I ran across this idea in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Kimball Atwood was speaking at a European Skeptics Congress, and the subject was alternative medicine. I've paraphrased his idea to apply to the astronomically paranormal...

If a particular astronomical phenomenon violates everything we know about the laws of physics, and the evidence for existence of that phenomenon has not improved over a long period of time, are further submissions of the 'This is really IT this time!" stripe worth considering? Shouldn't the data we get improve as the proponents of the phenomenon go along, as observation methods and data production conditions improve?

On the other side of the coin, should our analytical and debunking methods be improving with practice? Or is there a limit beyond which scientific analysis is worthless, and people should simply be exposed, in the hope that they will be shamed into crawling away, never to be seen again? Is that even possible, considering some folk of the woo^2 stripe we've encountered here? Are TrueBelievers©™® secure enough in their TrueBeliefs®™© to be ridicule-resistant? Where's the limit, where faith no matter how improbable takes over from common sense? (I realize the preceding question has religious overtones, but it's not intended as a referendum on religious faith.)

Finally, I thought long and hard on where to put this. BABBling is by definition non-astronomical
We have fora on Planet X and Lunar Conspiracies, but by subject nature they're self-limiting. That's why it's here in General Astronomy, and cross-linked from the other two to here.
(And after further consideration, it doesn't belong in GA, it belongs here in Against The Mainstream...so here it will reside.)

Your thoughts on the above are welcomed.

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Some things are currently beyond the scope of science. Ethics and aesthetics come quickly to mind. There is a reductionist viewpoint that suggests we may someday be able to point a tricorder at an objet d'art and have a needle point to its rating on an aesthetic value scale. But there are just as many viewpoints that suggest reductionism doesn't apply in this case.

Stagnation in a line of inquiry is indicative of fruitlessness only when conscientious effort has been made to advance it. There are fields such as the paranormal that would benefit from rigorous study, but from which legitimate and skilled researchers have been frightened away. Pseudoscientific contributions to some line of inquiry tend to poison the well.

Even then, stagnation can still be the result of a lack of means to investigate. But in that case a lack of development in the body of research should be explicable by an enumeration of legitimate obstacles. Some bigger telescope may be required, or some finer microscope, or more funding. Science as an industry has politics that steer investigation in one direction or another based on what can be funded, what is likely to be approved for study, and so forth.

It is dangerous to conclude that something is pseudoscientific based on stagnation without examining the causes for stagnation. But in your case, where the proposal stands in considerable violation to what is already known, stagnation is more likely to be explained by the inherent poor direction of the inquiry.

The ethics of debunking are fraught with political and economic peril. Stifling discussion is generally bad as long as some merit comes from the discussion. Merit can be measured by the extension of some body of understanding, or the education of those learning the field. But dissenting proposals chiefly aimed and making a profit for the proponent, and relying upon malpractice of some field of expertise, are worthy of summary exposure. Advancing counterarguments in those cases can prevent innocent parties from being taken in, but the charlatant proponent has likely considered the possibility of objection and is well prepared for it. Many realize the inevitability of being discovered and simply propose their snake oil for the short term in which debunkers prepare a response.

Ethically those who are certified as experts in a field have a responsibility to prevent the unlicensed or unscrupulous practice of others. Lawyers, for example, are duty bound to prevent others from practicing law without a license or certification. Scientists have an ethical responsibility to oppose the practice of science by unscrupulous, unrigorous, or deceptive means.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The 'poisoned well' obstacle could be overcome (IMHO) if it was stated that the poisoned well was the object of research itself, I think. Categorization of claims and information, analysis and history of 'facts', examination of data, and search for the object (if possible) based on a preponderance of the evidence...any ideas whether or not that could be considered a legitimate research project (undergrad? grad studies?) in today's educational climate? (I'm not terribly up to date on current trends and/or procedures along these lines.)

