What makes something "debunked"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mynym

Banned
Banned
Here is a good debunk of faking footage.

Good video, interesting thoughts... although it would have been better if it hadn't contained an image apparently known to have been faked based on a relatively simple technique in order to manipulate perceptions among the base. You would have thought he would recognize that and been sure to edit it out because he's an expert on manipulating perceptions on film, huh?

Perhaps those are the illusions that typically get you. It's when you're blind sided by some relatively simple technique (and not necessarily the technology and so forth he was imagining) that produces an illusion in your mind that you start believing in. It's usually simple stuff. Or it seems simple in retrospect, after you know that you're not a "lunatic" because you're conscious of the fact that someone has been messing with your perceptions and so forth. But "the base" or average lemmings (metaphorically speaking) actually seldom seem to truly consider that or try to imagine it as a possibility. "... fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." --W Maybe there's nothing inherently wrong with being simple minded and failing to try to imagine all possible scenarios. We're all headed the way of the Dodo anyway.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
My, you sure have a problem with the word "debunked".

Heh. Not at all. But I do have a problem with the inaccurate and indiscriminate usage of a term, thereby neutering it and rendering it useless as a designate. If that's your plan, no worries. If not, no worries either. Plenty of wondering, though. But it's your setup, so you will shape is as you will.

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 you do. I just don't think it's serving you in the way that you want it to.


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.


It definitely communicates your intent, but I don't think in the way you mean, unless you are giving away the game plan.

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:
[graphic snipped]
(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.

Depends on what you mean by conversation. I'm sure it breaks out here and there, but in the main, I see much more avoidance of conversation via the usual trick bag of such dodging techniques.

Just because two teams are participating doesn't mean it's not an echo chamber or a monological culture. Of course, you will disagree, but the proof is on the page. These folks disagree with those folks, yes. But what you don't see is one of these folks disagreeing with another one of these folks and supporting a stance put forth by one of those folks.

The teams are in place and folks play their position. If that's what you want, all good.

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.
It's not about pleasing people. It's about fostering an even playing field. Some are for that, others aren't. You are apparently in the latter pile, and that's fine since it's your board.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure why you think "fostering an even playing field" is a goal. The goal is debunking. Identifying thing that are incorrect, and fixing them.

I'm not against "an even playing field". Nor am I trying to make it uneven. But what exactly would this even playing field look like? Just adding "(in my opinion) after every instance of the word "debunked"?

Can you be a bit more specific as to a topic where you think the unevenness of the playing field is an issue?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Joe, did you read my guidelines on debunking people:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-people-guidelines.236/

I have. Quite interesting.
  • Appeal to authority - Is someone basing their belief in some bunk solely on the claims of this person? If you debunk one, you debunk the other.
  • False or misleading credentials - Does the person claim to be a doctor or a professor, but it's in a totally unrelated subject, like art history, when discussing meteorology? Is their degree a bit vague, or seems like it's mail order? Are they an "alternative" doctor passing off as a real doctor?
  • Immune to corrections - Does the person make false statements, and then when they are show to be false, continue to make those statements, or not issue a correction?
  • Conflicts of Interests - Would the person benefit from promoting the bunk? Do they sell something that proposes to treat something that they are promoting bunk about? Does their web-site have adverts for fear-based marketing?
I notice I've not seen Debunked: Richard Dawkins or Debunked: James Randi or anyone like that. Both of those surely qualify given the above.

I wonder why no one debunks them? Ok, no I don't. They are on the team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe Newman

Active Member
I'm not sure why you think "fostering an even playing field" is a goal. The goal is debunking. Identifying thing that are incorrect, and fixing them.

I'm not against "an even playing field". Nor am I trying to make it uneven. But what exactly would this even playing field look like? Just adding "(in my opinion) after every instance of the word "debunked"?

Can you be a bit more specific as to a topic where you think the unevenness of the playing field is an issue?

Here's five: Climate change, evolution, ufos, paranormal, consciousness, atheism.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
So which of the bullet points apply to Randi or Dawkins?

