-
- PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY
-
- Before commencing to debunk, prepare
your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.
-
- Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending
air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith
and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous"
or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force
of scientific authority.
-
- Portray science not as an open-ended
process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch
or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of
defending scientific method.
-
- Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical
as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory
overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore
no such evidence is worth examining.
-
- Reinforce the popular misconception that
certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately
confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone
may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and
that only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible
or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method
employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone
that "there is no contradiction here.")
-
- Arrange to have your message echoed by
persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is
directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
-
- Always refer to unorthodox statements
as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions
as "facts," which are "stated."
-
- Avoid examining the actual evidence.
This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence
to support such ridiculous
-
- claims!" (Note that this technique
has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo.
By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)
-
- If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable,
report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by
a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests,
simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
-
- Equate the necessary skeptical component
of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous
and critical elements
-
- of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them
of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.
-
- Insist that the progress of science depends
on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science
equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation
by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left
can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.
-
- Downplay the fact that free inquiry,
legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.
-
- At every opportunity reinforce the notion
that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.
-
- State categorically that the unconventional
arises exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed
as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
-
- Maintain that in investigations of unconventional
phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts,
however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations
are complex and human beings are imperfect."
-
- "Occam's Razor," or the "principle
of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually
involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the
most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly
that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable
law.
-
- Discourage any study of history that
may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing
the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science
and democracy.
-
- Since the public tends to be unclear
about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help
maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically
that there is no evidence.
-
- If sufficient evidence has been presented
to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence
alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is
not supposed to prove *anything*.
-
- In any case, imply that proof precedes
evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful
process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet
been established for the phenomenon in question.
-
- Insist that criteria of proof cannot
possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!
-
- Although science is not supposed to tolerate
vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena
must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules.
Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence"--but take care never to define where the "ordinary"
ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture
an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary"
evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.
-
- Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump
together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their
proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case
to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having
some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly
assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just
say "I rest my case."
-
- Use the word "imagination"
as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to
denying what *is* there.
-
- If a significant number of people agree
that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality,
simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the
possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely observed by
millions, might itself constitute a mass hallucination.
-
- Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far
and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against
discovery and innovation.
-
- Ridicule has the unique power to make
people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling.
It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind
not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.
-
- By appropriate innuendo and example,
imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of scientific method
that can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness
with which any investigation is conducted.
-
- Imply that investigators of the unorthodox
are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something
one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true
believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in
complete detail ahead of
-
- time. Convince people of your own sincerity
by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these
fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is
not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.
-
- Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e.,
obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact,
opinion, innuendo, out- of-context information and outright lies will fool
most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten
parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic
dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping
back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest
foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice
of opinion.
-
- Employ "TCP": Technically Correct
Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began
as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become
great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will
notice that it did not really refute the original remark.
-
- Trivialize the case by trivializing the
entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena
as deep and timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so
insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If
pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!"
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff"
or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the media's favorite
code-word for "bogus."
-
- Remember that most people do not have
sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept
or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole
story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take
one element of a case
-
- completely out of context; b) find something
prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore
that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce
to the world that the entire case has been explained!
-
- Engage the services of a professional
stage magician who can mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP,
psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the original
claimants or witnesses to such phenomena must themselves have been (or
been fooled by) talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon
in precisely the same way.
-
- Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles,
no matter how superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that
the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence
of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see
"faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must
be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.
-
- When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates
evidence of intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles)
focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the
intelligence rather than the intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism.
The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can
distract people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or nonterrestrial
intelligence.
-
- Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena
of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities."
If they should point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt
with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism?
. . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive
interpretation of the facts."
-
- Insist that western science is completely
objective, and is based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or
ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens
to be considered true and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditional
society, you may therefore dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception,"
"medieval superstition" or "fairy lore."
-
- Label any poorly-understood phenomenon
"occult," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical"
or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream scientists off
the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this
may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or
even centuries!
-
- Ask questions that appear to contain
generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why
do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists
report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those
who do must be mentally unstable.)
-
- Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary
criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't
we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?"
Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial,
why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"
-
- Remember that you can easily appear to
refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One
way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain
of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of
any position they've taken.
-
- Another effective strategy with a long
history of success is simply to misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid
replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be ridiculous or
fruitless. To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their
actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated
in popular myth.
-
- Insist that such-and-such unorthodox
claim is not scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking
organization would fund such ridiculous tests.
-
- Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox
healing method has failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may
deem it worthless, while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the shortcomings
of conventional medicine.
-
- Hold claimants responsible for the production
values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their
claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized
manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without
substance or worth.
-
- When a witness or claimant states something
in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were
not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist,
argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective.
-
- If you're unable to attack the facts
of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the
case. Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most
powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example,
if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities
connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially
from activities connected with their research!" If their research,
publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of
work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof
that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have
labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize
them as "publicity seekers."
-
- Fabricate supportive expertise as needed
by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include
the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as
experts on the UFO question, although course credits in ufology have never
been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.
