Talk:Debunker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debunker article.
Article policies
WikiProject Parapsychology
 This article is supported by WikiProject Parapsychology, which collaborates on parapsychology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] merge with scientific scepticism

both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollj (talk • contribs)

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)
Wise decision. All debunkers are skeptics, but not all skeptics are debunkers. Debunkers are activists. -- Fyslee/talk 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate External Link?

The author of this link, http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm, appears to be trying to debunk or discredit scientific skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. Should this link be kept? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely debunking pseudoskepticism. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The person writing it is not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll find that under "parity of sources" in WP:FRINGE

[edit] Martinphi's apparent double standard

Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call Sylvia Browne a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But we have to characterise what they debunk somehow. The way you would have it, it's as if the claims debunked are always "false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious" in fact. Whereas a psychic is a cultural artefact, not necessarily one who has powers. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)