The scientific discussions are seen extremely ethical - in the process, nobody is said to be hurt, and after the discussion, the open and shared, absolutely ethical framework of science of humankind is a little bit stronger. Scientists are said to not do any wars at all, and nobody is never hurt in scientific process.
What to say if such conception as "debunking" has been grown out from scientific discussions? Debunking is a very direct attack, which destroys someone socially, financially and politically with something, which is seen to be same kind of neutral scientific argumentation. The ethical society of sciences is seen to be grown in similar ways. But the people are in state, which is comparable to death in modern society - their constitutional rights are not so easily met any more.
What is the evolution from scientific discussions to debunking? I think debunking, when it also supports psychiatry - who lost the battle of debunking, can be seen as mad -, is equal to war; there are some public cases, but then more and more cases are added silently.
The arguments used by "skeptics" in "scientific debates", and the overall feeling that only their science is science, where everybody involved has some sciences ..they often do not understand and ignore even very primitive arguments, which can be seen simply by thinking deeply about religious topics. They see dangers, which are avoided by modern approach to religiosity or spiritualism.
Such scientific debates do not end in the point, where both sides are listened, arguments have testified and as a result of debate, both sides understand their arguments better and leave each others as better friends.
Rather, the scientific arguments of such kind resemble the war, where people lose their important life qualities and opportunities. I think here, the ethics appears in scientific debate - you can see people fighting, and you see some of them winning and other losing; we need to use ethics to understand, how strongly the science has beaten the people, and is this even legal.
In the theory of paradigms, we can find out that different competing viewpoints can exist to the same topic, and where they have contradictions in between, both are reasonably strong models. Two "correct" theories can have contradictions, this is my belief - and they grow stronger by resolving those, but they do not grow, when there is a battle for victory and defeat. This is a violent kind of a science. Later, when the arguments have been passed, where the winner "might" not even understand the argument of the "loser" properly, some viewpoints are established as social and psychiatric norm, where you are almost permitted to even argue your points - you can see that if the argumenter on your side would have been stronger, they would have reached further. Often, the "science", which has won the argument, has nothing to do with more decent science, which takes spiritual arguments more seriously, but the "science" consists simply on what some people can see with their plain senses, empirically, without using any advanced theory - they can verify the theories of Newton, some of the Galilei, etc., but they have not much to do with more decent philosophical and empirical sciences as well; and they are making bold statements about the mind and how the people, who are not out of their senses, would experience the world and make statements about it. The statements cannot be very deeply philosophical - I do not understand, how, when and where these people so silently and secretly won their scientific argument ..there used to be open discussions between those branches of world-views, and nobody has won those arguments so completely to simply state that the other side has to be mad or a liar? I think the modern science has rather became more open about the topics, and the science, which is being attributed, has somehow silently "borrowed" from some older, more straightforwardly material sciences.
We used to have many religious, thinking, philosophical freedoms - it's hard to say, what these new "scientific methods" do with those freedoms, and they have never openly discussed that they want to threaten those. Those freedoms should be the very strength of civilization itself, providing us with neutral sciences, where all the different viewpoints have been considered.
So, when there are multiple paradigms, those can be good models of world, but contradict - you can live based on different models, but when you look at their results directly, they do not fit. Such kind of paradigms can learn from each others, and they can have wars. There, you need ethics instead of science - some paradigms never die, there seem to always be materialists and spiritualists, for example, and they can provide each others with new discoveries, but they can also fight the wars. We should look these debates with sense of ethics, and we have to see, where people have been hurt; not only, whether the specific argument is true or more true, than another. When people have been hurt, we can see that something important about the science - it's violenceless nature - is not there, and we should consider the situation from viewpoint of living in the same world, not from the viewpoint of who wins and who loses the war. The loser, more often than not, has their good models and can sometimes reach information, which is important to someone, and when the two models are better integrated, the resulting model is stronger - no matter, which one of the integrated models used to be better. When there is a conflict and someone has been hurt, we should use ethics and not only the science, to reason about the situation, the ethics that all the different people should fit into this society. This is the ethics of equal rights.