On 10/30/2010 11:11 AM, Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:

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

Request to have anal sex with a male dog is denied.




Harlow Victor Allen Campbell
Moderator
alt.alien.research

        (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.