All of them at one point or another. Each has been roundly debunked over and again, and neither has miuch cred outside the choir room. That's established for all to see, so let google be your guide. ;)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All of them at one point or another. Each has been roundly debunked over and again, and neither has miuch cred outside the choir room. That's established for all to see, so let google be your guide. ;)


Perhaps you could just list Dawkins misleading credentials?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Good video, interesting thoughts... although it would have been better if it hadn't contained an image apparently known to have been faked based on a relatively simple technique in order to manipulate perceptions among the base. You would have thought he would recognize that and been sure to edit it out because he's an expert on manipulating perceptions on film, huh?

Perhaps those are the illusions that typically get you. It's when you're blind sided by some relatively simple technique (and not necessarily the technology and so forth he was imagining) that produces an illusion in your mind that you start believing in. It's usually simple stuff. Or it seems simple in retrospect, after you know that you're not a "lunatic" because you're conscious of the fact that someone has been messing with your perceptions and so forth. But "the base" or average lemmings (metaphorically speaking) actually seldom seem to truly consider that or try to imagine it as a possibility. "... fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." --W Maybe there's nothing inherently wrong with being simple minded and failing to try to imagine all possible scenarios. We're all headed the way of the Dodo anyway.

Ramble to someone else please!
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
You made a claim. Back it up.

I already did. If I make the claim that the Spurs lost the Finals, do I have to source it? It happened. You can look it up.

It's the same here. By any criteria you set forth as regards to debunking a person, these two have been drubbed accordingly. Google either one with debunked and poke around. It's right there on the page. Maybe you don't agree, but that isn't the issue.

If I claim Alex Jones or David Icke have been debunked, you gonna ask for back up? No. It's a given. Richard Dawkins and James Randi are grade A no questions asked reliable sources trotted out as needed and never questioned. Jones and Icke are grade A no questions aksed unreliable sources. That's the uneven playing field.

So again, by what standard do you consider each of these guys to be free from the Scarlet D and why?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
By your lack of providing contrary evidence?

You claim that "False or misleading credentials" applies to Dawkins. If you can't back it up, then retract it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Richard Dawkins and James Randi are grade A no questions asked reliable sources trotted out as needed and never questioned. Jones and Icke are grade A no questions aksed unreliable sources. That's the uneven playing field.


So if that's uneven, what would be even?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I already did. If I make the claim that the Spurs lost the Finals, do I have to source it? It happened. You can look it up.
If someone doesn't watch the NBA or read or watch sports news or news for that matter then one would need to look it up wouldn't they?
It's the same here. By any criteria you set forth as regards to debunking a person, these two have been drubbed accordingly. Google either one with debunked and poke around. It's right there on the page. Maybe you don't agree, but that isn't the issue
If it is so easy to google the evidence then why don't you just provide it so anyone reading this can see what your talking about. How am I to know what you read and what you didn't?
If I claim Alex Jones or David Icke have been debunked, you gonna ask for back up? No. It's a given. Richard Dawkins and James Randi are grade A no questions asked reliable sources trotted out as needed and never questioned. Jones and Icke are grade A no questions aksed unreliable sources. That's the uneven playing field.
Again please provide a link/s to back up what you claim. You say a lot but you don't do a lot to show it is anything but your opinion. This site is about evidence, if you're going to claim something/someone is not debunked or lack credentials then your opinion will carry more weight, with some, if you can provide a linkable source to back it up.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
If someone doesn't watch the NBA or read or watch sports news or news for that matter then one would need to look it up wouldn't they?

Yup. Gotta problem with that?

If it is so easy to google the evidence then why don't you just provide it so anyone reading this can see what your talking about. How am I to know what you read and what you didn't?

If anyone here doesn't know what I'm talking about, they need to update their software or get out of the choir room for a bit to see what's going on in the wider world. This stuff isn't in hiding. It's right there for everyone to see.