I guess the bottom line(s) of my inquiries here are:
a) Can the history/existence (pick one) be made into a legitimate research subject?
b) If so, any guesses why someone among the woo crew with the gumption hasn't knuckled down and done it? (This assumes that they haven't, which is a very subjective judgment based only on the material presented. This view is wide open to reassessment.)

Speaking solely of my participation in astronomy, I never considered myself as any sort of scientist. Indeed, even though I've been at this for a couple of years and have some training and knowledge, I still describe myself in many cases as being so green you can't tell where the grass stops and I start. I wouldn't even have the chutzpah to describe myself as an astronomer, more like an enthusiastic amateur stargazer. An interest in science per se does not a scientist make, but those of us in the 'enthusiastic amateur stargazer' category are looked upon as being Grapefruit League authorities on occasion by the general public. While I wouldn't even begin to assume the scientific authority mantle legitimately carried by you, JayO, or HRMWOTAS, I do see the obligation placed on me for accuracy of my statements when in a perceived position of expertise.
Star enthusiasts (be they astronomers, stargazers, or somewhere in the middle) and ham radio operators have several things in common, not the least of which is to sit around and BartSibrel each other until the cows come home. This natural between-the-troops-over-a-root-beer informal conversation notwithstanding, I agree that when speaking to members of the general public, there is an obligation to stay to the straight and narrow, and to label plainly the difference between facts and unproven theory/opinion.
I am assuming that the above lends some justification when taking an HB'er/PX'er to task.

I have a hard time seeing just what it was that led some HB'er/PX'ers to the dark side. These folk are not unintelligent (generally speaking, there's just as much a chance of a dimbulb landing in their ranks as there is in ours...right?). Discounting greed and abnormal needs for attention, what makes the hoax or the nonsense theory any more attractive than the truth?

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Forget about Nancy. I am talking to you, not her.
Just preempting the likely canned responses. Ok.
Now watch me do this like y'all do it here. Whee!

Charlie: If a particular astronomical phenomenon violates everything we know about the laws of physics,

Gee, talk about an overstatement. Way to get your hypothetical not off the ground running. Considering that you don't think such a phenomenon exists, how could you know which laws of physics are violated by this phenomenon? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you completely deny the possibility and hence remain unknowing about any potential such phenomenon, or you provide solid evidence on how such a phenomenon actually would "violate" everything we know about laws of physics. And need I remind you that before the phrase "laws of physics" existed, humanity was already discovering things that "violated everything they knew about nature". Why do people think such discoveries can no longer happen? Furthermore, nothing can violate the laws of physics - humanity is simply a young species from a "universal force knowledge" aspect. If something happens in this universe, it obeys the laws of physics. If it doesn't obey them, it cannot happen.

Charlie: and the evidence for existence of that phenomenon has not improved over a long period of time,

Again, pure overstatement for the purposes of making your supposition sound impossible. When you say "a long period of time", do you mean millenia? Or just the last few decades? The trick of composing exaggerated situations to disprove something is very old, indeed. So, how long is "long" to you? The same amount of time, say, between the "discovery" that the earth was a sphere and the "discovery" of the Top quark? Or is that far too long for humanity to be allowed to learn about the laws of physics? Must we decide, here and now, what the laws of physics allow and what they preclude? No thanks, but you can.

Charlie: are further submissions of the 'This is really IT this time!" stripe worth considering?

To answer your full supposition, of course not. To then put a woowoo spin on it, do you remember the story about "the boy who cried wolf"? Well, besides BABB debunkers, there are a whole messload of people who will NEVER think there's a wolf out there until it sinks its teeth into their buttock. Mission accomplished - if you're the government of a citizenry you want to be blindsided by something you yourself know about. You see, a small percentage of "woowoos" truly go around spouting off "50 first dates" of catastrophe. But such behavior gets pinned on all "woowoos"... just like certain behavior gets pinned on all "debunkers". Half of the goofballs at GLP are doing what they do for "FUN" just like some people here. Do y'all think you're so different from the rest of society? Many people these days get cheap kicks out of the same things y'all do.

