Of course, your gut instinct tells you to take corrective action immediately but in some circumstances, it may be too late. Nevertheless, how you manage traditional media and online media is critical in helping you mitigate the temporary or permanent degradation of your brand. There are multiple print and online tools to help you and we can show you the way to effectively and efficiently monitor the streams of communication from a quantitative and qualitative perspective.
Let’s face it, bad press, miscommunication and misunderstanding will always exist in the business world in which we operate however, with effective and appropriate checks and balances in place, you’ll know exactly what to do when the tide of public opinion turns against you. See our Online Reputation Management “Cheat Sheet” for some helpful tips and advice to get you started and then contact Starmark Public Relations to see how we can help you create a strategic public relations campaign that encompasses bad as well as good press management.
- See more at: http://www.starmark.com/damage-control-for-bad-press/#sthash.pc3xOAB9.dpuf

Well that's what it takes to properly verify something, most people don't bother and believe whatever they like the sound of. Sure it's a drag if you don't care what the truth is.

Be careful, because "most people" cuts a wide swath and if you don't think it plows through Debunker County, you need better monitoring equipment.

To some, reality is not as interesting as what people can simply make up.

Heh. I've been keeping my eye on this so-called reality and from all that I can see, it's way stranger than anything anyone can make up.

Well that would be a provable piece of bunk then (if they dispute a proven fact because of who said it). It also matters what they are implying by using that fact - is it used out of context to justify a view that is not factual?

All of the above may be so, but it doesn't touch upon what I said in the example. The same text, word for word, no editorializing, no spin, will be perceived differently depending on where it was sourced from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Your views on 'What makes a source (of information) reliable'? General Discussion 9
skephu New tool ChimeIn makes all web sites commentable Practical Debunking 4
C Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view Conspiracy Theories 47
ssfor27 How Dutchsinse makes his "HAARP ring" forecasts.... HAARP 14
Critical Thinker The Anti Media, makes bogus claim that "CDC admits Ebola could be airborne" Conspiracy Theories 75
Pete Tar Debunking just makes people believe the bunk - 'motivated reason' Practical Debunking 67
Leifer Debunker makes a cloudbuster.... Contrails and Chemtrails 0
George B Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo Contrails and Chemtrails 76
PCWilliams The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant? Conspiracy Theories 152
Mick West Debunked: "you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions." Quotes Debunked 2
Mauro How to calculate the odds of something being true vs. it being false, given the evidence (Bayesian inference) Practical Debunking 40
P Dan Aykroyd: Making something out of nothing General Discussion 2
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Calculating the height of something in a P900 photo when distance is known Flat Earth 59
M Bornong "Something Strange" - Hurriyah car bombing video seems staged General Discussion 50
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
DebunkingShills Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk. Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Spongebob Something from Nothing Science and Pseudoscience 2
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top