An existential hint into the darkness of the human soul and ubiquitous song under the breath of the oblivious – that cynical editorial which solely targets disdained insight, probes only as far as the first convenient niggle, and cowers from the risk and responsibility to winnow the unknown.
Science seeks to falsify the null hypothesis – The debunker seeks to enforce it as truth.
Literally almost anything can be debunked. Debunking is a magic act whose misdirection tricks the magician instead of their audience. It is a form of kabuki portrayed in the authoritative wardrobe of ‘doubt’, ‘skepticism’, or ‘peer review’. The debunker employs a method of outference in which they raise the specter of (selective) cynicism, and then use ‘Occam’s Razor’ to force the issue to their favored conclusion. Unlike actual science, debunking is a procedure for methodically discarding evidence that doesn’t support one’s narrative – a baseless woo which is ironically afforded immediate acceptance as truth.
Debunking is a form of social activism which seeks abuse of science through a masquerade of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. At its heart, debunking is nothing but weaponized fake skepticism deployed by useful idiots to further the agency (not simply bias) of their sponsors. Please note that debunking is not the same thing as falsification. Unlike actual science or falsification of a singular claim, debunking is a procedure for discarding all evidence that doesn’t support one’s narrative. The debunker is a catalyseur who actively seeks to foment conflict between science and the lay public regarding an embargoed topic, who then exploits such conflict to bolster their celebrity and false form of go-to authority.
Inside this article we draw witness to the debunker’s alchemy, wherein they transmute their fantasy and obsession with trivia into accepted claims of science. It’s backbone serving only purposes of discrediting and ridicule, the form of oppressive dialogue outlined below ironically serves to most often disparage courage and curiosity inside the very arenas in which these virtues are most sorely needed.
Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
~ Economist, John Kenneth Galbraith
One’s implicit claim to have proven the null hypothesis, especially by means of an absence of evidence, constitutes the most extraordinary of claims.
The process of debunking at its heart constitutes an abject mockery of science. It centers upon the fabrication of anti-data from extreme agency and anchoring bias, along with employment of this anti-data inside an argument from ignorance to prove (enforce) a fake form of null hypothesis called an Omega Hypothesis. Not even featuring the integrity of cynicism, this process is outference, an antithetical ethic to critical-path syllogism and inference. This is depicted below:
Debunking is the abuse of methodical doubt and mere plausibility to fabricate cherry-picked anti-data (?), which extrapolates into an empty-set (Ø) appeal to ignorance and supposedly proves (enforces) a fake form of the null hypothesis called the Omega Hypothesis. Debunking doubts and embargoes contending ideas before they can be tested for merit by science, yet never exposes its own ‘null hypothesis’ (ideam tutela) to any kind of accountability. Debunking is the antithesis of science. At its heart, debunking involves two phases:
1. Raise the specter of doubt (only against things you dislike) – pretend as if this charade constitutes ‘evidence’.
2. Employ ‘Occam’s Razor’ as a decision heuristic (logical fallacy), which proves the null hypothesis (logical fallacy), which just also happens to be the debunker’s favored conclusion.
Note: ‘Omega Hypothesis’ is a mandatory answer whose protection as ‘truth’ has become more important than the integrity of science itself.
In contrast, science is the use of robust, corroborative, and repeating observational data to develop sound inference along a critical path of inquiry, which all serve to falsify the Null Hypothesis. Science doubts the Null Hypothesis.1
Debunking would be ‘cleverness pretending to be wise’, if it even rose to the level of being clever to begin with (note: this is not the same as heteroduction, because as shown above heteroduction cannot be employed to prove the null hypothesis). Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen may I present the method of the debunker, The Pseudo-Scientific Method.
Fabricate Supposed Flaw in Observation
Fallacy of Exclusion/Sowert’s Law – (Fallacy of Suppressed or Isolated Evidence) – one of the basic principles of argumentation is that a sound argument is one which presents all the relevant, and especially critical-path, evidence. A debunker will seek to isolate one single facet of an observation and then pretend that it is weak, when stripped of its corroborating observations, context, and facets of credibility. This is the warning flag that the above pseudo-scientific method is at play. Ignorance + Trivia = “Fact” in the compromised mind of a person bearing agency (Sowert’s Law).