-
- Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon
stubbornly refuses to go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers
to claim they hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view
confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon their critical
faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to lack compassion for self-confessed
sinners.
-
- Fabricate sources of disinformation.
Claim that you've "found the person who started the rumor that such
a phenomenon exists!"
-
- Fabricate entire research projects. Declare
that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts
in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually
studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.
-
-
-
- PART 2: DEBUNKING THE UFO
-
- Point out that an "unidentified"
flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial.
Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
-
- Equate nature's laws with our current
understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity
or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because obviously
they would violate nature's laws." Then if a UFO is reported to have
hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared
and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.
-
- Declare that there is no proof that life
can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth
were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth,
which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
-
- Point out that the government-sponsored
SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can
only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption
with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial
reports of ET contact.
-
- When someone produces purported physical
evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that
its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of
some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only
exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House
lawn-the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics
as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
-
- If photographs or other visual media
depicting a UFO have been presented, argue that since images can now be
digitally manipulated they
-
- prove nothing. Assert this regardless
of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition.
Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood
of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held
to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!
-
- If you can't otherwise destroy the credibility
of a UFO photo, plant a small model of the alleged craft near the photographer's
home where it can be conveniently discovered and whisked off to the local
media. The model need not resemble the original too closely; as long as
the press says it's a dead ringer nobody will question the implication
of fraud.
-
- Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials
must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the
result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment.
Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations
have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first
place.
-
- Argue that extraterrestrials would or
wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because
such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic
on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave
in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your
arguments.
-
- Stereotype contact claims according to
simplistic scenarios already well established in the collective imagination.
If a reported ET contact
-
- appears to have had no negative consequences,
sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent
ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If
someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside
as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential
humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why
haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"
-
- Ask why alleged contactees and abductees
haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all
medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize
as "pure science-fiction" the notion that alien understandings
of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien
microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological
systems.
-
- Above all, dismiss anything that might
result in an actual investigation of the matter.
-
- Travel to China. Upon your return, report
that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that
this proves that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations
are overexposed to science fiction.
-
- Where hypnotic regression has yielded
consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent
cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless
in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the
subjects must have been steeped in the UFO literature, and that, whatever
their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading
questions.
-
- If someone claims to have been emotionally
impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter
perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.
-
- Maintain that there cannot possibly be
a government UFO coverup, but that it exists for legitimate reasons of
national security!
-
- Accuse conspiracy theorists of being
conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only
*accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns
of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.
-
- Argue that since theoretically there
can be no press censorship in the United States, there is no press censorship
in the United States.
-
- In the event of a worst-case scenario--for
example, one in which the UFO is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery
of millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a short memory.
Simply say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally
significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking
on it for years!"
-
- Part 2
- Part 2: Debunking Extraterrestrial
Intelligence
-
- <> Point out that an "unidentified"
flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial.
Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
-
- <> Equate nature's laws with our
current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as
antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because
what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then
if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle
turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may
summarily dismiss the report.
-
- <> Declare that there is no proof
that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if
the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact
that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
-
- <> Point out that the official
SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can
only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption
with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial
reports of ET contact.
-
- <> If compelling evidence is presented
for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed
information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably
account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need
to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the
military project.
-
- <> When someone produces purported
physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove
that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product
of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The
only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House
lawn-the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics
as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
-
- <> If photographs or other visual
media depicting anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that
since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert
this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of
its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the
greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test
may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!
-
- <> Argue that all reports of humanoid
extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form
on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically
isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if
interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically
isolated in the first place.
-
- <> Argue that extraterrestrials
would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain
ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions
of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials
behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior
suits your arguments.
-
- <> Stereotype contact claims according
to simplistic scenarios already well established in the collective imagination.
If a reported ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences,
sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent
ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If
someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside
as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential
humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why
haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"
-
- <> When reluctant encounter witnesses
step forward, accuse them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight"
with their outlandish stories.
-
- <> Ask why alleged contactees and
abductees haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous"
all medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize
as "pure science-fiction" the notion that alien understandings
of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien
microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological
systems. Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation
of the matter.
-
- <> Travel to China. Upon your return,
report that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist
that this proves that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations
are overexposed to science fiction.
-
- <> Where hypnotic regression has
yielded consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent
cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless
in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the
subjects must have been steeped in the ET-contact literature, and that,
whatever their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking
leading questions.
-
- <> If someone claims to have been
emotionally impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions
can alter perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be
entirely untrustworthy.
-
- <> Maintain that there cannot possibly
be a government coverup of the ET question . . . but that it exists for
legitimate reasons of national security!
-
- <> Accuse conspiracy theorists
of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist
that only *accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated, organized
patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.
-
- <> In the event of a worst-case
scenario--for example, one in which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly
acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just remember
that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a "victory
for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone
knows this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact, my
colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"
-
- * * *
-
- Daniel Drasin is a writer, media producer
and award-winning cinematographer. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
|