Again please provide a link/s to back up what you claim. You say a lot but you don't do a lot to show it is anything but your opinion. This site is about evidence, if you're going to claim something/someone is not debunked or lack credentials then your opinion will carry more weight, with some, if you can provide a linkable source to back it up.

Look, if you want to engage me, teach your pony a new trick. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said all along the way, nor have you pointed out anything specific to support this script you've been reading from. If this is all ya got, all good, just don't expect anymore replies from me because it just isn't working for me as is. Sorry.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Yup. Gotta problem with that?



If anyone here doesn't know what I'm talking about, they need to update their software or get out of the choir room for a bit to see what's going on in the wider world. This stuff isn't in hiding. It's right there for everyone to see.



Look, if you want to engage me, teach your pony a new trick. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said all along the way, nor have you pointed out anything specific to support this script you've been reading from. If this is all ya got, all good, just don't expect anymore replies from me because it just isn't working for me as is. Sorry.

What evidence have I claimed that I have not provided something to back it up?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I have. Quite interesting. [...]
  • Conflicts of Interests - Would the person benefit from promoting the bunk? Do they sell something that proposes to treat something that they are promoting bunk about? Does their web-site have adverts for fear-based marketing?
Dawkins, selling a lot of bunkand evolutionary "just so" stories in his books while trying to prop up and profit from his supposed identity as a scientist (and not a PR man).

He also engages in fear based marketing against religious people. Yet, no word yet on whether he's going to take responsibility for spreading ridiculous memes about the type of "Selfish Genes" that caused the Enron debacle.

My personal list of people:
Richard Dawkins: Debunked

Just kidding, I'm not into debunking people.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Joe, I have read a lot, about a lot of things and people. Since you can't provide any links to what you have read I can't decide if I agree with you or not.

I'm also curious how you know what "script I read from" since I haven't claimed to believe in any script at all?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dawkins, selling a lot of bunkand evolutionary "just so" stories in his books while trying to prop up and profit from his supposed identity as a scientist (and not a PR man).
But by that argument, ALL non-fiction authors have a conflict of interest. You need to demonstrate how he's benefiting from bunk by actually showing that it is bunk.

He also engages in fear based marketing against religious people. Yet, no word yet on whether he's going to take responsibility for spreading ridiculous memes about the type of "Selfish Genes" that caused the Enron debacle.


Fear based marketing is where you make people afraid, so they buy something, like Alex Jones and survivalist gear.

I'm assuming your Enron reference is a joke.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I have. Quite interesting.
  • Appeal to authority - Is someone basing their belief in some bunk solely on the claims of this person? If you debunk one, you debunk the other.
  • False or misleading credentials - Does the person claim to be a doctor or a professor, but it's in a totally unrelated subject, like art history, when discussing meteorology? Is their degree a bit vague, or seems like it's mail order? Are they an "alternative" doctor passing off as a real doctor?
  • Immune to corrections - Does the person make false statements, and then when they are show to be false, continue to make those statements, or not issue a correction?
  • Conflicts of Interests - Would the person benefit from promoting the bunk? Do they sell something that proposes to treat something that they are promoting bunk about? Does their web-site have adverts for fear-based marketing?
I notice I've not seen Debunked: Richard Dawkins or Debunked: James Randi or anyone like that. Both of those surely qualify given the above.


I wonder why no one debunks them? Ok, no I don't. They are on the team.

If you think they need debunking, then by all means, debunk them. You are free to do that here. Just because no one has, doesn't mean you can't. Start a thread and show us why you think they are bunk! Please!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I see Joe making a lot of claims, but he has yet to offer any evidence to back up his claims. He claimed that part of the moon landing footage was fake and never supported that.

Now he 'claims' to have debunked Dawkins without a single piece of evidence.

I am beginning to think that he is here to argue, not to learn or anything else. And worse argue from his opinions, rather that from any evidence.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
What someone knows is kind of like a sandwich, with the bread being their opinion and all the goodies inside is the knowledge that helps them form that opinion. Talking to Joe is like eating bread and calling it a sandwich!
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I already did. If I make the claim that the Spurs lost the Finals, do I have to source it? It happened. You can look it up.

another classic CT tactic - telling peole to "look it up for yourself".

