The first step in becoming a debunker is to immediately relinquish that title and establish your credentials by calling yourself either a skeptic or a scientist.
This seems taken wrongly. If you are not a scientist the you will not call out to be a scientist.
I worked with scientists, I wanted to become an astronomer but I never claimed anywhere that I am a scientist.
I also will never call myself a skeptic because the word skeptics is being misused
Ignore the fact that a true scientist would say that all claims require the same proportion of evidence.
I have a problem with this claim of his.
I do not think that a true scientist will claim such a thing.
The trick for the debunker is to take Occam's Razor and use it not as a handy rule of thumb to aid critical thinking, but instead to impose it as a literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately destroys your opponent's arguments.
I do not know anyone debunking stuff doing this.
Another problem with the modern scientific viewpoint is that too often it is considered complete.
I never heard any scientist claiming that any theory is complete.
Any attempts by 'pseudo-scientists' to investigate outside this world-view are regarded as a threat, an attempt to pull the comfortable rug out from beneath the debunker's feet.
Yeah right.