Charlie: Shouldn't the data we get improve as the proponents of the phenomenon go along, as observation methods and data production conditions improve?

Yes, and they are. But one has to be looking with the proper glasses at the proper data. With science, there is a tendency to have "blinders" on, and anything that's not already published is bunk. With theory, blinders are taken off, and everything is viewable. One can look at something and actually decide NOT to take that information into consideration. One can look at something and actually decide NOT to say whether it's true or false at that exact moment. As theory evolves, it grows stronger by the addition of data which suggests an overall pattern. I need only mention the X45 flare to prove that the sun is unusually active. Yes, it takes alot more data to mention WHAT is causing the activity - but pretending it doesn't exist (or extreme weather, Glacial/Polar Cap melting, mass animal deaths, etc.) is tantamount to ignorance. Science is not supposed to be ignorant.

Charlie: On the other side of the coin, should our analytical and debunking methods be improving with practice?

Of course it should, just as any mental or physical ability would. However, one important piece of the puzzle is actually *wanting* to improve. One can "go through the motions" and such a person will probably not improve at what it is they're doing. I see many people here at BABB utilize their bashing skills, but not many getting "better" at it. Because what would that truly entail - becoming even more insulting and exaggerating even more? Trying to associate Nancy with Bin Laden?Reducing the number of words while still bashing with the same force and style? Is it really all that desirable to get better at something inherently negative?

Charlie: Or is there a limit beyond which scientific analysis is worthless, and people should simply be exposed, in the hope that they will be shamed into crawling away, never to be seen again?

From that description, many here have already "progressed" to that limit. From the sound of your posts in this thread, you have too. Thus, your exasperation at why intense ridicule doesn't seem to "work" so much anymore. When one is so intent on "shaming" people, they don't realize how shameful they themselves are behaving. Of course, none of your friends will call you out, but someone like me will. More on this later.

Charlie: Is that even possible, considering some folk of the woo^2 stripe we've encountered here? Are TrueBelievers©™® secure enough in their TrueBeliefs®™© to be ridicule-resistant?

Oh, how cute - the "fake trademark/copyright" game. That adds an air of "pseudo-cleverness" to your opinion that in no way strengthens it. Or was your intent solely to step up the ridicule, since it seems you're bothered by the fact that someone would actually *resist* ridicule? Perhaps turnabout is fair play - after all, mainstream science has superb resistance qualities too. Oh, but you call them "processes". I know what Galileo called them. Yeah, I'm bringing him up again, since it's obvious y'all haven't learned his lesson.

Charlie: Where's the limit, where faith no matter how improbable takes over from common sense? (I realize the preceding question has religious overtones, but it's not intended as a referendum on religious faith.)

When did you join this board, Charlie? Subtract today's date from that date, and you will know where your limit was. Seriously - you are so voraciously attacking "something" in this thread, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Are you mad at "woowoos" or are you mad that your learned methods of antagonization are no longer as effective anymore? Don't worry about any association with theology - zeal is very nondenominational and actually quite interdisciplinary. Practicing, have you been?

Charlie: Speaking solely of my participation in astronomy, I never considered myself as any sort of scientist. Indeed, even though I've been at this for a couple of years and have some training and knowledge, I still describe myself in many cases as being so green you can't tell where the grass stops and I start. I wouldn't even have the chutzpah to describe myself as an astronomer, more like an enthusiastic amateur stargazer. An interest in science per se does not a scientist make, but those of us in the 'enthusiastic amateur stargazer' category are looked upon as being Grapefruit League authorities on occasion by the general public.

And rightfully so. You are just as qualified to speak as any other non-qualified person. The general public "on occasion" looks upon you and your ilk as being "Grapefruit League"? Sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me on that one. Practice what you preach... Do unto others... What goes around... Give you a taste of your own medicine. Any of these ring a bell? I can tell, you are SO hurt when you're called a "little leaguer". But of course, what *you* do is "different".

