#60379
03/10/2002 2:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Our very own wwh exposed a gap in our vocabulary when he explained that a writer ridiculing a "debunker of the Holocaust" was paying the psychopath an unintended compliment. A debunker is someone who exposes a patent falsehood, such as a miraculous drug. Someone who circulates "bunk" is not a "debunker" but a perpetrator of bunk. Such a person might be called a bunkerist or a Holocaust bunkerator, but we should not dignify their bunk with the laudatory term "debunker". Of course, wwh's insight exposes a larger weakness in our vocabulary. We have a word to describe words which contradict one another, namely, "oxymoron". And "irony" describes ideas or images which jar with one another, provoking critical thought. But how about a phrase like "debunker of the Holocaust"? How do we describe such a phrase? It is not, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. It is not an explicit contradiction in terms like "humble politician" or "noble greed". It actually postulates an alternative reality as though one is proclaiming that politicians and greed don't exist at all. And it is more unequivocal than "irony". For instance, "irony" can point to a deeper truth, one which is counter-indicated on the surface. A phrase like "debunker of the Holocaust" is the very opposite of this. It appears to be true on the surface but it is utterly false underneath. Do we have a word which describes a phrase like this? Prevarication?
|
|
|
#60380
03/10/2002 3:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear plutarch: When we are small, we need to be able to feel that our parents are very powerful, and able to protect us. As we get into adolescence, and begin to feel less dependent on our parents and other power figures, many of us go too far and overestimate our capabilities, and reject any and all authority, reject all the values of the older generation. We may become NeoNazis to emphasize the width of the gulf between our position and that of the conventional authorities. We can become anarchists to emphasize our refusal to accept any higher authority.
Fortunately most adolescents don't go this far. Mark Twain said that when he was fifteen, his old man was so stupid he hardly stand to be in the same house with him. But when he was twenty, he was amazed to see how much the old guy had learned in five years.
|
|
|
#60381
03/10/2002 3:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Fortunately, most adolescents don't go this far.
If only neo-Nazism were an aberration of adolescence, wwh. Unfortunately, for some, it's a life-long career. I think you got closer to the truth when you explained that the profile of a typical neo-Nazi includes "extreme survivalist" because of the paranoia which distorts the neo-Nazi's perception of reality. The flip side of "white supremist" delusions of grandeur is the persecution complex, the fear that everyone else is 'out to get us'. These symptoms are all of a piece, don't you think, wwh? Taken together, they define both the neo-Nazi personality and the disease which afflicts this personality. That's why the writer's adumbration of the characteristics of a neo-Nazi is so revealing (at least pour moi).
|
|
|
#60382
03/13/2002 10:57 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
This discussion of 'debunk' reminded me of the confusion between 'refute' and 'rebut'. These are both semi-technical terms, so there is some authority for saying there are right and wrong meanings of them.
If someone accuses you of purloining the pewter charger, you can deny, rebut, or refute the accusation, but these three are different. Merely to say 'I deny that' does thereby deny it. 'Deny' is wholly performative.
You can't rebut it by saying 'I rebut that', since rebuttal is the presentation of evidence: but evidence, not proof. If you present some evidence to support your denial, you have thereby rebutted it, even if the evidence is unconvincing or untrue.
Finally, refutation is successful denial. A rebuttal, or other attempt at refutation, fails to refute something unless the evidence is true (and, I think, convincing).
If you assert that A refutes B, you are asserting (inter alia) that B is false, not just that A makes that claim. (And A may be a person or their text.)
Debunking is like this: to assert that A debunks B is to assert (inter alia) that B is bunk.
What led me to this was noticing that some adverbs are ruled out by virtue of this secondary assertion. Or rather, the person A who asserts 'B' can use them, but the person C who reports this assertion can't. If A thinks the Moon Landings are bunk and fills a book with evidence they find convincing, they can say 'In my book I debunk the Moon Landings', but I can't echo them: I have to add a qualifier like 'claims to' or 'attempts to'.
