Talk:Debunker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] merge with scientific scepticism

both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollj (talkcontribs).

Maybe. Some people seem to consider them to be different, though. Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
They certainly are different. Two separate definitions of the word "skeptic" are in widespread general use, and the terms "scientific skeptic" and "debunker" are shorthand for these two definitions. We can use the word "skeptic" to refer to people who only adopt beliefs which are supported by sufficient evidence. Scientists are good examples of these. We can also use the word "skeptic" to mean "skeptic-activist;" those people who make it their business to expose scam artists and dishonest religous promotors, and who teach the public the basics of rational thinking via authoring books and giving lectures. Good examples of the second type of skeptic are the many members of groups like JREF and CSICOP. There is some overlap between the two meanings of "skeptic" of course. Some scientists are debunkers. And most (but not all) debunkers are faithful practitioners of Scientific Skepticism. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific skepticism practitioners never spend time engaging creationists in public debates, or trying to expose the tricks that scam artists use to take money from the gullible. --Wjbeaty 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. You can be a scientific skeptic without being a debunker. A debunker takes an active role. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, Dont't merge. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)