![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debunker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollj (talk • contribs)
The author of this link, http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm, appears to be trying to debunk or discredit scientific skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. Should this link be kept? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call Sylvia Browne a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the list of "debunkers", there's a lot o debunking claims. As this article currently defines debunking as "the act of disproving a proposal or hypothesis", I assume by debunking we mean a "successful disproving", and not just and attempted (sometimes self-published) disproving, that may be recognized in the some groups while still refuted (or even ignored) in others.
What's our criteria for saying "Mr. M debunked Theory X"? That he published a paper on a scientific journal disproving X? That he published a paper on a journal specialized on skepticism? That he published it on his web page? That the "debunked person" recognized his/her mistake?
What's the difference between debunking something and claiming to have debunked something?
Without this answers, I'm worried about the future of the (POV-titled) Well-known debunkers section. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a lot of weird stuff out of the article and stubbed it down. Please try to expand with reliably sourced material. --TS 15:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the verb "derides" which was recently added to the lead. The essence of a debunker's function is to expose poor thinking. Derision isn't part of that function. --TS 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. However, I have seen more than a few cases where a debunker takes advantage of the 'giggle factor' and uses subtle or blatant ad hominem statements in their argument. I believe it was J. Allen Hynek who stated "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is." (Hynek, Josef Allen (April 1953). "Unusual Aerial Phenomena". Journal of the Optical Society of America 43 (4): 311–314.)Tonybaldacci (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Cold_fusion#There_is_no_.22most_vs_small_group.22.
I didn't revert your edit for fun, but because you were introducing a mistake (debunker is not a pejorative term or at least the majority of uses are not pejorative), and the reference you were citing didn't support your change. (Also, are you sure that Woodward was using it as a pejorative in his book? I just ordered the book from Amazon so I can check that) I should have left an edit summary explaining the reversion, like Connolley did later[1], my bad.... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
adam savage and jamie hyneman are listed as physics majors but i cannot find a source that confirms this and their approach to the shows is more indicative of a special effects background rather than that of an academic and exhaustive experimenter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia contains a classification for articles which is "Alternative Medicine" which the talk page notes this article carries.
This is part of the problem facing scientists and educators. There is no such thing as alternative medicine, there is only medicine and claptrap. If something actually works beyond the well known placebo effect it gets adopted as a medical procedure, compound, or process and it is scientifically studied. "Alternative" beliefs, notions, occultism, superstition, and wishful thinking are not medicine, ergo harboring an article classification as "Alternative Medicine" is a major flaw in Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Half the body of the article concerns so-called "backfire effects" as written about in the Debunking Handbook. So what is this handbook? Well, it doesn't appear on Amazon, at all. The link is a free PDF file which contains all of 7 numbered pages. (Is it a book or a pamphlet?) In an article where the focus should be on such great names as Sagan, Randi and Houdini we find this material - pseudo-science itself! - invented by a couple of present day tourists. This is a travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.6.91 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Debunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
So "debunking" can mean anything from "exposing the falseness of" to "exposing a sham". According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary: ""Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham"". So that means there is the accusation of being a "fraud exposer" but that is not the case when someone "just happens to render invalid" some claim by doing the actual research (for example Joe Nickell and his paranormal investigations). It simply can't be the case that every person just happening to have different conclusion is automatically a "debunker" if he says that conclusion to the public. For example Nickell is not a fraud exposer, he merely states humans have limitations. "Sham: To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoldhin (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Debunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In the section "Backfire effects." At present, the illustration's heading reads:
The authors of the Debunking Handbook warn that a failed debunking can actually worsen misconceptions. They recommend simple, positive, and emotionally sensitive education (e.g., bolstering the learner's ego, or avoiding threatening words).
But this is accompanied by a painting. The painting is about an argument, but I doubt that the issue in that argument is among the issues that debunkers focus on. The painting is "A Nautical Argument" by Hemy. It's a fine painting. I would guess that the argument is between two ship captains, about the best route to bring a ship into a harbor, under some particular condition of tides or storms; or maybe there was a shipwreck and a lawyer is trying to understand what arguments could be raised in court, regarding the loss from that shipwreck. I recognize that beliefs exist among sailors, and perhaps some scholar has shown that the captains are arguing about something that isn't easily proven one way or the other. Can someone verify that this particular painting was about "debunking"? Oaklandguy (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Can Mick West be added as a debunker, for is work in the Navy UAP videos and other things? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)