No - I will not. If you claim something happened then YOU provide the evidence or at least links to what you consider evidence.

There are a zillion "things" in the world - I cannot know which of hundreds of thousands or even millions of "links" are the ones you might consider to be your supporting evidence for claim "X" - it is up to you to tell me what your evidence is.

If you cannot then I have every right to say you are making baseless assertions.

If I claim Alex Jones or David Icke have been debunked, you gonna ask for back up? No. It's a given.

no - you are wrong. I am going to ask which particular claim by them you have debunked, and how have you debunked it.

Richard Dawkins and James Randi are grade A no questions asked reliable sources trotted out as needed and never questioned.

the reason they are never questioned is that they give full and reasoned rational explanations and provide eth evidence for their claims - therefore there is no need to question them.

Jones and Icke are grade A no questions aksed unreliable sources. That's the uneven playing field.

the only thing uneven is the evidence provided by the 2 groups of people - one of them provides evidence and het evidence clearly supports their conclusions. the other either provides no evidence or provides evidence that is, at best, questionable, or, at worst deliberately falsified.

It would be stupid to treat both sets of evidence the same.

So again, by what standard do you consider each of these guys to be free from the Scarlet D and why?

by he standard of the quality of the evidence they provide, and because that is what debunking is - examining the evidence and removing he bunk from it.

Why do you think the quality of the evidence, its relationship to the conclusions, and its verifiability so unimportant?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...The same text, word for word, no editorializing, no spin, will be perceived differently depending on where it was sourced from.
I didn't realise that was what you meant.
Can you provide examples of that here? Anything presented should be judged on what it says first, rather than where it comes from. That becomes a consideration if a questionable source is the only one that reports something, but it should still be checkable. If it's not confirmable by other means, it is reasonable to mark it suspect, though one can always entertain the possibility it is correct if one is inclined.

I am aware that debunkers or skeptics do not have a monopoly on truth or reality and are just as prone to bias as any other group; although, there is a tendency for them to be aware of the cognitive failings we are all liable to more than other 'groups', because in evaluating information, truth and belief it is an area one has to become familiar with.
I do have an interest in how we can fool ourselves, and *try* to keep that in mind, I am aware there is a danger in this group to solidify into a culture because of our familiarity with patterns of bunk and unjustified assertions.

I am hopeful that there would be a debunking of bunk no matter the source, especially when it comes from political or corporate authority - however, the fact is that political or corporate institutions tend to have better fact-checkers.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
If you think they need debunking, then by all means, debunk them. You are free to do that here. Just because no one has, doesn't mean you can't. Start a thread and show us why you think they are bunk! Please!

I know you are going to find this hard to believe, since you operate on a post by post basis, but this isn't about Dawkins.

It's about the Scarlet D you pass out at a whim. It colors the waters and narrows the flow along certain channels.

Your original po got maybe 6 responses. I mean, there's a lot of threads and you can't get to them all, right?

So folks just note that Tesla's been "debunked," if they even know anything about what he did, which I've now learned wasn't that big a deal, anyway.

Nicolas Fucking Tesla.

No matter. <flick> He can now be safely disregarded. They saw your imprimatur and that's good enough to "debunk" him that has his name even near it.

That's what you are communicating, Mick.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Tesla being 'debunked' is about the myths that have grown up around him, which are considerable; it doesn't debunk the fact that he was maverick genius and priceless innovator, just the sometimes superhuman technologies attributed to him.
There is a cult of personality that has built around the legend of Tesla that has considerable falsehoods in it.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I know you are going to find this hard to believe, since you operate on a post by post basis, but this isn't about Dawkins.

It's about the Scarlet D you pass out at a whim. It colors the waters and narrows the flow along certain channels.
I don't remember passing out any "Scarlet D" about anything or anyone to you. I have asked you to provide evidence to back up your ramblings.