Charlie: While I wouldn't even begin to assume the scientific authority mantle legitimately carried by you, JayO, or HRMWOTAS, I do see the obligation placed on me for accuracy of my statements when in a perceived position of expertise.

Is expertise perceived, expertise achieved? Rhetorical questions aside, it seems you feel an obligation to ridicule, insult, take to task, shame, etc. Are you proud of what you've become, since it's clear you have no choice - you are obligated to behave precisely negative towards "woowoos". Whatever happened to your free will, Charlie? Are you bound by some supernatural force to feel the way you do, and say the things you say? Or is it simply your own personal feelings and frustrations with life?

Charlie: I have a hard time seeing just what it was that led some HB'er/PX'ers to the dark side.

That statement is so profound, if you realized quite how, you'd have your answer. The "dark side" - now you're pulling out all the stops. Woowoos are... EVIL??? Like in a Darth Vader way? In a stormtrooper way? That's quite an assessment of a group of people you don't even care to accurately judge, now isn't it? Is this your "obligation" coming to the forefront again? What is it you really want to say in this thread, Charlie?

Charlie: These folk are not unintelligent (generally speaking, there's just as much a chance of a dimbulb landing in their ranks as there is in ours...right?).

My truth detectors have redlined. Thanks for finally saying something that I can believe. Oh, and if we really wanted to "do the math" I'm quite confident that the "debunker" population has a much higher "birth rate" than the "woowoo" population. But it's good to see a BABB member finally admit that the membership here might be nothing special.

Charlie: Discounting greed and abnormal needs for attention, what makes the hoax or the nonsense theory any more attractive than the truth?

Discounting greed and abnormal needs for attention, what makes the debunker or the venom they spit any less attractive than falsehood?

Look at it this way - many people here seem to "enjoy" spitting venom. They say, "it's fun". The better the insult, the more attention the debunker gets. As many "yeah what they said" comments as possible, are the goal. I find that many debunkers are truly not concerned with helping others, but with helping themselves. Thus, the desparate plea for discourse by Charlie. Oh, if only poor Charlie knew why the "dark side" was so attractive...

It feels good to know that someone else out there agrees with me.
I don't need to hear it, like y'all do. I can FEEL it. And it feels good.

__________________
HB = CHIMP + TIME

...great Caesar's ghost...where to begin, where to begin...

Human Being, I'm the first to admit that when I started taking on selected HB/PX'ers, I went the 'scorn and derision' route. Having had my knuckles rapped for doing that, I'm learning to be more...diplomatic, for lack of a better term...and state my case along the lines of fact rather than rhetoric. Practice proceeds apace, and progress is ongoing. The OP and response to JayUtah were written to be in that format. Evidently, you don't believe I've succeeded.

I can generally state what laws of physics would be violated by the phenomenon by reviewing what the proponents say their object will do/have done. Planet X has not sailed into the Solar System from afar and screeched to a halt between the Earth and Sun. There has been no disturbance to the orbits of any of the planets. Earth has not been reversed in her orbit by PX. The claims about what PX will do/are going to do to us have no evidence to back their occurrence.

The possibility is denied based on the evidence presented. If the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion from, the only correct response is 'indeterminate at this time'. The evidence is insufficient to prove the claim, and is more than sufficient to draw a conclusion from.

TLOP was codified over millenia of human experience. As each succeeding generation refined its measurements and its knowledge, TLOP were defined in finer and finer terms to keep up with human scientific understanding. On numerous occasions, that refining meant going back to square one and starting over on a theory. That is part of the nature of science -- knowing what doesn't work and why is just as important as knowing what does and why. And as far as something not obeying TLOP and thereby not happening, go tell Nancy&Co about that in reference to Planet X.

