In the last chapters of the book Calling Bullshit, the authors Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin D. West outline how they think bullshit and general nonsense should be refuted effectively. I found this part of the book to be quite novel and I have since been trying to implement their advice. However, I found that it is difficult to go from "reading about how to call bullshit" to actually "calling bullshit" well in practice. In order to memorize their workflow, I made a flowchart out of it:

I recommend to check out the book to get more background info on the reasons why the authors believe that this constitutes a good strategy for refuting bullshit. 

Is it worth trying to debunk it?

When I hear someone drop stuff like "I just cannot believe climate change is man-made", I have an instinct to reply "Why?". This is, according to Calling Bullshit, the worst type of refutation because it invites bullshit rather than refuting it. In such cases, I end up saying nothing because it just is not worth the effort.

Are you correct?

When I hear someone express Euroskepticism ("The people of Britain are better off without the EU"), I repress the urge to argue in favor of the EU. Although there are many reasons to believe that the union is beneficial for its members, individual cases often differ significantly from the general case, and I just do not know enough about these individual cases (such as Britain) to conclude with certainty that the EU will be beneficial for those people. If I am not very certain that I can make a compelling case for my view, I try to provide my viewpoint modestly.  Benjamin Franklin is said to have argued that acknowledging the own uncertainty buys more goodwill from your fellows than  "destroying" them in an argument.

Is the bullshit related to personal identity or political ideology?

Take extra care when bullshit is deeply related to personal identity or political ideology. "Finding common ground first" is often surprisingly easy. When someone in my family expresses their concern that Covid-19 vaccines are causing harm to the population, I can respond by: "I also think that it is very important to seriously monitor the adverse health effects of all drugs, in the case of [...]". Voilà! Suddenly we are on the same team. Most people do not want to hurt and you should play to your moral alignments. 

Check "well-actually"

The authors of the book "Calling Bullshit" introduce the "well-actually-guy" in their book, a concept that has since found its way into my thinking. The "well-actually guy" is someone whose comment has the main goal to make that person sound smart. I have been the well-actually-guy on multiple occasions: 

"Well actually, Krabat isn't a novel as it has originated as a folklore at least 350 years ago". 

This was a purely tangential point to make on the novel "Krabat", designed to showcase my familiarity with the work and its context. The book makes the point concisely: "Calling bullshit" is about making those around you smarter, it is not about making you smarter.

1. ^{^}