But A's usage is a correct and reasonable use of the word 'debunk', in their own mind. They genuinely and sincerely think they have debunked it.
I can report this using 'genuinely' and 'sincerely', but I can't use 'reasonably' or 'correctly'. I recognize that their usage of the word is reasonable or correct, but I can't phrase it as 'A correctly said they debunked the Moon Landings', even if all I want to do is endorse their language as correct, not their facts. The adverb is ambiguous in what it applies to: whereas 'sincerely' would unambiguously refer to A's beliefs.
I was minded to extend our usual grammar along the lines of the technical terms 'rule-utilitarianism' and 'act-utilitarianism'. We could take about usage-correctness and fact-correctness. Then I can with a clear conscience assert that A usage-correctly said they debunked the Moon Landings.
|
|
|
#60383
03/13/2002 11:51 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
usage correctness and fact correctness
U have sorted this out very nicely, Nicholas W, by distinguishing between usage correctness and fact correctness.
But, can one "debunk" something which, on the weight of all credible evidence, is self-evidently true, namely, the fact of the Holocaust? I think not. The fact that one is sincere in arguing a case which is patently false does not make the truth "bunk".
Where there is no "bunk", there can be no "debunker".
On the other hand, where the proposition which is challenged is less than patently false, one can claim to "debunk" it by marshalling credible evidence in support of that challenge. In this situation, an etymologist cannot say that the word "debunked" has been misused even if he/she is not persuaded by the challenger's evidence.
Perhaps "debunking the Moon Landing" falls into this category. I really don't know. I haven't taken the time to examine the so-called evidence and I have never questioned the historical record. One would have to go deep into the woodwork to make a case either way. And the witnesses are few, and the scene of their deeds beyond reach ... quite unlike the situation with the Holocaust.
|
|
|
#60384
03/13/2002 1:09 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
Sorry, you're missing my point entirely. I can only ask you to read it again. None of the following is a modification of what I said above.
I chose the Moon Landings as something in epistemologically the same situation as the Holocaust, but without the emotional charge, i.e. it is impossible to reasonably doubt them.
But someone certainly can claim that they are bunk. There is no semantic problem with this at all. The person so claiming is factually wrong, and unreasonable, but if they think it's bunk, then the expression 'That is bunk' is a (usage-)correct and reasonable expression of their views when they utter it.
And if I say 'Irving thinks that is bunk' then I am also describing the facts correctly and reasonably.
(Mental verbs like 'think' or 'believe' don't preserve truth across them. If Alice believes Oslo is in Denmark, and Bob says/thinks that Alice believes that, it doesn't entail that Bob says/thinks Oslo is in Denmark.)
Someone can claim to have debunked anything whatever. They have not actually debunked it unless they convincingly establish that it's bunk. But even if they don't establish it, they can make an attempt and claim to have succeeded. This claim might or might not be reasonable, but being reasonable is not inherent in the notion of claiming. I can (and frequently do) claim to be the King of Patagonia.
You can claim to debunk something no matter what your evidence is. You do not succeed in debunking it unless the evidence is compelling.
|
|
|
#60385
03/13/2002 1:59 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
you have missed the point entirely
We may have to agree to disagree, Nicholas W. I think I understand your point perfectly, and it is very ably put. But I must stand by my own logic. Where there is no "bunk", there can be no "debunker".
The problem here is that the two words are inextricably connected. One cannot "debunk" something unless it is "bunk". Intention has nothing at all to do with it. "Debunking" is the removing of "bunk". Its like trying to remove salt from rainwater. One cannot desalinate rainwater.
|
|
|
#60386
03/13/2002 2:27 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
But you can try to desalinate rainwater if you think it has salt in it!
|
|
|
#60387
03/13/2002 3:19 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think you guys are arguing from the same side of the fence.
|
|
|
#60388
03/13/2002 3:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
.. Parents find it expedient to misrepresent to their children the facts of life.Particularly in wartime governments find it expedient to deceive the public.Some people become incurably suspicious, and misinterpret events, and believe they detect deceit when there is none. They refuse to accept the best evidence, and construct contorted arguments to support their views.
