The Debunking Handbook. Required reading, m'kay.

In response to a few threads recently, ranging variously from paid shills, denying ignorance, the posting of ridiculous subject matter and the like, I am creating this thread to provide some useful information (IMO) to assist members here in their response to such (dis)posts.

The information is contained in the following link and is free to download. It is The Debunkers Handbook. It’s not very long and certainly worth a read.

Experience Linkyfaction Here.

“When you debunk a myth, you create a gap in the person’s mind. To be effective, your debunking must fill that gap.” From the source.

The point is to understand approaches in how to support your argument through what you know to be fact, and dismantling arguments of others that you know to be false. We all do that, or should do at least. Indeed this site would be nothing if it were not for debunking. As far as I can tell, sometimes debunkers debunk, sometime they dont, and sometimes people who don’t debunk can become foaming at the mouth debunkers.

Please, take the time to read the handbook and remember, in some way shape or form we are all debunkers (or bonkers, sometimes I get confused).

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

Clever how they use the global warming climate change scientists as an example.



Very effective indeed.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes it does, which is unfortunate, however hopefully that does not detract or confuse the point trying to be made here.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

There is a fine line between "debunking" and using intellectually dishonest debate tactics.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest.

Don't be fooled into being a troll. Stand up for the facts, but do so honestly.

This is a great source for both debunkers who are honest as well as those defending themselves against dishonest debate tactics:

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Interesting. A book on debunking myths, using a myth as an example. Not propaganda at all, nope.

A quick search of this Stephan Lewandowsky guy tells you that while he is a psychologist and not a meteorologist or weather scientist, he seems to have a big mouth with regard to global warming - in favor of that mythology. A psychologist who knows all about climate, interesting.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Perhaps, but as I have written, hopefully this will not detract from the intent of the thread. There is much, much more in the handbook than that.

If you are only going to cherry pick examples like that then I will offer you the following quote;

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu.

Either way it's better read than not.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

The nutjob who wrote this is troll William Wu who goes by names like Shen1987, MU!!, Open Mind, murgatroid, Darryl Forests, Max, Apparition, mac (fake Spiritualist), Andrew Chung, Courtney Brown, OC68, Ian Codpiece Anderson and two hundred more!

Search Rational Wiki and Andrew Chung for complete, accurate details of this slobbo!

He and I were v-e-r-y close at one time then after I left my kids and wife, he dumped me. Then he hacked my Skeptiko account and I got banned. Being bi-polar is no fun.

Arouet
RIP Eveshi