|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I am NOT supporting bunk
Dear Max: We do understand that you are NOT supporting any of the bunk that sensible people take great pleasure in debunking. We simply disagree with you when you say that it is possible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place.
One can't even CLAIM to be debunking something which has no bunk in it without misusing the word "debunk".
If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. But, since there is no oxygen in hydrogen, I cannot describe the process as "deoxygenation" without misusing the word deoxygenation.
Its like sticking a "Mustard" label on a jar of blueberry jelly. It just ain't so.
The word "deoxygenation" has a specific meaning. It means removing oxygen. It doesn't mean trying to remove oxygen. It means actually removing it. So it is with debunking. Where there is no bunk, there can be no debunking.
Dear Max: I think we are all agreed that debunkery is a commendable act practised upon a sham. (That's why we have "Bunko Squads".) Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.
In sum, "No sham, no bunk. No bunk, no debunkery."
We know that conscientous people misuse the word "debunk". That's how this thread got started in the first place. But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
sigh... Max, I see your point, I agree with it, but I despair of better communication.
Aside to Max: does this seem eerily reminiscent of the White Knight's Song in Through the Looking Glass? [What is this song? What is this song called? What is the name of this song? What is the name of this song called?]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.Oh, plutarch. Say it ain't so. Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: 'Ant
Etymology: contraction of are not
Date: 1778
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did notCourtesy of http://www.m-w.com. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,535 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,535 Likes: 1 |
Ignorance and apathy: I don't know and I don't care
My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I think you're describing the ideal situation. Was E. O. Wilson less a scientist because he published "On Human Nature" and was considered "debunked" by the likes of Gould and campus radicals? Was Blondlot considered to have been debunked by Wood because N-rays were imaginary? Were Pons and Fleischman debunked?
It well may be that "debunk" is incorrectly and over used.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Sigh is right, Max. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do see your point and I think you argued your case most admirably.
Whether or not my logic prevails over yours, I can never claim to have "debunked" your definition of "debunk". That's 'cause I respect your intelligence, Max, and the rigors of your analysis, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
Your conclusion may be wrong, but it certainly isn't "bunk".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim
that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen."
Dear plutarch: I suspect that when you said "hydrogen" you meant "H2O"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.However, due to the huge pressure to win prestige (and tenure), and to publish, there have been highly documented istances of scientists falsifying finds or experimental results just to further their careers. How would we categorize that? This from the Jan./Feb. 2002 issue of Archaeology: After Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura was caught on camera planting artifacts at a Paleolithic site in 2000, he insisted he was guilty of perpetrating only one other hoax during a remarkably successful career in which he pushed back the earliest occupation of Japan to 600,000 years ago ("Hand of God Does the Devil's Work," Jan/Feb 2001). Now the disgraced archaeologist has come clean and admitted to faking discoveries on at least 42 Middle and Lower Paleolithic sites in Japan.
Charles Keally, an archaeologist at Sophias University, Tokyo, notes that these sites account for virtually the entire archaeological record in Japan before the Upper
Paleolithic. "This leaves us with our oldest evidence for human occupation of Japan at 35,000 years ago," he says. Japanese textbooks are already being revised.
Though Fujimura's precise whereabouts have not been made public, he is known to have checked into a psychiatric hospital. Another archaeologist, Mitsuo Kagawa, committed suicide last year after a magazine accused him of faking finds at the Paleolithic site of Hijiridaki Cave in Japan's Oita perfecture. His family is now suing the magazine that published the allegations.So I guess Fujimura actually debunked his own data by confessing to the falsification of evidence. How much similar fraud has been perpetrated by scientists over the years and actually entered into the scientific record? This act of deception is, of course, much easier to commit in the prehistoric sciences than, say, in chemistry or physics. Perhaps we'll never know. Distressing. So, can you debunk an act of scientific fraud without actually knowing it's fraudulent until you arrive at your results...or just simply disprove it? Or are we just splitting semantic straws here?  And, while I agree that the process of attempting to debunk or debunkery is always viable, I still assert that arriving at an actual debunking in the case of a scientific theory is a misnomer because a theory, by nature, is constantly evolving. However, if you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"f you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20."
At the risk of being tiresome, I repeat: "bunk" is an insult, and "debunk" is an insult.Only when ignorance or fraudulence have been involved should these terms be used.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,322
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
405
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