Fallacy of Opposition/MiHoDeAL Claim – presuming that someone is wrong, including trained and qualified scientists measuring direct observation in a controlled environment, because they appear to reside in an opposing camp. Dismissing a single (or all) observation(s) as ‘Misinterpretation, Hoax, Delusion, Anecdote, and Lie (MiHoDeAL)’ – based solely upon a disdain for what was observed or who did the observing. A fallacy where an untrained, unequipped, ignorant ‘skeptic’ is suddenly instructing experts on how to correctly conduct observations in their field, on systems and in environments where the ‘skeptic’ has zero relevant experience.
This Evidence is Disqualified
Semmelweis Reflex – the tendency to reject by informal, incomplete, or invalid basis new evidence that contradicts one’s held paradigm.
Truzzi Fallacy – when a cynic, debunker, or denialist regards that it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based only upon their notion of plausibility, fictitious versions of Occam’s Razor, or probability no matter how slight it may be, rather than any actual empirical evidence.
Subception – a perceptual defense (martial art) that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering one’s personal gestalt.
This stage of subception is called incorrectly by debunkers, the LIZ: Low Information Zone. By purposely neglecting/corrupting the rigors of investigation, one can create absences of observation (low observation), which are then later spun as an appeal to ignorance (low information).
All Evidence is Disqualified
Fallacy of Composition – when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is (possibly) true of some part of the whole or anecdote thereof.
Dietrologia – an insistence that the obvious or repeatedly observed explanation, cannot possibly be the truth. Invoking as a first response and without any evidence, that ‘conspiracy theory’ spinning must be the motivation behind any repeated interpretation other than a preferred conventional one.
Cherry Sorting/Data Skulpting – applying diligent doubt, investigation, and skepticism to all instances of observation one disfavors, while relaxing and offering a free pass to all observations or interpretations which fit one’s preconceived notion. Skulpting the answer one desired in advance from skillful and selective ‘doubting’ of the observation/evidence base.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum: ‘No Evidence Exists’
praedicate evidentia – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the preponderance of evidence supporting a specific claim (even to convention), when few examinations of merit have been conducted regarding a hypothesis, or few or no such studies of the subject have indeed been conducted at all.
Appeal to Ignorance – an argument for a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, or the insistence that a lack of observed evidence means there is not evidence to be observed at all.
Subject and Researchers are Therefore Discredited (A Scientific Claim)
Appeal to Skepticism – the invalid employment of skepticism to act in lieu of science. The employment of skepticism, in absence of any form of scientific study, in order to derive a scientific conclusion. Philosophy (skepticism) cannot be used to supplant science, as that is neither its capability nor role. Also, when one does not hold a science qualification, the pretense that one’s use of skepticism implies therefore that one’s opinions still represent science or scientific consensus.
Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by framing the opponent or opponent’s argument in a way that makes either appear ridiculous.
Outference – a critical (not rhetorical) argument which bases its inference or conclusions upon cultivated ignorance and the resulting lack of information, rather than the presence of sound information. More than simply an appeal to ignorance, this ‘lack’ of information is specifically engineered to produce specious conclusion in the first place. This type of argument gets stronger and stronger the less and less critical information one holds. This is a warning flag of agenda or political shenanigans at play.
One should notice that the debunker most often ends this process with two implicit (and often explicit) scientific claims, issuing such offenses inside the masquerade of a staid and erudite demeanor:
1. That the subject and the one who approaches that subject as an open-minded researcher, are both now discredited scientifically (debunked), and
2. The debunker themself bears the qualifications necessary to represent the scientific method, scientific consensus, critical thinking, skepticism, and science itself.
‘Debunking’ in this context is defined as ‘the habit of the debunker’. While there is a small context of legitimate use for the term, its equivocal and pejorative implications/connotations render it an unwise choice as a professional or philosophical term. Debunking in the manner cited above is an illicit form of martial art (see ‘subception’ above). Most often as well, it is a form of exploitation of the innocent, theft/obfuscation of common intellectual property, and lying on the part of a self-appointed authority – a fairly heinous set of actions given their casual issuance. A stage magician who has taken it upon themselves to apportion the proprietary knowledge development of mankind as they solely desire, by means of their tattered magic hat and worn-out stage act.
Wherein one is corrupt in their skepticism, there also will they be corrupt in their heart.
