50303457   
   XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: mr.hvac@gmail.com   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)