|
|
|
#60389
03/13/2002 4:39 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Or as somebody famous must have said, "One cannot logically argue someone out of a position that they were not logically argued into in the first place."
|
|
|
#60390
03/13/2002 6:59 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60391
03/13/2002 7:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Maxq: " if someone sincerely believes that something
is bunk, and presents evidence (factually valid or otherwise) in support of that belief, that
person can claim to have debunked it, regardless of whether that sincerely held belief is
factually correct or not."
Dear Maxq: no matter how deeply "someone" believes something is "bunk" that does not make it "bunk"
And as plutarch said (I thinK) you can never "debunk" what is not "bunk".
|
|
|
#60392
03/13/2002 7:49 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60393
03/13/2002 8:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: I like things simple. No matter what contorsions A goes through, no matter how convinced he may be that he has reasons to disbelieve the moon landings, the rest of us know he is full of excrementl He cannot debunk what we know is not bunk.
|
|
|
#60394
03/13/2002 8:25 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60395
03/13/2002 8:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
since I am convinced that they do not actually believe their own lies.
Dear Max: Many of these idiots believe their erroneous statements enough to die for them.
|
|
|
#60396
03/13/2002 8:37 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60397
03/13/2002 8:39 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
In other words, you are drawing the distinction between the gentleman whose word accurately describes his view of the world and his actions (regardless of whether that view is correct), and the gentleman who accurately describes the world and his actions.
|
|
|
#60398
03/13/2002 8:56 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
here's a slightly more tangible example from the field of anthropology: Johanson discovers "Lucy" and debunks the Leakey's view of the evolutionary tree; subsequently the Leakeys debunk Johanson's methods -- wherein lies the bunk? creationists and evolutionists are constantly striving to debunk each other's claims; the fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to unbunk the dialectic. http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
#60399
03/13/2002 9:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I don't believe that's a fact at all.
(For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that creationism refers to "young earth creationism" and not some old earth creationism.)
I think the vast preponderance of evidence points toward evolution. I think the vast majority of scientists consider evolution both the scientific theory with the greatest explanatory power and a collection of facts making some variation of the theory almost inescapable.
Further, I think that evolution, even if it is false, is still science. I think that creationism, even if it is true, is not.
This is not to say that I approve of the ridicule some "defenders of the faith" (Stephen Gould, e.g.) have used against creationists. (I don't recall the exact quote, but my poor memory recalls something like "If 95% of what I say against creationism is ridicule it's only because 95% of it is ridiculous.")
The very first message I ever posted on the net some twenty years ago was on this subject and I've written volumes since. I'm about argued out, but I state my undefended opinion. (Please don't infer anything about my opinions beyond what I've stated, though. I do not, for example, believe it is right or wise to foist evolution onto the children of those who do not approve of it.)
k
|
|
|
#60400
03/13/2002 9:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
here's a slightly more tangible example from the field of anthropology: Johanson discovers
"Lucy" and debunks the Leakey's view of the evolutionary tree; subsequently the Leakeys
debunk Johanson's methods -- wherein lies the bunk?
Dear trsuwm: I am painfully disappointed that you of all board members should use "debunk" as you did in the statement above. The Leakey's are highly regarded scientists and authorities. They may err, but they do not publish "bunk".
|
|
|
#60401
03/13/2002 9:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
In my haste to state that I disagreed with your assessment of the relative merits evolutionism and creationism, I forgot to mention that I agreed with your general premise and with your specific example with Lucy.
This kind of row is very common in scientific circles and it's pretty typical that the new guys claim they are debunking traditionalists, and that traditionalists claim the new guys' opinions are absurd.
Relativity was derided as jew physics, Copernican theory a heresy, continental drift an absurdity. It seems there's a lot of nasty behavior in legitimate science. That something is wrong does not make it unscientific, nor that it is right that it is.
