Scepticism versus debunking

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, there's an article on the CSICOP website by Mick West (of Metabunk) entitled "In Defense of Debunkers":
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/sh..._debunkers

West writes that he once asked James Randi why he didn't describe himself as a debunker, and Randi answered that it wasn't a neutral term because it implied prejudice about the phenomenon in question, so he preferred to describe himself as a sceptic or investigator.

Bur West argues that it's not bad to prejudge "the paranormal" because there's already a large body of evidence that paranormal claims don't hold up. (I find it's often not very clear whether people include experimental parapsychology in "the paranormal" - it doesn't seem to be discussed very much at Metabunk.) He thinks the crucial distinction between scepticism and debunking is that debunkers communicate their conclusions to the public, and therefore he encourages people to be debunkers.

As I understand it "debunker" is an occupation, or profession even, while "skeptic" is an attitude. A skeptic doesn't have to do anything. So I agree with West there. A debunker must form a conclusion and communicate it in some way.

The problem occur when the debunker is also a skeptic. The general attitude of being a skeptic affects the person's mind and logic.

Skeptic just means a person tends towards doubt until better evidence is presented.  Debunker means the person has decided that a particular claim is false and wishes to "educate" the public at large.  In many respects, many of us here could consider ourselves skeptics with regards some issues at least.  Man, I hate labels!

I suppose at times I am a debunker. I'm definitely a sceptic.

However, the commonly-used meanings of such terms take on a momentum of their own, such that 'sceptic' often equates to something other than the original meaning of the term. It can be a bit of a minefield. Really, one has to step away from such labels and just examine the evidence.

Skeptic just means a person tends towards doubt until better evidence is presented.  Debunker means the person has decided that a particular claim is false and wishes to "educate" the public at large.  In many respects, many of us here could consider ourselves skeptics with regards some issues at least.  Man, I hate labels!

Is there anything you've decided is false and wish to set the record straight?

Is there anything you've decided is false and wish to set the record straight?

There are things I believe are false and sometimes I get sucked into arguments about them, which I regret, but I have no wish to, for example, make whole videos full of sniggering and sneering like a lot of the Youtubers do.  If what you believe isn't harmful to others, you are welcome to continue believing it.  It's your life!

I suppose at times I am a debunker. I'm definitely a sceptic.

However, the commonly-used meanings of such terms take on a momentum of their own, such that 'sceptic' often equates to something other than the original meaning of the term. It can be a bit of a minefield. Really, one has to step away from such labels and just examine the evidence.

It seems like you in only a couple of sentences both definitely label yourself a skeptic and want to step away from such labels.

Now what is the original meaning of the term skeptic?

Let's say an unknown person, Mr X, is a skeptic. What is he? What does he do different from others?

I always want to step away from labels. There's nothing new or surprising about that.

Personally, I'd not be comfortable with any of the answers. In ordinary life, I don't label myself in any such a way.

I drink tea, so that makes me a sinensophile, I eat potatoes so that makes me a potato eater ... but what if I eat or drink something else (as I frequently do)? Or what if I do a certain thing out of habit - does that mean I can never do anything else? Labels can bind or constrain us. I say discard them.