How to Debunk Just About Anything

8/14/2019 How to Debunk Just About Anything

1/15

Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery

Revised edition, (C) 1997 by Daniel Drasin. All rightsreserved. May not be reproduced in any form without

express permission from the author,[email protected]

This is a revised and expanded edition of an essaythat has previously appeared in various publicationsbetween 1991 and 1997.

INTRODUCTION

So you've had a close encounter with a UFO. Or aserious interest in the subject of extramundane life. Ora passion for following clues that seem to pointtoward the existence of a greater reality. Mention anyof these things to most working scientists and beprepared for anything from patronizing skepticism tomerciless ridicule. After all, science is supposed to bea purely hardnosed enterprise with little patience for"expanded" notions of reality. Right?

Wrong.

Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properlyconducted, has a profoundly expansive, liberatingimpulse at its core. This "Zen" in the heart of scienceis revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrarybeliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approachesthe nature of things with "beginner's mind." When thisis done, reality can speak freshly and freely, and canbe heard more clearly. Appropriate testing andobjective validation can--indeed, *must*--come later.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes wasonce the main point of science. But today it is often adifferent story. As the scientific enterprise has beenbent toward exploitation, institutionalization,hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it hasincreasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected factsin a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So


2/15

disconnected has official science become from thegreater scheme of things, that it tends to deny ordisregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itselfwith reducing all of life and consciousness to a deadphysics.

As the millennium turns, science seems in many waysto be treading the weary path of the religions itpresumed to replace. Where free, dispassionateinquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in thedefense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." Asanomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial,defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling withincreasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinkingparadigm. Faced with provocative evidence of thingsundreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise

mature scientists revert to a kind of skepticalinfantilism characterized by blind faith in theabsoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, thatso many promising fields of inquiry remain shroudedin superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation,taboo . . . and debunkery.

What is "debunkery?" Essentially it is the attempt to*debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight bysubstituting scient*istic* propaganda for thescient*ific* method.

To throw this kind of pseudoscientific behavior intobold--if somewhat comic--relief, I have composed auseful "how-to" guide for aspiring debunkers, with aspecial section devoted to debunking extraterrestrialintelligence--perhaps the most aggressively debunkedsubject in the whole of modern history. As will beobvious to the reader, I have carried a few of thesedebunking strategies over the threshold of absurdityfor the sake of making a point. As for the rest, theirinherently fallacious reasoning, twisted logic andsheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familar tothose who have dared explore beneath the ocean ofdenial and attempted in good faith to report backabout what they found there.

So without further ado . . .


3/15

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

Part 1: General Debunkery

Before commencing to debunk, prepare yourequipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescendingair that suggests that your personal opinions arebacked by the full faith and credit of God. Employvague, subjective, dismissive terms such as"ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests theyhave the full force of scientific authority.

Portray science not as an open-ended process ofdiscovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes ofquackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends

justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violatethe scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in thename of defending the scientific method.

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoreticalas possible. This will "send the message" thataccepted theory overrides any actual evidence thatmight challenge it--and that therefore no such

evidence is worth examining.

Reinforce the popular misconception that certainsubjects 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 totruth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter;hence, only the investigative *process* can bescientifically responsible or irresponsible. If thathappens, dismiss such objections using a method

employed successfully by generations of politicians:simply reassure everyone that "there is nocontradiction here!")

Arrange to have your message echoed by personsof authority. The degree to which you can stretch thetruth is directly proportional to the prestige of yourmouthpiece.


4/15

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 noevidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Notethat this technique has withstood the test of time, anddates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simplyrefusing to look through his telescope, theecclesiastical authorities bought the Church overthree centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable,report back that "there is nothing new here!" Ifconfronted by a watertight body of evidence that has

survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it asbeing "too pat."

Equate the necessary skeptical component ofscience with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow,stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science tothe exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration andintegration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewingscience in exclusively fuzzy, subjective ormetaphysical terms.