OTOH, I recall reading somewhere (I don't recall the source) in which two nazi scientists were talking and agreed that even if Einstein was wrong, that he was still one of the greatest mathematicians of the century.
Further, when Einstein expressed incredulity at some conclusions from quantum mechanics, I think it was Dirac who asked Schroedinger whether perhaps Einstein just didn't understand the theory. Schroedinger's response was that he felt there were perhaps a dozen people in the world who understood it and that he was sure Einstein was one of them. (I'm not sure where I read this one either.) My point is that even when there is extreme disagreement between some scientists, they nevertheless acknowledge that their opponent is somehow on the same level as they are.
Maybe one thing that really separates one who is perceived a crackpot from one who is perceived eccentric, but possibly brilliant, is the extent to which he appears to demonstrate that he actually understands the problem space.
k
|
|
|
#60402
03/13/2002 9:54 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60403
03/13/2002 10:03 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
The Leakey's are highly regarded scientists and authorities. They may err, but they do not publish "bunk".Johanson didn't think so! he thought (or wanted others to believe) that they were bunko artists. QED http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
#60404
03/13/2002 10:07 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
ts>the fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to unbunk the dialectic. ff>I don't believe that's a fact at all. I completely agree that the preponderance of evidence is on your side; but I think that my statement stands. [shrugs] http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
#60405
03/13/2002 11:20 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
One can do many things to a manifest truth. One can deny it, defame it, defang it, derail it, degrade it, deride it or destabilize it. But one cannot "debunk" it. That is because the truth is not "bunk". Try as one might, whether sincerely or not, one cannot "debunk" what is not "bunk" to begin with.
One cannot deoxygenate hydrogen (as far as I know) and no effort to do so, however well intentioned, can be described as deoxygenation.
|
|
|
#60406
03/13/2002 11:21 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I'm late into this thread, but I have read the posts and I now propose to debunk...???$%&#
Surely, in order to debunk something effectively rather than just getting up on your hind legs and saying "I don't think the Moon landings happened" or "I don't think the Holocaust occurred" you need evidence. In order to consider something thoroughly debunked, that evidence would need to have been absorbed and accepted by the majority of people, i.e. the majority has come around to your way of thinking through logic rather than persuasion.
You can't say that "So-and-so got up last night and debunked <choose your subject>". So-and-so might have attacked whatever it was, but it can't be considered to have been debunked at that point. Simply saying so isn't enough.
On the same basis, you couldn't debunk the idea that God exists unless you can present convincing evidence that no such being does exist. That appears to be unlikely. Debunking the opposite view - that God does exist -suffers similarly. Since theism/atheism is a matter of belief, it is incapable of being debunked. You may convince people, through rhetoric, that God doesn't exist, but you still haven't debunked the idea of God. There's no objective evidence.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#60407
03/13/2002 11:38 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
But can you really debunk or refute a scientific theory...or just revise according to new evidence? Since the evidentiary basis of a theory is necessarily incomplete, thus preventing the theory form being recorded as fact, isn't the process of theory development one of evolutionary revision, rather than one of debunking or refutation and the re-establishment of a "new" theory.
Take the ongoing process of developing a theory on the mobility of the dinosaurs. Years ago it was generally accepted, due to the clues of a few fossil specimens used as a small keyhole of insight into millions of years of history, that dinosuars were slow, plodding, lugubrious beats. One of the heaviest known at the time, Brachiosaurus, was said to have spent 90% of his life ambling in deep lakes to buoy up his tons of weight, munching on aquatic vegetation. But in the 80's a new generation of sceintists began to uncover some fossils that led them to change the theory to a view of dinosaurs as highly mobile, agile, and capable of runing speeds never before considered. Were these scientists debunking or refuting a theory that is still onoging in it's development? Hardly, I think. Simply revising it, according to the evidentiary trail they've been following since the research on this particular aspect of the dinosaurs' life was first theorized.