Your original po got maybe 6 responses. I mean, there's a lot of threads and you can't get to them all, right?
I'm okay with this because I'm not here for responses I'm here to learn. Your opinion doesn't help me do that!


So folks just note that Tesla's been "debunked," if they even know anything about what he did, which I've now learned wasn't that big a deal, anyway.

Nicolas Fucking Tesla.

No matter. <flick> He can now be safely disregarded. They saw your imprimatur and that's good enough to "debunk" him that has his name even near it.

That's what you are communicating, Mick.


What Pete Tar said. Try reading the thread and you might have seen that!

Now I know to just expect rambles out of you and will stop asking for evidence you can't provide.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No matter. <flick> He can now be safely disregarded. They saw your imprimatur and that's good enough to "debunk" him that has his name even near it.

That's what you are communicating, Mick.


I don't think I am. The thread is titled: "Tesla Overrated, Debunked". I think it' pretty clear that I consider him overrated, and that there's some bunk about him.

Are you saying that you thought he could be safely disregarded after reading the title of my post?

Or did you understand what my post was about (and maybe disagree with it), and you are just concerned that less perceptive people will be swayed by my labeling?

Or that since people think Telsa was a demigod, then they will think I'm an idiot, and won't read anything else on the site?

I think you are getting a little obsessed over this "debunked" word. It's not that big a deal. Why does it irk you so? Why not actually focus on the bunk?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems that Joe is reading into posts what he THINKS they mean.

It also seems that he loves to throw out something and make claims and then he never offers any evidence of his claims. So far we have the 'faked moon landings', Dawkins and Randi, that he feels have issues, but nothing but his opinion.

I am going back in the past to point out where a famous name could have had a statement debunked.

Carl Sagan predicted nuclear winter if the wells in Kuwait were blown up. Sagan was Wrong, he was in an area where he didn't have the expertise. He should have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut, but he wasn't.

One could debunk him, for his comments about climate and that would not effect his knowledge of astrophysics.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...4&dq=world-climate-conference+oil+fires&hl=en
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
another classic CT tactic - telling peole to "look it up for yourself".

No - I will not. If you claim something happened then YOU provide the evidence or at least links to what you consider evidence.

<Sigh.> My apologies to you and everyone else who is all aflutter about my not googling "debunking dawkins" for you. This wasn't about Dawkins and I was going to be saving him for later when I was actually discussing stuff, instead of discussing how fucking impossible it is to discuss stuff.

I didn't realize you weren't aware of what was common knowledge and once something of a trend back before the New Atheism thing crashed and burned. I know I shouldn't assume. My bad.

People wrote whole books debunking him. You guy's don't remember all that? Ah, well. Again, my bad. Well, here ya go, since you are all so salivating for it:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213

"When authors write books that criticize other books, they have usually already lost; the original book has set the agenda to which the critics respond, and the outcome is foretold. Not in this case. The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield."

"With rigorous logic and exquisite fairness, the McGraths have exposed Dawkins's very superficial understanding of the history of religion and theology. Because he is so 'out of his depth' in these areas, . . ."

That's the credentials being called into question box. It's a gripe that's common as sand. His Leprachaunology comment is infamous. You sure you guys don't remember any of this?

His fellow travelers loved it, and it is funny, but it was also a glaring example of why he's been trashed so thoroughly. Anybody you want to bust for not having the proper cred, all good. But not many folks are a famous for it as Dawk is.

the reason they are never questioned is that they give full and reasoned rational explanations and provide eth evidence for their claims - therefore there is no need to question them.

Ooh. This is gonna hurt, man.

He's kind of even more famous for his bad reason than he is for his being ignorant of the basics of the discussion.

Here's an Oxford University tutorial based on The God Delusion:

However, when his arguments are examined objectively, they prove to be riddled with fallacies. A fallacy is an argument which appears plausible on the surface, but which is found to rest upon false or invalid assumptions. As a single illness may involve many overlapping symptoms, the logical weaknesses in this book also involve many overlapping fallacies. Rather than prove his point Mr. Dawkins instead provides an excellent teaching tool to demonstrate logical fallacies.

