✦ In plain words
This site tries to explain things clearly, show you instead of just telling you, give you things to try yourself, and always include the other side's best answer.
The short answer
Corrections work best when they are clear, give a better story to replace the old one, and show rather than only tell. This site is built that way. It also holds itself to the same standard: every claim has a source, and the best argument from the other side is included.
What the research says
The most useful guide I found is The Debunking Handbook 2020, written by 22 researchers who study misinformation and agreed on its recommendations.1 Its main findings:
- Wrong ideas are sticky. Even after a correction, the original idea can keep influencing people's thinking.1
- Give people something to replace it with. In studies, only people who were given a plausible alternative explanation were able to let go of the misinformation.2 A bare "that's false" leaves a gap, so the old idea fills it back in.
- Provide detailed refutations. Explain clearly why the idea is wrong, and why the right answer is right.1
- Use visuals. Well-designed graphs, videos, and photos help convey corrections, especially complex or statistical ones.1
- The "backfire effect" is rare. Earlier worries that a correction makes people believe more strongly in the false idea turned out to occur infrequently.3 So correcting is worth doing, as long as it's done with care.
- Trust matters. Backfire effects get stronger when you have no particular reason to trust the person talking.2
How each page applies this
| Page section | Why it's there |
|---|---|
| The short answer | Leads with the clear takeaway, so it's what sticks. |
| What people are told | States the idea fairly and in plain words, so you know exactly which claim is being examined. |
| The evidence + a model you can move | Shows instead of telling, using diagrams and interactive models. You can test the claim yourself. |
| Try it yourself | Experiments you can run, so you don't have to take anyone's word for it, including mine. |
| The best reply from the other side | Builds trust and keeps the site honest. If an argument can't survive the strongest opposition, it doesn't belong here. |
| Sources | So you can check everything, including the claims you disagree with. |
The rules this site holds itself to
- Fix mistakes openly. If a statement is wrong, it gets corrected, not defended.
- Say what's unknown. "Science doesn't know yet" is stated plainly (see the Big Picture).
- Skip the weak arguments. Some popular atheist claims are poorly supported (see "claims to skip" on Borrowed stories). Using them hurts the case.
- Respect people. The goal is to explain the evidence, not to win a fight or to mock anyone's faith.
- Mark what hasn't been double-checked. A few items are labeled "second source to be added." The Sources page lists them.
What's coming
This is the first version. Planned next:
- A dedicated kids' edition with its own illustrations. (For now, the Simple button at the top of every page gives short, easy explanations.)
- More deep-dive pages: abiogenesis, evolution, the formation of stars and solar systems with 3D models, more Bible topics, other religions' histories, and a Spanish edition if wanted.
- A longer, more detailed history-of-religions timeline.
Sources
- Lewandowsky, Cook, Ecker et al., The Debunking Handbook 2020 (22 researchers; also at sks.to/db2020; DOI 10.17910/b7.1182). "Misinformation is sticky—even when it seems to have been corrected"; "provide detailed refutations"; semantic aids help.
- Tom Stafford, Evidence based debunking: only those given a plausible alternative could let go of the misinformation; backfire effects pick up strength when you have no reason to trust the speaker.
- Skeptical Science / CSSN announcement, Debunking Handbook 2020 release note: the backfire effect "occurs infrequently."