Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
They certainly are different. Two separate definitions of the word "skeptic" are in widespread general use, and the terms "scientific skeptic" and "debunker" are shorthand for these two definitions. We can use the word "skeptic" to refer to people who only adopt beliefs which are supported by sufficient evidence. Scientists are good examples of these. We can also use the word "skeptic" to mean "skeptic-activist;" those people who make it their business to expose scam artists and dishonest religous promotors, and who teach the public the basics of rational thinking via authoring books and giving lectures. Good examples of the second type of skeptic are the many members of groups like JREF and CSICOP. There is some overlap between the two meanings of "skeptic" of course. Some scientists are debunkers. And most (but not all) debunkers are faithful practitioners of Scientific Skepticism. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific skepticism practitioners never spend time engaging creationists in public debates, or trying to expose the tricks that scam artists use to take money from the gullible. --Wjbeaty03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You'll find that under "parity of sources" in WP:FRINGE
Martinphi hypocrisy
Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call Sylvia Browne a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. But we have to characterise what they debunk somehow. The way you would have it, it's as if the claims debunked are always "false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious" in fact. Whereas a psychic is a cultural artefact, not necessarily one who has powers. ——Martin☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