Insist that the progress of science depends onexplaining the unknown in terms of the known. Inother words, science equals reductionism. You canapply the reductionist approach in any situation bydiscarding more and more and more evidence untilwhat little is left can finally be explained entirely interms of established knowledge.

Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimatedisagreement are a normal part of science.

Make yourself available to media producers whoseek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views.However, agree to participate in only thosepresentations whose time constraints and a-priori biaspreclude such luxuries as discussion, debate andcross-examination.


5/15

At every opportunity reinforce the notion that whatis familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar istherefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible asevidence.

State categorically that the unconventional may bedismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation ofthe conventional.

Characterize your opponents as "uncriticalbelievers." Summarily dismiss the notion thatdebunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in thestatus quo.

Maintain that in investigations of unconventionalphenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In

conventional contexts, however, you may sagelyremind the world that, "after all, situations arecomplex and human beings are imperfect."

"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony,"says the correct explanation of a mystery will usuallyinvolve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist,therefore, that the most familiar explanation is bydefinition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam'sRazor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb butan immutable law.

Discourage any study of history that may revealtoday's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoiddiscussing the many historical, philosophical andspiritual parallels between science and democracy.

Since the public tends to be unclear about thedistinction between evidence and proof, do your bestto help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof islacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

If sufficient evidence has been presented towarrant further investigation of an unusualphenomenon, argue that "evidence alone provesnothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence isnot supposed to prove *any*thing.

In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence.This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any


6/15

meaningful process of investigation--particularly if nocriteria of proof have yet been established for thephenomenon in question.

Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be

established for phenomena that do not exist!

Although science is not supposed to toleratevague or double standards, always insist thatunconventional phenomena must be judged by aseparate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do thisby declaring that "extraordinary claims demandextraordinary evidence"-- but take care never todefine where the "ordinary" ends and the"extraordinary" begins. This will allow you tomanufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon;

i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that whichlies just out of reach at any point in time.

In the same manner, insist on classes of evidencethat are impossible to obtain. For example, declarethat unidentified aerial phenomena may beconsidered real only if we can bring them intolaboratories to strike them with hammers and analyzetheir physical properties. Disregard theaccomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine

without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies andblack holes into its labs and striking them withhammers.

Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump togetherall phenomena popularly deemed paranormal andsuggest that their proponents and researchers speakwith a single voice. In this way you canindiscriminately drag material across disciplinary linesor from one case to another to support your views asneeded. For example, if a claim having somesuperficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or ispopularly assumed to have been) exposed asfraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in yourarmchair and just say "I rest my case."


7/15

Use the word "imagination" as an epithet thatapplies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not todenying what *is* there.

If a significant number of people agree that they

have observed something that violates the consensusreality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoidaddressing the possibility that the consensus realitymight itself constitute a mass hallucination.

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away thesingle most chillingly effective weapon in the waragainst discovery and innovation. Ridicule has theunique power to make people of virtually anypersuasion 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 ofemotional consensus that ridicule provides.

By appropriate innuendo and example, imply thatridicule constitutes an essential feature of thescientific method that can raise the level of objectivityand dispassionateness with which any investigation isconducted.

If pressed about your novel interpretations of thescientific method, declare that "intellectual integrity is

a subtle issue."

Imply that investigators of the unorthodox arezealots. Suggest that in order to investigate theexistence of something one must first believe in itabsolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers"know all the answers to their most puzzling questionsin complete detail ahead of time. Convince people ofyour own sincerity by reassuring them that youyourself would "love to believe in these fantasticphenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that scienceis not about believing or disbelieving, but aboutfinding out.

Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation andillusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact,opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information andoutright lies will fool most of the people most of thetime. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will


8/15

usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers usehomeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkablesuccess!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forthbetween fact and fiction so undetectably that theflimsiest 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 greattruths began as blasphemies, respond immediatelythat not all blasphemies have become great truths.Because your response was technically correct, noone will notice that it did not really refute the originalremark.

Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in

question. Characterize the study of orthodoxphenomena as deep and time-consuming, whiledeeming that of unorthodox phenomena soinsubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scanof the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "butthere's nothing there to study!" Characterize anyserious 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 tendto 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 ofa case completely out of context; b) find somethingprosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declarethat therefore that one element has been explained;d) call a press conference and announce to the worldthat the entire case has been explained!

Engage the services of a professional stagemagician who can mimic the phenomenon inquestion; for example, ESP, psychokinesis orlevitation. This will convince the public that the originalclaimants or witnesses to such phenomena mustthemselves have been (or been fooled by) talentedstage magicians who hoaxed the originalphenomenon in precisely the same way.


9/15

Find a prosaic phenomenon that, to the uninitiated,resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggestthat the existence of the commonplace look-alikesomehow forbids the existence of the genuine article.For example, imply that since people often see

"faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face onMars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannotpossibly be artificial.

When an unexplained phenomenon demonstratesevidence of intelligence (as in the case of themysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on themechanism that might have been wielded by theintelligence rather than the intelligence that mighthave wielded the mechanism. The more attention youdevote to the mechanism, the more easily you can

distract people from considering the possibility of non-ordinary intelligence.

Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena ofbelieving in "invisible forces and extrasensoryrealities." If they should point out that the physicalsciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces andextrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . .) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "anaive interpretation of the facts."

Insist that western science is completely objective,and is based on no untestable assumptions, covertbeliefs or ideological interests. If an unfamiliar orinexplicable phenomenon happens to be considredtrue and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditionalsociety, you may dismiss it out of hand as "ignorantmisconception," "medieval superstition" or "fairy lore."

Label any poorly-understood phenomenon"occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical,""mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will getmost mainstream scientists off the case immediatelyon purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this maydelay any responsible investigation of suchphenomena by decades or even centuries!

Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; forexample, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air


10/15

traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (Ifsomeone points out that they do, insist that those whodo 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 thatscientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all suchquestions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why haven'tthey landed on the White House lawn?"

Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that ourscientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do thisby asserting that "if such-and-such were true, wewould would already know about it!"

Remember that you can easily appear to refuteanyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish.One way to do this is to misquote them whilepreserving that convincing grain of truth; for example,by acting as if they have intended the extreme of anyposition they've taken. Another effective strategy witha long history of success is simply to mis- replicatetheir experiments--or to avoid replicating them at allon grounds that "to do so would be ridiculous orfruitless." 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 popularmyth.

Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is notscientifically testable because no self-respectinggrantmaking organization would fund such ridiculoustests.

Be selective. For example, if an unorthodoxhealing practice has failed to reverse a case ofterminal illness you may deem it worthless--whiletaking care to avoid mentioning any of theshortcomings of conventional medicine.

Hold claimants responsible for the productionvalues and editorial policies of any media or pressthat reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicableevent is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold


11/15

this as proof that the event itself must have beenwithout substance or worth.

When a witness or claimant states something in amanner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it

were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not acredentialed scientist, argue that his or herperceptions cannot possibly be objective.

If you're unable to attack the facts of the case,attack the participants--or the journalists who reportedthe case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personalityattacks, are among the most powerful ways ofswaying the public and avoiding the issue. Forexample, if investigators of the unorthodox haveprofited financially from activities connected with their

research, accuse them of "profiting financially fromactivities connected with their research!" If theirresearch, publishing, speaking tours and so forth,constitute their normal line of work or sole means ofsupport, hold that fact as "conclusive proof thatincome is being realized from such activities!" If theyhave labored to achieve public recognition for theirwork, you may safely characterize them as "publicityseekers."

Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by

quoting the opinions of those in fields popularlyassumed to include the necessary knowledge.Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out asexperts on the UFO question, although course creditsin ufology have never been a prerequisite for adegree in astronomy.

Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenonstubbornly refuses to go away, set up a couple ofcolorful old geezers to claim they hoaxed it. The pressand the public will always tend to view confessions assincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon theircritical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear tolack compassion for self-confessed sinners.

Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim thatyou've "found the person who started the rumor thatsuch a phenomenon exists!"


