debunk

A debunker is a person who attempts to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated or pretentious.^[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "debunk" is defined as 1. Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). 2. Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes". If debunkers are not careful, their communications may backfire – increasing an audience's long term belief in myths. Backfire effects can occur if a message spends too much time on the negative case, if it is too complex, or if the message is threatening.^[2]

Etymology

The American Heritage Dictionary traces the passage of the words bunk (noun), debunk (verb) and debunker (noun) into American English in 1923 as a belated outgrowth of "bunkum", of which the first recorded use was in 1828, apparently related to a poorly received "speech for Buncombe" given by North Carolina representative Felix Walker during the 16th United States Congress (1819–1821).^[3]

The term debunk originated in a 1923 novel Bunk, by American novelist William Woodward (1874–1950), who used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things."^[4]

Often the term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity. It can also be used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent.

Backfire effects

When the goal is to debunk misconceptions, Cook and Lewandowsky recommend focusing on a few correct details, presenting them non-threateningly, and offering explanations for the origins of the error. A failed debunking, they warn, can actually increase support for misconceptions.

Australian Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky^[5] and John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (and author at SkepticalScience.com)^[6] both warn about "backfire effects" in their Debunking Handbook.^[2] Backfire effects occur when science communicators accidentally reinforce false beliefs by trying to correct them. For instance, a speaker about global warming may end up reinforcing the crowd's beliefs that global warming is not happening.

Cook and Lewandowsky offer possible solutions to the backfire effects as described in different psychological studies. They recommend spending little or no time describing misconceptions because people cannot help but remember ideas that they have heard before. They write "Your goal is to increase people's familiarity with the facts."^[7][8][2] Cook and Lewandowsky also recommend providing fewer and clearer arguments, considering that more people recall a message when it is simpler and easier to read. "Less is more" is especially important because scientific truths can get overwhelmingly detailed; pictures, graphs, and memorable tag lines all help keep things simple.^[9][2]

The two authors believe that debunkers should try to build up people's egos in some way before confronting false beliefs because it is difficult to consider ideas that threaten one's worldviews^[10][2] (i.e., threatening ideas cause cognitive dissonance). It can even help to avoid words with negative connotations.^[11][2] Finally, Cook and Lewandowsky describe studies that people abhor incomplete explanations – the two write "In the absence of a better explanation, [people] opt for the wrong explanation". It is important to fill in conceptual gaps, and to explain the cause of the misconception in the first place.^[12][2] The authors believe these techniques can reduce the odds of a "backfire" – that an attempt to debunk bad science will increase the audience's belief in misconceptions.

Notable debunkers

• Stephen Barrett founded Quackwatch and writes on medical quackery.^[13]
• Brian Dunning produces the podcast Skeptoid.
• Stanton Friedman has debunked both supposed UFO cases and debunking attempts on other UFO cases.
• Martin Gardner, mathematics and science writer who has extensively debunked parapsychology.
• Harry Houdini debunked spiritualists.^[14]
• Ray Hyman, psychologist known for debunking some parapsychological studies.
• Philip Klass was a pioneer in the field of skeptical investigation of UFOs.^[15]
• Donald Menzel was Philip Klass' predecessor in debunking UFOs.
• Joe Nickell writes regularly for the Skeptical Inquirer.
• Penn & Teller demystify magic tricks and illusions.^[16] They have also debunked many other aspects of popular belief on their show, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
• Phil Plait debunks astrology and end-of-the-world scenarios.
• James Randi has exposed faith healers, psychics and others claiming to have paranormal powers.^[17]
• Carl Sagan debunked purported close encounters such as the Betty and Barney Hill abduction, and pseudoscience such as Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.^[18]

Organizations

• Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
• The Skeptics Society
• The MythBusters, a program on the Discovery Channel. Two former special effects technicians, Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, use modern technology to test the validity of urban legends.
• The National Institute of Standards and Technology debunked the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.
• Popular Mechanics has released several publications also debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular those mentioned in Loose Change.
• Snopes debunks or validates urban legends.
• Quackwatch
• SourceWatch
• The website Bad Astronomy, by the American astronomer Phil Plait, debunks astrology and other myths related to the sky.
• James Randi Educational Foundation

See also

• The True Believer

Notes

Look up debunk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.