As you must know by now, our troops have invaded the main debunking
organization in the world : UUFOD *United UFO Debunkers) and have
obtained their training manual. Here is Part One of the Debunkers
Bible. People, please report ALL debunkers to NATO so they can
pacify their villages and hamlets!!
How To Debunk Most Anything
(Note - This came to us with no attribution. If you know the
source, please send it along so we can give credit and
attribution)
PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment
needed: one armchair.
Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full
faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive
terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that
suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but
as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may
fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it
entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides
any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that
therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse
the *process* of science with the *content* of science.
(Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral
to subject matter and that only the investigative *process*
can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that
happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed
successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure
everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly
proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are
"touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are
"stated."
Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with
impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test
of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and
clear!)
If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there
is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence
that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being
"too pat."
Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all*
of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements
of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration,
exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of
viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or
metaphysical terms.
Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the
unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals
reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any
situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until
what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms
of established knowledge.
Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement
and respectful debate are a normal part of science.
At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.
State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively
from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best,
an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a
single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts,
however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all,
situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."
"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the
correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the
simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the
most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply
strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule
of thumb but an immutable law.
Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma
as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many
historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between
science and democracy.
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction
between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this
murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically
that there is no evidence.
If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence
alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary
evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.
In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process
of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have
yet been established for the phenomenon in question.
Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established
for phenomena that do not exist!
Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be
judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific
rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to define where
the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will
allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential
horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that
which lies just out of reach at any point in time.
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena
popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents
and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or
from one case to another to support your views as needed. For
example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been)
exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your
armchair and just say "I rest my case."
Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to
seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.
If a significant number of people agree that they have
observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply
ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the
possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely
observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass
hallucination.
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery
and innovation.
Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any
persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails
to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent
mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that
ridicule provides.
By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can
raise the level of objectivity, integrity and
dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.
Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of
something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand
that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their
most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of
time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them
that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic
phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not
about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.
Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never
forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo,
out- of-context information and outright lies will fool most
of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to
ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran
debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable
success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between
fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation
of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire
edifice of opinion.
Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example:
if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies,
respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great
truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one
will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.
Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep
and timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena
so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the
tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing
there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the
unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the
media's favorite code-word for "bogus."
Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or
expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or
reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the
whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story.
Here's how: a) take one element of a case
completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that
hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore
that one element has been explained; d) call a press
conference and announce to the world that the entire case has
been explained!
Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can
mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP,
psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public
that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena
must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage
magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the
same way.
Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how
superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the
existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the
existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that
since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the
enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and
therefore cannot possibly be artificial.
When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of
intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles)
focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been
wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that
might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you
devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract
people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or
nonterrestrial intelligence.
Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in
"invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should
point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with
invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity?
electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle
that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."
Insist that western science is completely objective, and is
based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or
ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable
phenomenon happens to be considered true and/or useful by a
nonwestern or other traditional society, you may therefore
dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval
superstition" or "fairy lore."
Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal,"
"metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get
most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely
emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any
responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even
centuries!
Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed
knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no
police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or
psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they
do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)
Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of
proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we
seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never
forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are
extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the White House
lawn?"
Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims
by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to
misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth;
for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of
any position they've taken.
Another effective strategy with a long history of success is
simply to misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid
replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be
ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even
easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims
as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.
Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not
scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking
organization would fund such ridiculous tests.
Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has
failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it
worthless, while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the
shortcomings of conventional medicine.
Hold claimants responsible for the production values and
editorial policies of any media or press that reports their
claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a
sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event
itself must have been without substance or worth.
When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that
is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not
scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed
scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly
be objective.
If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
participants--or the journalists who reported the case.
Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the
most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the
issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have
profited financially from activities connected with their
research, accuse them of "profiting financially from
activities connected with their research!" If their research,
publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their
normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact
as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such
activities!" If they have labored to achieve public
recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them
as "publicity seekers."
Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the
opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the
necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted
out as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in
ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in
astronomy.
Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to
go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they
hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view
confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon
their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to
lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.
Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found
the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon
exists!"
Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims
have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the
field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually
studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.