12/15

Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that"these claims have been thoroughly discredited by thetop experts in the field!" Do this whether or not suchexperts have ever actually studied the claims, or, forthat matter, even exist.

Part 2: Debunking Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is justthat, and cannot be automatically assumed to beextraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyoneinvolved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.

Equate nature's laws with our currentunderstanding of nature's laws. Then label allconcepts such as antigravity or interdimensional

mobility as mere flights of fancy "because whatpresent-day science cannot explain cannot possiblyexist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to havehovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonicspeeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, youmay summarily dismiss the report.

Declare that there is no proof that life can exist inouter space. Since most people still behave as if theEarth were the center of the universe, you may safelyignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer

space, has abundant life.

Point out that the official SETI program assumes inadvance that extraterrestrial intelligence can onlyexist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-prioriassumption with conclusive proof; then insist that thisinvalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

If compelling evidence is presented for a UFOcrash or some similar event, provide thousands ofpages of detailed information about a formerly secret

military project that might conceivably account for it.The more voluminous the information, the less theneed to demonstrate any actual connection betweenthe reported event and the military project.

When someone produces purported physicalevidence of alien technology, point out that noanalysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial;


13/15

after all, it might be the product of some perfectlyordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab.The only exception would be evidence obtained froma landing on the White House lawn--the solecircumstance universally agreed upon by generations

of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrialorigin!

If photographs or other visual media depictinganomalous aerial phenomena have been presented,argue that since images can now be digitallymanipulated they prove nothing. Assert thisregardless of the vintage of the material or thecircumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the betterthe quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihoodof fraud. Photos that have passed every known test

may therefore be held to be the most perfectlyfraudulent of all!

Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrialsmust be bogus because the evolution of thehumanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinitenumber of accidents in a genetically isolatedenvironment. Avoid addressing the logical propositionthat if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earthcannot be considered genetically isolated in the firstplace.

Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't,should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certainways because such behavior would or wouldn't belogical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrialswould or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave inall kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind ofbehavior suits your arguments.

Stereotype contact claims according to simplisticscenarios already well established in the collectiveimagination. If a reported ET contact appears to havehad no negative consequences, sarcastically accusethe claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolentETs have come to magically save us from destroyingourselves!" If someone claims to have beentraumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "aclassic case of hysteria." If contactees stress theessential humanness and limitations of certain ETs


14/15

they claim to have met, ask "why haven't theseomnipotent beings offered to solve all our problemsfor us?"

When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward,

accuse them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight"with their outlandish stories.

Ask why alleged contactees and abducteeshaven't received alien infections. Reject as"preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting thatsuch may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "purescience- fiction" the notion that alien understandingsof immunology might be in advance of our own, orthat sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limitedin their ability to interact with our biological systems.

Above all, dismiss anything that might result in anactual investigation of the matter.

Travel to China. Upon your return, report that"nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs."Insist that this proves that no UFOs are reportedoutside countries whose populations are overexposedto science fiction.

Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistentcontactee testimony in widespread and completely

independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probablyunreliable, and is always worthless in the hands ofnon-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that thesubjects must have been steeped in the ET-contactliterature, and that, whatever their credentials, thehypnotists involved must have been asking leadingquestions.

If someone claims to have been emotionallyimpacted by a contact experience, point out thatstrong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, theclaimant's recollections must be entirelyuntrustworthy.

Maintain that there cannot possibly be agovernment coverup of the ET question . . . but that itexists for legitimate reasons of national security!


15/15

Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracytheorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist thatonly *accidentalist* theories can possibly account forrepeated, organized patterns of suppression, denialand disinformational activity.

In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example,one in which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenlyacknowledged as a global mystery of millennialproportions--just remember that the public has a shortmemory. Simply hail this as a "victory for the scientificmethod" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone knowsthis is a monumentally significant issue. As a matterof fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking onit for years!"

* * *

Daniel Drasin is a writer and media producer based inthe San Francisco Bay Area.

Documents

How to Debunk Just About Anything