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins Debunked Summary.htm

Careful in there, if you are new to seeing the wood taken to poor Richard. It can be a rough go if you really thought he was some kind of exemplar for the reason. Fair warning.

the only thing uneven is the evidence provided by the 2 groups of people - one of them provides evidence and het evidence clearly supports their conclusions. the other either provides no evidence or provides evidence that is, at best, questionable, or, at worst deliberately falsified. It would be stupid to treat both sets of evidence the same.

You really need to stop this, Mike. It isn't making you look good. Ask Mick about it.

This is the last round of the "show me your evidence" shuffle.

Now you have your evidence. Now I want someone to step and explain why a guy with as poor a rep as Dawkins has for being busted doesn't get debunked here.

Well, never mind. Mick asked me to do it, so consider it done. Give him his Scarlet D, Mick.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The god delusion is more an opinion piece than actual science though - I don't think anyone is using that as evidence to back a claim. (I haven't read it, don't particularly care to, I will read what he has to say on evolution though.)
Debunking an opinion is just rhetorical battle. Debunking scientific hypotheses is held to a different standard. You need to be able to distinguish between the two.
Edit..(and this is really rather puzzling...
"the only thing uneven is the evidence provided by the 2 groups of people - one of them provides evidence and het evidence clearly supports their conclusions. the other either provides no evidence or provides evidence that is, at best, questionable, or, at worst deliberately falsified. It would be stupid to treat both sets of evidence the same."

You really need to stop this, Mike. It isn't making you look good. Ask Mick about it.

What is your point? It's really obscure. No need to be mysterious.)
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
I don't think I am. The thread is titled: "Tesla Overrated, Debunked". I think it' pretty clear that I consider him overrated, and that there's some bunk about him.

Are you saying that you thought he could be safely disregarded after reading the title of my post?

Or did you understand what my post was about (and maybe disagree with it), and you are just concerned that less perceptive people will be swayed by my labeling?

Or that since people think Telsa was a demigod, then they will think I'm an idiot, and won't read anything else on the site?

I think you are getting a little obsessed over this "debunked" word. It's not that big a deal. Why does it irk you so? Why not actually focus on the bunk?

Actually, I'm happy to end it and get back to the other stuff. That's why this all came up anyway.

Cosmo asked me some questions about the moon stuff and I had a vid that happened to hit my points straight on and would answer his questions. But I can't use it because even though it has nothing to do with the part that I was interested in, it's got David Icke in it as well and I was really pissed because it can't be valid if he's in it. Now, if this shit wasn't going on and my perfectly good source for the actual content I wanted to use is poisoned. Well, if so, so is anything else anyone uses, so it's a draw.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
blah blah blah - Dawkins debunked, etc....

sorry - did you mean to present some cogent arguments or something similar?? o_O

You really need to stop this, Mike. It isn't making you look good. Ask Mick about it.

I feel fine - I have no idea what it is you think I "need to stop" because you don't actually tell anyone anything - you gish gallop and allude to all sorts of things, and personally I feel I am showing up your lack of actual understanding of any topic at all.

This is the last round of the "show me your evidence" shuffle.

Now you have your evidence.

No, I do not have "my" evidence - nor do I actually have any of yours - you have posted links to long documents, but have shown no actual knowledge of their content - no attempt to summarize any argument, no premise are offered to support your conclusion.

Now I want someone to step and explain why a guy with as poor a rep as Dawkins has for being busted doesn't get debunked here.

Dawkins doesn't get "debunked here" because disagreeing with someone is not the same as debunking - something you clearly do not understand.

If you think you can debunk Dawkins why not start an actual thread and actually do it.


Well, never mind. Mick asked me to do it, so consider it done.

I won't consider it done until you have actually done something other than parrot the idea that some people don't like his ideas.

How about ACTUALLY doing some debunking??

Give him his Scarlet D, Mick.

Jo gets an "F" for basic comprehension
 
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
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 1
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top