I was recently interviewed for a site called ParanormalBucket and answered several questions about my work and books. This week and in following weeks I'll be posting some of them here.

Q: From your perspective, what’s the difference between a “skeptic” and a “debunker?”

A: My job is not to doubt, nor debunk; it is to investigate. I have no vested interest in proving or disproving any unexplained phenomena; I get paid the same either way. But the cardinal rule is that an investigator must eliminate all the natural explanations before accepting supernatural ones, and must use sound science.

A debunker is often thought of as someone who sets out to disprove or debunk a claim. The problem with debunking is that it begins with, or assumes, a specific (negative) answer or conclusion and works backward to try and prove that conclusion. But that’s not how science works, nor how skeptical investigation works. You must gather and analyze the evidence through a logical and critical thinking process, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the answer is that there really is a ghost in a home—or there really is a monster in a lake, or psychics really can find missing persons—then that’s great! That is wonderful and interesting and important to understand and accept. No one would be happier to prove these things exist than I do.

But I’m not willing to lower the standard of evidence so that any sound in the dark is a ghost, or any unknown thing photographed in the distance is Bigfoot or Nessie. Skeptics—not debunkers—take the subjects seriously, and often spend considerable time and effort investigating these claims. Debunkers often don’t bother to investigate or look at the evidence, instead just dismissing the claims as silly or impossible without doing any research. Often of course the skeptical investigation does end up debunking a claim if it’s false, but only after diligent research—not before it.