Excerpts from The Debunkers Handbook: "The War against
Discovery and Innovation"
**** 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 the scientific
method that can
raise the level of objectivity and
dispassionateness with which any investigation is
conducted.

*** 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
the scientific
method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of
defending the 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 since science
is a universal
approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to
subject matter; hence, 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!")

* 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 and legitimate
disagreement are a normal part of science.

* Make yourself available to media producers who
seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However,
agree to
participate in only those presentations whose
time constraints and a priori bias preclude such luxuries
as discussion,
debate and cross-examination.

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 may be
dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the
conventional.

* Characterize your opponents as "uncritical
believers". Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery, in
itself, betrays
uncritical belief in the status quo.

* 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 standard explanation is the correct
one, since it involves no
additional assumptions! Imply strongly that
Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb
but an immutable
physical 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.

In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence
that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that
unidentified
aerial phenomena may be considered real only if
we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with
hammers and
analyze their physical properties. Disregard the
accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for
example,
which gets on just fine without bringing actual
planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and
striking them with
hammers.

*** 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 might
itself constitute a mass
hallucination or be symptomatic of a massive
indoctrination program.

* If pressed about your novel interpretations of the
scientific method, declare that "intellectual integrity is
a subtle issue".

Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are
fanatics. 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***t 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
time-consuming, 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 an "amateur" 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 therefore that that one element
has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce
to the world
that the entire case has been explained, or
conversely, that this is substantial evidence against the
entire field of inquiry!

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
non-western or other traditional society, you may
dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception",
"medieval
superstition" or "fairy lore".

*** Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult",
"fringe", "paranormal","metaphysical", "mystical",
"supernatural", or
"new-age". 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?"

Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our
scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by
asserting that "if
such-and-such were true, we would would already
know about it!"

*** 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 mis-replicate
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 practice 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 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, even if there are no
experts in the field.

I think this could apply to lots of diff. scenarios.

I just want you to know that I like your posts, which have been excellent at exposing how the scumbags operate. Your post mentioned "the few" who are willing to look past the ridicule that the debunkers use to discredit their victims. I have always been one of those FEW that see EXACTLY what these people are doing, and have called them on it innumerable times. Of course, this does not endear me to the hearts of those who would rather be deceived, but somebody has to make the evil bastards WORK for their paycheck.

Take care, and keep up the good work.

I recently wasted a bunch of time reading the debunkers board. What incredible CRAP! When I see such a piece of art I'm reminded of WWF Wresteling on TV. Even though the disclaimer comes on and says that the participants are not actors but highly skilled atheletes most people really do know the truth. Have you ever seen someone that is a WWF fan get sucked into the realism of the event?

Diaz: If you go over there regulary I'd appreciate you sending any unusual links this way. I don't have time to sort through all of that useless drivel.

I'm beginning to think they're all hoax boards, Enigma. That's not to say the spraying isn't real, it just seems most of the people on these boards aren't. Chickie Deb's place seems to be a magnet for intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, but it's hardly confined within the bars of their little cage.

Things have been a little slow around here lately, but I'm really pleased with the quality of information that some of these threads have provided. Not too many place on the net that you can get into an in-depth discussion on seismic prediction and multiple personality disorder. What strange days these are...