I believe I'm being taken out of context here somewhat. We've been generally been discussing scenarios where definite dates for occurrences have been given numerous times, and those dates have passed with absolutely nothing happening. In specific, it's been ten months since the approach of PX was to signal TEOTWAWKI (forgive the acronyms, but we all should know by now what the more familiar ones mean). How long is long? Long enough to determine that prediction #64,255 isn't going to come true at all, let alone anywhere near the predicted date. An attempt to pin this phrase down to a specific and all-encompassing time period is a bit of a cheap shot, frankly.

Careful there, Human Being. That's a wide brush you're wielding, and you've slopped more than just a little paint onto your person. Your motives for being here are just as much subject to analysis and just as suspect as anyone else's.

I agree with the first two sentences here, that everything is viewable and one can decide not to consider information. That action should be taken after seeing if the theory and claims are supportable by the viewable information. Indeed, the very wide majority of PX claims are not only not supportable by the viewable information, they are directly contradicted by that information. At that point, if one is in a position to be able to point out fallacies, then one should do so. Care should be taken, however, in the facts cited to support a position. While they may be serious and horrific, are they really unusual occurrences, or have they been there all along and just not been detected/reported? New information not brought to hand in the past, and new occurrences that have never before happened are two different things.

The forum we're in and its format must be kept in mind. This is not the formal proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The informality of the community will govern the format of expression (up to a point, at which time the HRMWOTAS' Iron Fist In The Velvet Glove comes into play -- and righteously so, seeing as how this is his playground, and by definition of same he gets to set the rules). Those who desire to express themselves humorously will do so. Those who choose to spit venom and scorn will do so too. Those who choose to blow off steam and vent emotion will do so. Those who choose to debate factually and logically will do so. It happens quite frequently that individuals will change their tactics by choice. I've done it many many times, and I've learned some of the peaks and pitfalls of each method. An individual's success in each 'method' will most likely determine the frequency and depth of rebuttal here on the forum. There is a time for humor, and there is a time for seriousness.
On the other side of the issue are those who come here with questions. There are those who are genuinely curious, and ask without seeming confrontational. Generally speaking, those questions are answered honestly with little or no needling, and those that poke a bit too harshly are taken to task for it. Then, there are those who absolutely refuse to apply any logical processes to what they bring here again and again, claiming that this time we're all going to die. After awhile those people get read the riot act -- and again, if someone goes overboard here, they are informed of that, sometimes publicly and sometimes privately. Finally, there are those who come here looking to deliberately stir the pot and see what size chunks come to the top. Those people usually forget the first rule of a gunfight -- bring a gun.

Well well...I'm being called to task on my tactics. I've admitted to using the tactic of ridicule, and I've also admitted that I've overdone it on occasion. Like I said, the Board Admin has rapped my knuckles more than once. If it's not obvious that on this occasion I'm asking questions in sincere fashion (which does not rule out the occasional humorous turn of phrase), then one of us has made an error. Who it is and whether that error is one of expression or interpretation remains to be seen. I will let others judge
who missed the target here. Why am I so intent on 'shaming' people? I take my cue from the original poster. If their points are unsupportable by the evidence they bring and it's blatantly obvious that they should know better (and we all know who I'm referring to here), they deserve to get sliced off at the knees. Someone claiming to be an academic, and using that position of authority to support their trash, get no slack from me. On the other hand, someone who asks out of a desire to be educated get treated an entirely different way. There is a great difference between a lack of education and stupidity. There is a great difference in the way responses are made to those in the previous two cases, and you know it. Again, that's a rather broad brush, and you're getting paint on yourself...

Please, come down off the pedestal. All we have here to express ourself is the printed word, and the expressive use of symbols/phrases to do so is part of the game. You've done the same thing yourself in pursuit of a point, so you have no claim to the moral high ground here. And if you're comparing yourself to Galileo in his battles with the ecumenical authorities of his day, sorry, but I'm not catching the reference here.

