Take the Rationality Test
How I Define Logic
The Rational Do Not Rationalize
The Subconscious Changes What You See and Feel
Why Honesty Requires Logic
Linear and Non-Linear Communication
Idealism and the Optimally Ideal
Debunking the Debunkers
The Key To Improving Your Mind
Training Advanced Mental Skills
Psychological Mind Control


Debunking the Debunkers

Is it Debunking?
Or is it Railroading?


Debunking the Debunkers

Most people have heard of some wild sounding theory, like a conspiracy theory, or a UFO theory. And with a little on-line research it is easy to find articles that debunk these theories.

However, though they sound very convincing, the vast majority of debunkers make big mistakes. Here are some of the common ones...

  1. They attack poor presentation quality.
  2. They attack the source of the information.
  3. They discount the entire theory after arguing against one or two minor points.
  4. They put the theory or the evidence in the wrong context.
  5. They ignore key points and/or key evidence.
Regardless of the wording of a debunker article, these tactics are invalid. Debunkers often use logic fallacy to debunk theory, and then turn around and claim that the theory they debunked was based on logic fallacy. Don't let the smooth common-sense sounding and/or authoritative sounding wording fool you into thinking they were right.

Poor presentation does not mean a theory is entirely wrong - it may even be in the wrong form yet when corrected may lead to something of value.

Most individuals do not have the logic skills to prove their theory, nor the word skills to effectively convey their theory, and this results in the appearance of wild sounding theory that is easily written off as nonsense.

There are only a few good debunkers who do their jobs right. These will systematically and logically deal with the evidence presented, the arguments presented, AND their own arguments based on the evidence left after crossing out the ones they disprove. You will not see them even once mention the quality of presentation in the author's theory, nor the source of the theory, as these have nothing to do with logic.

For example, the movie Fourth Kind was full of claims regarding alien encounters in Nome Alaska, including many points that were weak. The debunkers focused on those points rather than the evidence presented: an audio recording of an alien talking, and a police cam with a spaceship fly-by. Low quality theory and low quality presentation should be handled one way: reduce it to just the evidence, build your own theories from there, then attempt to disprove your own theories and/or the evidence. A real debunker would find a way to prove that the voice on the audio recording was not made by an alien, and that the spaceship fly-by was fabricated.

Skillful wording of logic fallacy to debunk theory results in a form of railroading, and holds no value. Furthermore, this is how information of potential value is silenced.

There are real debunkers who do their job right, then there are debunkers who are not qualified to debunk yet have excellent word skills and manage to convince people that they are right anyway (most debunkers fall in this category), and then there are the ones who are intentionally railroading, who both understand logic and the word skills to sway people away from the truth. These are the fake debunkers planted there to keep certain matters invisible to the public. (Worse yet, this type of 'debunker' is often planted within vital industries, such as the medical industry, to steer hard working honest scientists the wrong way.)

If you have any comments please send them to tony@snydermind.com.

home snydermind top