Monthly Archives: November 2013

Debunking debunking

by Liam Scheff

Get into a debate about the make-believe sciences of today, and you’ll meet one of the self-appointed internet or journal attack dogs, whose trade it is to puke on reality and call it a ham sandwich. (I’m a vegetarian, myself, so neither is a happy place.)

They’ll describe their process as “debunking,” but be warned, they’re full of ham. People who use the word ‘debunk’ are always propagandists. No one ‘debunks’ anything. They bunk it.

‘Debunking’ contains a hidden verbal attack on whatever the intended target is. It’s not a ‘critical analysis.’ It says, from before the first argument is heard, that the target is a liar, full of ‘bunk,’ a con and a scam-artist.

If a writer is serious about presenting information, they don’t ‘debunk,’ they offer fair and clear analysis. Everything else is either opinion or propaganda.

Don’t fall for snotty-nosed academic put-downs. Demand fair and equal-time, equal-weight debate – or walk away from the opponent, because they’re not being sincere or serious. And remember, “Official Stories,” because “official stories exist to protect officials.”