Google Debunker

A term coined by TikTok creator Filip Zieba, who often covers conspiracy theories and pseudoarchaeology. It is used (by Filip himself) to shame and/or dissuade skeptics of Filip's content by calling them "google debunkers" and implying that a Google search that would disprove his misinformation is itself the misinformation.

"The Google Debunkers out there will claim that this is 'giant sloth' skeleton is real, but come on, it's obviously a primordial giant human."
(shows a picture of a Megatherium, a real extinct species of giant sloth)

by Do your own academic research! May 14, 2024

Hard Problem of Debunking

The self-defeating irony that vigorously debunking a false or pseudoscientific claim can actually strengthen belief in it among its adherents. This happens through mechanisms like the backfire effect (where contradictory evidence causes people to double down), the perception of persecution (debunkers are seen as part of the conspiracy), and the reinforcement of community identity (outsider attacks increase in-group solidarity). The hard problem is that using reason and evidence against a belief system that rejects standard epistemology is like using a water gun to put out a grease fire—it just spreads the flames. The debunker's toolkit (logic, data, authority) is seen by believers as the very tools of the deception.

Example: You meticulously compile scientific studies, satellite photos, and pilot testimonies to debunk Flat Earth theory to a believer. They dismiss it all: the studies are by NASA shills, the photos are CGI, the pilots are in on it. Your effort is seen as proof of how deep the "globe conspiracy" goes. The hard problem: You cannot debunk a claim from outside a person's epistemic framework. Your facts are just more "fake news" to be filtered out. The more you fight the fantasy, the more real it feels to them, turning you into a villain in their narrative and cementing their belief. Hard Problem of Debunking.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Debunking

The meta-problem that arises when rigorous debunking itself fuels the belief it tries to extinguish. A thorough debunking can be interpreted by believers as proof of the cover-up, making the debunker a pawn of the conspiracy. The very act of marshaling evidence and authority can backfire, because the debunker is operating within the "official" paradigm that the believer rejects. This creates a closed, unfalsifiable loop where disproof is seen as the strongest proof.

Example: "I showed him the FAA reports and engineer interviews debunking the chemtrail theory. He smiled and said, 'Of course they'd say that. You just proved how deep it goes.' That's the hard problem of debunking: my evidence wasn't refuted; it was simply re-categorized as part of the conspiracy, making me its unwitting agent."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026