And, today, after this vision of the dinosaurs' mobility gained precedent to the crescendo of the the running Tyrannosaurus Rex in Jurassic Park, there's suddenly been new evidence presented with the help of computer-technology that, yet again, reshapes the theory of the dinosaurs' mobility (at least, for now, in the case of the Tyrannosaur) into a vision of much less agility and speed capability. But the theory does not actually revert back to the original proposals. And, indeed, the fossil evidence since disovered of many smaller, birdlike predators may still adhere to the scenario of speed and agility in their respective species' case. So are these scientists debunking one another here, or just building their own stepping stones towards a greater ultimate understanding of this developing theory? Ditto anthropaleontology and the humanoid fossils. Are the Leakeys and other scientists (while we all know of the competitive posturing) really working to debunk or refute one another? Or simply working to discover new trails of evidence to add insight to the ongoing theory which ultimately leads to the answer they are all seeking?
|
|
|
#60408
03/13/2002 11:43 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
|
|
|
#60409
03/14/2002 12:04 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I feel strongly that "bunk" is an intentionally insulting word. So "debunking" is an intentionally insulting word.
It should not be applied to qualified scientists, who rarely falsify their publications.
|
|
|
#60410
03/14/2002 12:22 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
were these scientists debunking or refuting ... or revising ... a theory?
I think you've put your finger on it, W'ON. "Bunk" is not science. It doesn't even masquerade as serious science. It appeals only to the gullible and the credulous.
Scientists do not "debunk" theories they disagree with, as you have explained so cogently. They respect the mind and the intellectual process which produced the theory even if they disagree with it.
"Bunk" can never enjoy this kind of respect. It is, after all, just "bunk". If follows that it is far easier to debunk bunk than it is to refute science.
|
|
|
#60411
03/14/2002 12:27 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Surely, in order to debunk something effectively rather than just getting up on your hind legs and saying "I don't think ..." or "I don't think ... " you need evidence.
Amen, CK. My qualification is that in an imperfect world, what you say applies in the long run -- but in the short run passions can rule; ask Galileo about his experience with the Inquisition.
|
|
|
#60412
03/14/2002 12:56 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60413
03/14/2002 1:20 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Right on, wwh. "Bunk" is an insult and one who "debunks" something is dismissing that thing as "bunk", also an insult.
Harry Houdini debunked seances. But no-one debunked Einstein. Some of Einstein's theories were flawed but they were never bunk.
One cannot debunk serious science or manifest truth because there is no "bunk" in these things to debunk.
|
|
|
#60414
03/14/2002 1:31 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: Here is a URL answering the phony allegations that Moon Landings were faked: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/Written by a planetary scientist, this is what I call genuine "debunking".
|
|
|
#60415
03/14/2002 1:40 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60416
03/14/2002 1:42 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: I had no intention of picking on you. I'm still amazed that an expensive TV program could be so wasted.
|
|
|
#60417
03/14/2002 4:04 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
Damn! Heretofore I thought a Bunkerist was one who used to agree with the star of All In The Family.
The whole point was that for one to use the
word debunk, one must simply believe that one has trashed a myth.
But can't one properly call any theory "myth?" It is a story, whether developed by repeatable demonstration or by empirical observation, that makes sense of what one percieves of the world around him. I suspect that truly debunking a myth would be tantamount do denying existence.
|
|
|
#60418
03/14/2002 4:19 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
History is more or less bunk. - Henry Ford Leakey vs. Johanson is regarded as one of the Great Feuds in Science : Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever, by Hal Hellman, about which this can be found: excellent popular debunking of "story book" science history... Hellman presents us with a well written and carefully researched series of entertaining profiles about some notable debates in science (both old and current). These are informative and fun to read, but perhaps their greatest value for lay readers is in revealing the all-too human sides of the combatants. This discredits the "Story Book" version of science so often given in texts wherein noble scientists are portrayed as unblemished heroes fighting to bring light into the darkness against a purely non-scientific opposition. Here we see that even great scientists often squabble with one another and that they seldom epitomize rationality and objectivity.http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
