Also see the latest version: http://dandrasincom.ipage.com/Newscience/Newscience/zen_2.html

####

ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY

(C) 1993 by Daniel Drasin. All rights reserved.

May not be reproduced without permission.  May be posted 
electronically provided that it is transmitted unaltered, in its 
entirety, and without charge. File begins and ends with ####, and 
totals 27,251 bytes.

Also available as a handy, attractive booklet for $6.50 each, 
postpaid. Send checks to Daniel Drasin, P.O. Box 1772, Boulder, CO 
80306. Allow 2-3 weeks for shipment, as I am often out of town. 
Order a dozen as gifts for your skeptical friends!.

---------------------------------------------------------

So you've had a close encounter with a UFO or its occupants. Or a 
serious interest in the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for 
following clues that seem to point toward the existence of a greater 
reality. Mention any of these things to most working scientists and 
be prepared for anything from patronizing skepticism to merciless 
ridicule. After all, science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed 
enterprise with little patience for "expanded" notions of reality. 
Right?
	Wrong.
	Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, 
has a profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen" 
in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside 
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the 
nature of things with "beginner's mind." When this is done, reality 
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly. 
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, *must*--
come later.
	Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the 
main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the 
scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, 
institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has 
increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a 
spiritual, psychological, social and ecological vacuum. Virtually 
gone from the scene is the philosopherscientist, to whom meaning 
and context were once the very fabric of a multi-level universe. 
Today's mainstream science tends, instead, to deny or disregard 
entire domains of reality, and satisfies itself with reducing all of 
life and consciousness to a dead physics.
	As we approach the end of the millennium, science seems in 
many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it 
presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, 
emotions now run high in the  defense of a fundamentalized 
"scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, 
defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-
righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with 
provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their materialist 
philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of 
skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the 
absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder that, after more than 
half a century, the UFO remains shrouded in superstition, ignorance, 
denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
	What is "debunkery?" As intended here, it is the attempt to 
*debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight by substituting 
scient*istic* propaganda for scient*ific* method.
	To throw this kind of pseudoscientific behavior into bold--if 
somewhat comic--relief, I have assembled below a useful "how-to" 
guide for aspiring debunkers, with a special section devoted to 
debunking the UFO--perhaps the most aggressively debunked subject 
in the whole of modern history. As will be obvious to the reader, I 
have carried a few of these debunking strategies over the threshold 
of absurdity for the sake of making a point. As for the rest, their 
inherently fallacious reasoning, twisted logic and sheer goofiness 
will sound frustratingly familar to those who have dared explore 
beneath the ocean of denial and attempted in good faith to report 
back about what they found there.
	So without further ado . . .


== HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ==


*PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY*

	<>Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. 
Equipment needed: one armchair.

	<> Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that 
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and 
credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as 
"ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full 
force of scientific authority.

	<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery 
but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping 
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, 
stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the 
name of defending scientific method.

	<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. 
This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any 
actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such 
evidence is worth examining.

	<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects 
are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the 
*process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, 
of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and 
that only the investigative *process* can be scientifically 
responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such 
objections using a method employed successfully by generations of 
politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction 
here.")

	<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of 
authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly 
proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

	<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which 
are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are 
"stated."

	<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say 
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such 
ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test 
of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply 
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities 
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and 
clear!)

	<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back 
that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body 
of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply 
dismiss it as being "too pat."

	<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with 
*all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and 
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, 
inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse 
them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or 
metaphysical terms.

	<> Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the 
unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals 
reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any 
situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what 
little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of 
established knowledge.

	<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate 
disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

	<> At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is 
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore 
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

	<> State categorically that the unconventional arises 
exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at 
best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

	<> Maintain that in investigations of unconventional 
phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional 
contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, 
situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

	<> "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the 
correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest 
fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar 
explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that 
Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an 
immutable law.

	<> Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's 
dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many 
historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and 
democracy.

	<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction 
between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this 
murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that 
there is no evidence.

	<> If  sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant 
further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that 
"evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary 
evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.

	<> In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will 
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of 
investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been 
established for the phenomenon in question.

	<> Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established 
for phenomena that do not exist!

	<> Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double 
standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be 
judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this 
by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary 
evidence"--but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends 
and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture 
an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define 
"extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any 
point in time.

	<> Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all 
phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their 
proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way 
you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or 
from one case to another to support your views as needed. For 
example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at 
hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as 
fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on 
a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my 
case."

	<> Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only 
to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

	<> If a significant number of people agree that they have 
observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply 
ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility 
that the consensus reality, which is routinely observed by millions, 
might itself constitute a mass hallucination.

	<> Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single 
most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and 
innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually 
any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to 
sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to 
buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

	<> By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule 
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise 
the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which 
any investigation is conducted.

	<> Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. 
Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one 
must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true 
believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in 
complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity 
by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these 
fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is 
not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

	<> Use "smoke and mirrors,"  i.e., obfuscation and illusion. 
Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-
of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people 
most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will 
usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic 
dilutions of fact with remarkable success!)  Cultivate the art of 
slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably 
that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly 
support your entire edifice of opinion.