When did I join this board? The fine print under my name says it was October 29, 2002. And if you truly don't understand what my point is in this thread, I'm going to have to go back and start over. I would have thought it was obvious, given JayUtah's carefully expressed response. Concerning 'learned methods of antagonization', I'm learning that they're not the most effective method of pointing out error, which is why the general change of tactic. Concerning your last two sentences, please expand. I don't quite understand what you're referring to.

On this one, I am firmly convinced you've misinterpreted what I've said. The general public looks on me and my 'ilk' (wow...when did I p!ss in your Cheerios?) on the occasions of public presentations and stargazes, and later on when they realize we have some experience, as being some informational source. At that stage, we are obligated to give them the most accurate answers we can (and the answer "I don't know" is a very legitimate answer). Get no sympathy from you? Didn't ask for any. Practicing the preaching, doing unto others, what goes around...what are we talking about here? If I come across as wrong in my facts, I fully expect to be corrected. Liking it doesn't enter into the procedure. If I persist in my errors in the face of facts, I expect to be treated with the respect I've earned in the situation, i.e. little or none. If I decide to act like a d@mn fool, it's no one's fault but my own if I'm drawn, quartered, and boiled in oil. At various times on this board, I've been done up all three ways, and I deserved each and every one of them.
I'm so hurt when I'm called a Little Leaguer? Where did you get that? I admitted it at the beginning of the paragraph that I consider myself a rookie...

I see you have your views on how I express myself (and again, considering recent board history, I know what you've been reading of mine to get those views), and all I can say is we differ in this matter. I've changed my methods considerably since I started, and there's much less rhetoric and many more facts in my strategies than there used to be. Somewhere along the line, I found that previous method to be unproductive, and by extension intellectually unsatisfying. Hence the change.
Any obligations to particular behavior, any perceived lack of free will, any being bound by some supernatural force...those words sound somewhat theological and vaguely paranormal, so I'm going to leave them alone.

I consider this to be a deliberate misinterpretation. You're being ridiculous, and it does you no credit. Stop it.

I have no idea at all how to respond to this, so I won't.

I think I already explained my change of method. You're right, some people seem to enjoy pure ridicule, to the point of getting intensely personal. As far as some debunkers' personal motives, you are more than entitled to your interpretations. Be prepared to defend them if you choose to state them as facts.
"I find that many debunkers are truly not concerned with helping others, but with helping themselves." -- watch that paint brush, you're sloppin' the whitewash high and wide...
"...desperate plea for discourse..." -- Request for discourse? Yes. Plea? No. Desperate? Spare us...

Agreed. Man is a social animal, and communication is a social activity.

You're back on the pedestal again...

You've stated your points, I've stated mine. Now it's someone else's turn.

Who's next?

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

No more turns... I'd like to offer an olive branch.

Charlie, I would like to at least apologize for the embellishments of your message and tone. I have no way of knowing if you are precisely as I hypothesized for the sake of debunking, or if you're just some decent guy out there who spends a few hours a week on BABB. Like when people get bashed for sharing opinions or URLs that are disagreed with... all kids of goofy suppositions are made in retort (like I did). That's part of the "point" I was making, though on the surface it sure doesn't seem like it. When people get ridiculed, they can either take it personally or ignore it. I give you credit for ignoring parts of what I said, and I give you credit for not ignoring parts you replied to. If you can at all sense that I have a heart, Charlie, know that I was addressing the type of person you merely resembled for a few moments, and not the real you. So in this next part, I'm excluding at least you and a few others BABB posters.

Maybe y'all don't yet understand why someone might want to defend another, for no other reason than they think that person doesn't deserve such treatment. Sure, I have no problem occasionally defending those attacked by debunkers at the cost of being attacked myself. I take care to not make a "job" of it though, just like I think people shouldn't make it a "job" of attacking people simply because they have different ideas. I harp on and on about free will because it's up to each person to make their own choices. Y'all can think you're doing your part to "protect" laypeople from "junk science", but it's obvious that you also do some harm. Debunking is an art. Anyone can do it. Not everyone is good at it. Some people sound ridiculous when they do it. Everyone's tried it, but it takes a special person to do it every day. How many sound like I did?

