Would I be right in saying 'debunk' is a dirty word?

It shouldn't be, but it gets treated that way. Possibly because bunk has a drug culture slang meaning. But the root for debunk is actually bunkum. (Bunk, when used to mean nonsense, is also considered slang.)

why does he do it just wondering

How would anyone here know? You can read about James Randi here and here.

Your religion may be very probably that has no concept of rapture at all. End of times yes, but no rapture.

Probably a lot of people got scared of Rapture while they have no rapture in their own religion.

So any tips for how to research properly and how to find the reliable sites?

I would start to listen to these podcasts. It is general and broad but by listening to these people discussing you actually start to learn how to analyse claims.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

I am in no way a debunker of sceptic, I just listen to these podcasts to learn about stuff.

As the title suggests, the question is simple: Are you a debunker?

Actually no.
But when I know people lie on purpose and scare people then I become active.
I would prefer to use my resources and time on other interesting things, but the 2012 scare is actually hurting people making this a higher priority.

The problem with it is that it's temporary, in a sense. Next time these issues comes along - and there will be a next time, probably Oct 21st as Camping tries his best to keep in the limelight - are we going to keep saying "nah, don't worry, Matthew's got you covered"?

I for one would rather show someone how numerology is useless in that example, than merely rely on the supposed word of God, but, as the argument went, if it works for that person why change it?

But to show something means you need to take the time to teach them how to think outside of the Bible in this case. It's the difference between saying something is debunked and educating someone as to why. Quoting is not an education. It's a debunking, yes, but it strays to that area of "it's been debunked, just take our words for it" - as Diesel I think it was mentioned above, with the Neil deGrasse Tyson line, we could just say it's debunked, or we could show them how to debunk it themselves.

I for one didn't see quoting Matthew as a debunking - you could go so far as to say it's use meant that you agree with Camping that the world would end in disastrous circumstances, but disagreed that he or anyone else could ever predict it and set a date for it.

While it might be comforting to know that the 'infallible' Bible explicitly says 'nobody knows', and while that might be enough 'debunking' for some posters, it was one of the reasons I backed out of that thread and as I say started the fighting fire with fire thread. At what point is something 'debunked'? Who or what sets the bar for a successful debunking?

To you, quoting the Bible to refute Camping's Bible claims was a success, to me it wasn't, to me it only did the bare minimum. But who am I to say, I'm not a debunker…

Strange then, in a sense, that so few of us call ourselves debunkers. You and others have said that you're not at a level considered to be a debunker, I think that extends to most of us - if I'm not in a thread is largely because I've nothing further to add, or I'm simply not in a position to add anything in the first place. Heck, the whole basis of this phenomena, the Maya, are one of my weak points, just because I started elsewhere and came to 2012hoax for a different reason.

I suppose it's like playing a sport but not being an athlete, or doodling in your spare time but not being an artist. I'm falsifying claims but hasten to call myself a debunker.

But I hate the word debunk.

I'm with you there, every time I see that word I get a weird cringe feeling for some reason.

How many times have you said 'Earthquakes are not on the increase'? How many times have you said it to the same person, each time an Earthquake strikes?

I wouldn't say that's "debunking" (ahh, there's that word again) anything, until you show reasons, examples and evidence of exactly why earthquakes aren't on the increase, it's simply an opinion.

Would I be right in saying 'debunk' is a dirty word?

It just seems to be the word to use around here, probably because the summary of the website is "debunking the 2012 doomsday" so people just use that word. It could be any word with "de" in front of it, like de-bullsh•tting, de-nonsensing etc.

Teaching someone to become a debunker might as well be akin to teaching a parrot how to talk. It's not education as such, it's repetition.

Agreed, but I think a very important part is indeed drilling home the idea that educating yourself is the biggest part of "debunking", I definitely found that learning not only the facts about the false 2012 claims, but also learning about astrobiology, particle physics or indeed any other science, seems to have had the effect of making me more skeptical in general, in all walks of life, and that isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

I'm glad you raised this topic, it's interesting to see different opinions on this issue.

The definition I've got for debunk is 'expose the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea or belief'. I'm a debunker, you're a debunker, Morrison and Plait are debunkers. But I hate the word debunk. I think I opened one of my videos with "I wouldn't call myself a debunker, but if that's how you see me at least we agree that what your talking about is bunk in the first place", and yet debunking those claims is clearly what I did.

Debunking goes only so far. How many times have you said 'Earthquakes are not on the increase'? How many times have you said it to the same person, each time an Earthquake strikes?

Would I be right in saying 'debunk' is a dirty word? Humourously, this spellchecker has flagged up every use of the word debunker with the red dots of alert, as if the word has been singled out to be observed.

How, as some of you have said, do you teach someone to become a debunker? I'd say you teach someone to think, how they apply their skills afterwards is what defines them as a debunker or not. Teaching someone to become a debunker might as well be akin to teaching a parrot how to talk. It's not education as such, it's repetition.

I'd say your YouTube videos Elliott (thank me for the plug later) are a good example of someone debunking. Lots of detail, breaking down claims, showing examples of real scientific opinion and how it differs to the claim in question. There are lots of examples of this kind of thing here, obaeyens shows you some math, he makes simulations of stuff like comet elenins orbit, all his own work, he's a debunker.

99% of what I know is gleaned from this very site, so all I'm doing is passing on information to somebody who may not have read it. I try researching myself, I'm reading a lot about the sun and also trying to clean the rust off my knowledge of physics by going over my old books, so maybe in a while I can show maths and show a claim to be false due to my own research, until then, I'm no debunker, I'd say I'm just helping out a little, nothing more.

because you can't debunk something like a religious claim, because there is nothing to test.

You certainly can't falsify it in any way suitable for a science experiment, but it can be debunked within the context of what it purports to be (in Camping's case, alleged biblical prophecy that "butchered the bible" — to borrow Awesomeee's ad nauseam one-liner). We can also consider past evidence in the form of failed prophecies and numerological proclamations. You'll never build a successful logical syllogism on that kind of induction, but you can still put an idea through the ringer. That's still "debunking," IMHO.

For instance, a guest asked if the island he lived on (an artificial island made of sand) could collapse in an earthquake. I was pretty sure it could, due to liquefaction. I checked with the USGS, found I was right, and told him so. I don't believe in telling them something can't happen, just to ease their fears. I know some people have accused us of doing just that. If he is going to live on that island, he should know what the possibilities are.

So, I debunk what I know to be untrue, but don't consider myself a debunker as such.

As the title suggests, the question is simple: Are you a debunker?

Do you define yourself as a debunker? If you do, why? Do your actions or attitude towards a claim make you a debunker? If they do, what are those actions? What separates a debunker from someone who just replies with "don't listen to those guys" or words of encouragement that a threat is not actually a threat?

If you don't see yourself as a debunker, what do debunkers do? Do you see other members here as debunkers? Do you see the likes of David Morrison or Phil Plait as debunkers, for example?

What do you consider a successful or complete debunking? When has a claim been debunked, after one answer, two answers, two threads worth of answers?

Evidently that's a few more questions, I don't expect answers for each and every one, but the aim here is to generate a bit of discussion on what this word means to us. No right or wrong answers, all views welcome, hopefully something eye-opening to some degree will come of it, else it'll fall off the front page faster than that interesting film trailer I posted a few weeks back. Yeah, bet you haven't got a clue about that thread, eh?

No, back on topic, are you a debunker?