Literally almost anything can be debunked. Debunking is a magic act whose misdirection tricks the magician instead of their audience. It is a form of bullshitting, through adorning the authoritative costume of ‘doubt’.
Most people sense the incumbent dishonesty in their gut. However, like myself years ago possess neither the philosophy nor ethics deliberation skills requisite in a Wittgenstein sufficient framing of such deceptive tactics. Hence, the reason why ethical skepticism continues to grow in popularity.
The Ethical Skeptic, “The Sleight-of-Hand StageCraft of the Debunker”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Jul 2021; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=51488
There exist three domain-forms of ethics. The definitions below are taken and framed inside a relational integrity, as derived from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New World Encyclopedia, and Wikipedia.
Another revolution is underway in the development of data structures employed by economic entities (corporations, funds, banks, trade partners and economies, etc.). Database normalization is the process of organizing the columns (attributes), rows (records) and tables (relations) of a relational database, along with the disciplining of the parsed data (answers) in order to reduce data redundancy and make data integrity more robust inside a high transaction environment (IT departments for banks, finance departments, consumer goods traders, brokerages, etc). First Order Logic normalization was employed since the 1970’s in both hierarchical and then further relational data base structures into the 80’s and 90’s. Third Order Logic, or ‘third normal form’ databases have performed as the standard for relational structures thereafter. Query languages such as SQL have traditionally been able to access answers from such third normalized structures in intuitive if not rules based lookup protocols such as single access protocols or intuitive query by example (QBE) user interfaces. Odds are, if you have used Microsoft’s Access or the user friendly dbms 
In short, the QON model of data development more closely reflects the reality which we face in the prosecution of science. A diagnostician in contrast, will typically only demand a measuring machine and a hierarchical or relational database to address his or her abductive scientific challenges. He or she will ‘doubt’ any catalog proposition which runs counter to their prescribed notions. This is pseudoscience as the majority of scientific endeavor does not function in this fashion.
Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington and Kevin Gross of North Carolina State University and their team of researchers, recently published a paper entitled ‘Publication bias and the canonization of false facts‘.² Nothing elicits the whipsaw effect of tampering with the processes of intelligence crafting, by means of provisional knowledge, more than the expose elicited inside this paper. The graphic to the right is extracted from the publication for reporting purposes only. It depicts the volatile effect which suppressing publication of negative outcome studies has upon consensus and canonization of scientific ideas. An important principle to observe here (and indeed a contention made by Gross-Bergstrom et. al.) is that the tightening of p-value measures is not a panacea in mitigation of canonizing false facts by means of false sequential method. Despite our precision of measure and tolerance, there exists a point at which, our suppression of negative outcome studies only serves to whip our consensus as a body scientific into unrealistic ranges of conclusivity. What is shown here of importance is that – the structure of intelligence afforded by inclusion of negative studies far outweighs the impact of precision increases of any particular answer contained in a positive-study-only publication approach.
This is why a null answer is preferable over a probable answer inside a structure of intelligence. Below we see an depiction wherein – tampering with probabilities and dependencies in an intelligence structure (technically a deconvolutional Restricted Boltzmann Machine progression) can serve to produce dramatically differing outcomes of conclusion from that of a more classic Wittgenstein deontological reduction/deduction. Notice that all the atomic answers in the stacked provisional knowledge were the most probable answers (abductive reason) available inside the QON sequence chosen blindly (sans intelligence). But the conslusions were wrong. Today we non-skeptically rest upon foundations of knowledge in many arenas, developed from the method of stacked provisional knowledge depicted below. We fail to acknowledge the questions we have mishandled or skipped, and the incumbent risk we have introduced to the process, by not appropriately using intelligence as the formulative part of the scientific method – and rather ‘asking a question’ as the first step in the scientific method.
Exacerbating this is the specter of publication. Assume that the above deontology reflects the reality on a critical social issue such as food contamination or the discovery of a new species. The abysmal depiction above becomes even more dire when one introduces the impact of publication bias into this process. Not only is the conclusion set wrong, but moreover we endure the danger of publication bias further then skewing the perceptions of science, and finally – per the conclusions of the Bergstrom-Gross study – canonize a completely incorrect scientific consensus, fully unable to overturn it from that point on – because no successive questions remain. This is the sixth vulnerability in terms of mistakes and missteps inside the scientific method, followed by the seventh vulnerability, the role of social skepticism.