__________________
HB = CHIMP + TIME

Another one of your better posts at the end here HB. But:

I don't get this last sentence? :-? Can you elaborate, just a little?

This is the juice of it now isn't it. It's quite obvious that the range of ways people can express themselves fall between these two extremes. It is very true that some people take matters too far in the name of 'debunking' and combating 'junk science.' By the same token, there's a lot of junk being touted around.
It's very difficult for those toting what's regarded as junk to avoid defending themselves in nasty ways when challenged. Conversely, someone looking critically at junk science often acts agressively out of frustration at either the junk proferred, or the method by which it is delivered.
Where the problem arises is when the junk, or the debunking, fall more toward the middle of things; ie the junk has a grounding in reality (thus bearing at least superficial merit), and the debunking follows down the correct path (challenge ideas not individuals, focus on burden of proof yada yada).
It's here that one party has the tendency to falsely characterise the spirit of the other - which leads to the kind of post like your first in this thread. However, unlike what this so often leads to (namecalling and bannings), through Charlie's tempered response you have been able to see the mischaracterisation and we actually have a situation where discussion can progress.

As you say "When people get ridiculed, they can either take it personally or ignore it."

Too often it's taken personally. I only wish that people would believe one another when they're told the discussion is not personal. I guess I would sometimes like to de-humanise the argument somewhat (no one to get hurt), but that's not the way people work. Deal with it I guess.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Thank you, freddo.

I feel like a great many debunkers sound like I made myself sound like.
Style, methods, embellishments, assumptions, wordplays, etc. - Tactics.

The remainder of your comments are balanced and insightful, freddo.
I have nothing to add to them, and thank you for contributing them.

__________________
HB = CHIMP + TIME

The critical starting point when dealing with HB/PX/etc. believers is to recognize that HB/PX and similar beliefs do serve a perceived function in a believer's life.

A great many persons are taken in by HB/PX/etc. beliefs because they want to understand the world around them (perceived function) and they lack the knowledge and ability to see through the HB/PX/etc. arguments. Those persons can be persuaded otherwise by facts and reason. Most debunkers have little difficulty with such persons -- they behave the way they "ought" to, from the perspective of the debunker. Most debunkers deal well, too, with money-grubbing, attention-grabbing frauds. Those people, while not ethical, are at least "rational".

Where things get a lot trickier for most debunkers is when beliefs seem to be irrational. But even then there's a reason for the beliefs -- the reason is just more obscure and often unrelated to the apparent nature of the belief.

I think conspiratorial beliefs appeal to persons who feel excluded and isolated. Apocalyptic beliefs seem to tap, at least in part, into a primitive fear we all have of a death worse than death that destroys even our memory off the face of the earth (perhaps this fear is the dark side of the instinct to reproduce?). I could go on and on -- the covert motives for funny beliefs are myriad and complex. The only straightforward thing about this is that a debunker who explains the theory behind space flight to a HB who is looking for a theory of why he feels like he's just a small cog in a big machine is unlikely to make much of an impression.

Effective debunking in such cases means figuring out the real reason for the funny beliefs and addressing that reason (not just the pseudoscience). This is a hard thing to do. My approach, after doing my best to understand the real motives, is to try to show that the false beliefs won't in fact satisfy the HB/PX/etc.'s real needs.

Human Being, I would just like to point out that Nancy Lieder has actually trademarked the term Zetatalk, so that's certainly not a joke.

Typed Drawing


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Tell me something I didn't already know, and make sure it has relevance.

[EDIT] Whoa... I'm a "Bad Apprentice" now. A toast - to being "Bad".

__________________
HB = CHIMP + TIME