	<> Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. 
Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as 
blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have 
become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, 
no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

	<> Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in 
question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and 
timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so 
insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. 
If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" 
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" 
or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the media's favorite code-word for 
"bogus."

	<> Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or 
expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject 
the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by 
attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one 
element of a case completely out of context; b) find something 
prosaic that hypothetically could  explain it; c) declare that 
therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press 
conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been 
explained!

	<> Engage the services of a professional stage magician who 
can mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, 
psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the 
original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena must themselves 
have been (or been fooled by) talented stage magicians who hoaxed 
the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.

	<> Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how 
superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the 
existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the 
existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since 
people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on 
Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be 
artificial.

	<> When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of 
intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus 
exclusively on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the 
intelligence rather than the intelligence that might have wielded the 
mechanism. The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the 
more easily you can distract people from considering the possibility 
of nonphysical or nonterrestrial intelligence.

	<> Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in 
"invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point 
out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with invisible 
forces and extrasensory realities (gravity?  electromagnetism? . . . ) 
respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive 
interpretation of the facts."

	<> Insist that western science is completely objective, and is 
based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or ideological 
interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens to be 
considred true and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditional 
society, you may therefore dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant 
misconception," "medieval superstition" or "fairy lore."

	<> Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," 
"paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural."  This 
will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on 
purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any 
responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even 
centuries!

	<> Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed 
knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police 
officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists 
report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those 
who do must be mentally unstable.)

	<> Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of 
proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it 
on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the 
mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why 
haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

	<> Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's 
claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to 
misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for 
example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any 
position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long 
history of success is simply to misreplicate their experiments--or 
to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be 
ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even easier, 
respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by 
the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

	<> Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not 
scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking 
organization would fund such ridiculous tests.

	<> Be selective.  For example, if an unorthodox healing method 
has failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it 
worthlesswhile taking care to avoid mentioning any of the 
shortcomings of conventional medicine.

	<> Hold claimants responsible for the production values and 
editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If 
an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized 
manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been 
without substance or worth.

	<> When a witness or claimant states something in a manner 
that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not 
scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, 
argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective.

	<> If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the 
participants--or the journalists who reported the case. Ad-hominem 
arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful 
ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if 
investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from 
activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting 
financially from activities connected with their research!" If their 
research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their 
normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as 
"conclusive proof that income is being realized from such 
activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for 
their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."

	<> Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the 
opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the 
necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out 
as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in ufology 
have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

	<> Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses 
to go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they 
hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view 
confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon their 
critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to lack 
compassion for self-confessed sinners.

	<> Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've 
"found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon 
exists!"

	<> Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these 
claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the 
field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually 
studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.



*PART 2: DEBUNKING THE UFO*


	<> Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, 
and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this 
whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be 
extraterrestrial.

	<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of 
nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or 
interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because 
obviously they would violate nature's laws." Then if a UFO is 
reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at 
supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may 
summarily dismiss the report.

	<> Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer 
space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center 
of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is 
already in outer space, has abundant life.

	<> Point out that the government-sponsored SETI program 
assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist 
light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with 
conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial 
reports of ET contact.

	<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien 
technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was 
extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly 
ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only 
exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White 
House lawn-the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by 
generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial 
origin!

	<> If photographs or other visual media depicting a UFO have 
been presented, argue that since images can now be digitally 
manipulated they prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the 
vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition. 
Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the 
likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may 
therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!

	<> If you can't otherwise destroy the credibility of a UFO 
photo, plant a small model of the alleged craft near the 
photographer's home where it can be conveniently discovered and 
whisked off to the local media. The model need not resemble the 
original too closely; as long as the press says it's a dead ringer 
nobody will question the implication of fraud.

	<> Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must 
be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the 
result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated 
environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if 
interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered 
genetically isolated in the first place.

	<> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or 
shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior 
would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how 
terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in 
all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits 
your arguments.

	<> Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios 
already well established in the collective imagination. If a reported 
ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences, 
sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that 
"benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from destroying 
ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien 
contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees 
stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they 
claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered 
to solve all our problems for us?"

	<> Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received 
alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence 
suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure 
science-fiction" the notion that alien understandings of immunology 
might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien 
microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with 
our biological systems.
 Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual 
investigation of the matter.

	<> Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there 
told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs 
are reported outside countries whose populations are overexposed to 
science fiction.

	<> Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee 
testimony in widespread and completely independent cases, argue 
that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless in the 
hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the 
subjects must have been steeped in the UFO literature, and that, 
whatever their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been 
asking leading questions.

	<> If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a 
contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter 
perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be 
entirely untrustworthy.

	<> Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government UFO 
coverup?but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national 
security!

	<> Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists 
and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* 
theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of 
suppression, denial and disinformational activity.

	<> Argue that since theoretically there can be no press 
censorship in the United States, there is no press censorship in the 
United States.

	<> In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in 
which the UFO is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of 
millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a short 
memory. Simply say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a 
monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues 
and I have been remarking on it for years!"


* * *

Daniel Drasin is a media producer, writer, musician and award-
winning cinematographer with a passionate interest in the field of 
New Science. He lives in Boulder, Colorado and chases flying saucers 
in his spare time.

* * *

####